should nations have alignments? should tribes?

[Umbran]

Sure, a nation, tribe, or clan ought to have an alignment.

An alignment is a long-term average of past behavior (and thus a guideline to expected future behavior). If you can get such a thing for an individual, you can get it for a government or population.

The alignment of a group and/or government will describe that group's overall tendencies. When the DM need to know how the people or government will behave in a broad sense, the alignment can be very useful.

 

[Trickstergod]

It's been occuring to me for some time now that giving nations an alignment is generally silly.

What's the alignment being based on, for one? The majority of the population? In that case, one only needs to look to the racial tendencies to know what the alignment is. Mostly humans? We have a neutral nation. Simple as that. So actually listing a nations alignment based off the population is silly. Any sizable population of elves, humans, or whatever, is going to fit the racial alignment tendency.

What if it's just being based on the government? Well, in that case, to date, every time I look to the governments of our own world, for any nation or society that's larger than, say, a village, or maybe a city-state, they really only use three alignment components: Evil, Law, and Neutrality. The concept of Chaotic nations is right out (the US is Neutral at best), and while Good may be strived for, it has yet to be attained (again, to use my own nation again, the US is Neutral at best). Individuals, of course, may differ, but in general, there's a very narrow alignment selection that a government can reasonably fall under. Governments typically have enough problems just functioning without resorting to idealism and heroics. Of course, one could argue that, well, hey, this is fantasy, and one should make some allowances for that, but I generally prefer to work off of what I know instead of trying to create a system that wouldn't work and claiming it would. As such, I'd rather just use, again, racial tendencies, with leanings towards Lawfulness and Evil. Not necessarily using those alignments, except for the purpose of knocking out Chaotic and Good traits and turning them into something a bit more Neutral for governmental purposes with races like elves or dwarves.

With that said, yeah, I think giving alignments to a nation is silly. The population itself is going to fit the racial tendencies, whereas the government has all of four alignments to choose from, anyway, and the lines for them are a bit hazy at times, so it's generally more appropriate not to define them because of that fact.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I like how the FRCS does it - it lists the three most common alignments. This suffices to show the predominant attitudes of the population, but makes clear that the alignments aren't universal.

 

[S'mon]

should nations and kingdoms have alignments?

is the answer any different for clans and tribes?

Partly it depends on the kind of campaign - a more high-fantasy campaign will have good and evil nations, just as the MM has good and evil races. Drow cities are CE, dwarf kingdoms are LG. Likewise most human nations will be N, but you can have good and evil human nations depending on their dominant religion, culture and the needs of the campaign - it's easy to make the 'enemy' nation Evil and the 'home' one Good and avoid all those troubling philosophical debates about just wars et al.

 

[Tonguez]

Absolutely. The alignment of the nation/city/tribe dictates expected behavior and enforced laws. The alignment of individuals dictates how closely they follow those dictates.

I usually design cities (and to a lesser extent, nations) with alignments. The people who do best in those cities are usually the ones who stay close to the "party line." For instance, a city that is effectively LE (screw over anyone you can, but stay within the boundary of the law while doing so) is going to celebrate the people who used those laws to their own advantage. The CG citizen, continually put down and taken advantage of, is going to want to fight back.

I'm with Piratecat on this all organisations should have alignments and said alignments dictate how the decisions and demands of the rulers are Enforced over said Nation, Tribe, Clan, Mob
I say a Clan was NG and a Mob CN, Nations depending on their type. A Gnoll Pack would be CE, Dwarfs LN, Elves NG

Of course individuals need not adhere to these structures (and IMC I tend to NOT use alignment for characters - only groups)

Anyway
LG Highly Structure, Strict Enforcement, Benevolent (a Monastary?)
LN Highly Structured, Strict Enforcement,Bureaucratic (Imperial China?)
LE Highly Structure, Strict Enforcement, Draconian (Stalinist Russia)
NG Low Hierarchy, enforcement determined by the public good (Democracy)
NE Low Hierarchy, enforcement is self interested (Libertarian States)
CG Loosely structured, ad hoc enforcement, but Benevolent and Cooperative (a Commune)
CN Loosely Structure, ad hoc enforcement, Cooperate on self interest (a gang)
CE Loosely structured, ad hoc enforcement, dominance by intimidation (a Mob)

 

[Desdichado]

If you buy into the concept of alignment in the first place, then yes, absolutely!

 

[Robbert Raets]

I'd say the government will definately have a specific alignment. You might even consider using the organisation rules from Dragon #296 to 'stat' a city's or nation's leadership.

 

[Raesene Andu]

In general I think you will find that almost all nations fit the Lawful Evil alignment best. This doesn't mean all the individual people of that nation are lawful evil, but the government and society as a whole generally is.

Just look at all the nations in our world, all the governments are keen on laws, it is in their nature after all, and almost all politicians are evil, corrupt, scheming bastards. I've heard rumours that there are a few out there who care for the people they rule, but I have yet to meet one. The People (as in the mob) are also cruel, narrow minded bigots who will bay for blood as soon as they feel threatened. And who amoung us can deny that the majority of people out there only follow the laws of their nation because they are afraid of getting caught.

Also the difference between states today is very very small. Even the difference between say Salinist Russia and an modern Democracy isn't that great, both run on bascially the same principles. Sure democracies don't kidnap people are drag them away to some far off prison camp without a trial... or do they?

 

[green slime]

Me too! I agree with PirateCat.

Remember too, that it is but a tool to bring greater understanding of where various cultures stand on various issues, on the kind of things you can expect.

 

[green slime]

Also the difference between states today is very very small. Even the difference between say Salinist Russia and an modern Democracy isn't that great, both run on bascially the same principles. Sure democracies don't kidnap people are drag them away to some far off prison camp without a trial... or do they?

And on this I disagree (the difference between a modern democracy and Stalinist Russia are enormous), but lets not get too political....