Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[Chrisling]

What I'm looking for, I suppose, is discussion on what actually constitutes a lawful or chaotic government. I'm not so interested in the good-evil axis, but the law-chaos axis.

What got this started for me is, recently, I had a player leave a game because he disagreed with a GM decision I made. Allow me to explain. I was playing a Planescape game and he was playing a lawful good dwarven monk from a material plane. Well, since I wasn't going to do the work inventing a material plane that was irrelevant to my game -- which is about Great Old Ones invading the Great Wheel -- I told him that he had a fair bit of leeway to tell me what his world is. I also told him, clearly and repeatedly, that he can tell me what his character percieves, not what truly is.

Anyway, we play a bit, and the player writes me a good twenty pages or so of background mateiral on his C's home -- including answering specific questions about the culture. As chance would have it, there was several years of down-time. During this time, I told the player that, if his character was honest with himself, he would realize that dwarven society as he described it to me was not really lawful.

The reason? As described to me, dwarves had a clannish system of government. I did my best to explain that in the view of this humble GM, a clan system of government was not lawful because it was both decentralized and non-universal in conception. He said the fact that dwarvish society was "traditional" didn't mean that much, because what's important is what they traditions are: some cultures have profound traditions of peeing on authority in a variety of ways, for instance. Long before the discussion was done, the player just decided he "didn't have time" for the game.

What bothered me the most, in retrospect, is the notion I might have been wrong. The exchange of ideas was short. Literally two letters from me and one letter from him -- not precisely a length discussion. I also offered to talk to the player, face to face, and that didn't happen. I'm glad he's gone from my game; if he quit over something this small, it's good he's out regardless whether I'm right or wrong. But I don't like to be wrong when I have the option of being right.

So, I'm wondering what other people think are the attributes of a lawful government or society, and it's opposites.

 

[S'mon]

I'd say you were wrong, yes - it is possible to have a clan-based social structure and still be a lawful culture. Some middle-eastern tribal cultures might fit the bill. I'd class the medieval Mongol Empire as generally Lawful-Evil, for instance. You can be clannish and chaotic too, of course - Somalia in the anarchy-state period probably CE, medieval Highland Scots clans probably N/CN tendencies - but clan cultures generally embody very strong respect for authority and tradition, if these are the dominating factors in the life of the community I'd be willing to class it as lawful.

 

[Chrisling]

S'mon,

But what properties distinguish a lawful clan government from a non-lawful one?

I mean, I feel the Mongols is a pretty bad example. Out there on the steppes they were pretty chaotic, each tribe doing its own thing, basically ignoring or warring on other tribes. Furthermore, if you're talking the period of the Mongol Empire, that thing started falling apart as soon as Temujin died. Where it lasted it did so because of the weakness of centralization of the place conquered -- Russia, for instance, in the Golden Horde -- or because they adopted the legal practices of the conquered -- the Yuan Dynasty in China and the Iknaten rule in Persia. It wasn't until the Mongols had been Islamisized, for instance, that they were able to defeat northern India and set up the Moghul Dynasty, there. As they were in the Lake Baikal region, however, I find nothing lawful about them.

Which is why I'm asking for what traits or qualities distinguish them as lawful.

 

[Umbran]

Which is why I'm asking for what traits or qualities distinguish them as lawful.

Ah. Lawul does not equal "centralized". Take a look at the PHB, pg 88...

Lawfulness implies honor, trustworthiness, obdience to authority (note it does not say obedience to centralized authority), reliabity. Devotion to duty and tradition are important to lawful folk. None of this requires the authority be central.

A lawful clannish society would have that clan structure steeped in tradition. It's administration would be regulated and orderly - but one can be regulated and orderly without having one central "high king" or whatnot. The various clans simply need to have a specific, organized method for dealing with governance.

Lawful societies are ones wherein "everybody knows their place", and that place doesn't change except by codified means. There are rules for social interactions, and people are shocked or angry when people step outside those rules. Again, no need for a central authority there. Duty to the clan would generally be more important than one's own personal goals - the needs of the many generally outweigh the needs of the few or the one. It would be a society where a person's word was their bond.

Note, I mention that things must follow rules, things must be regulated. I don't mean that these rules must be written down - simply that they exist. They can be passed along as tradition, verbally.

 

[Chrisling]

The PHB is where the problems start, not where they end. "Honor", for instance, is a dodgy word. What does it mean? A lawful evil Mafia murderer is being honorable when he kills someone only within the context of his criminal society. A lawful good policeman thinks that the Mafia killer is profoundly dishonorable. The chaotic good vigilante is being honorable, from his conception of honor, by defying legal traditions that enslave people for the good of no-one or a narrow class of people. The same lawful good policeman that arrested the Mafia killer will say the CG vigilante is honorless for violating his code of honor, which includes lawful behavior.

Likewise, chaotic people -- particular good ones -- are quite capable of trustworthiness. So is that a characteristic of law or good?

And, like I said about tradition, and applies equally to duty, what the traditions and duties are is important. Is a person being lawful when they follow their culture's tradition of "voting with their feet", leaving their community to form their own? Is a person being lawful when their society's traditions require plunging the rest of the world into chaos and disorder to make a profit on them? It is easy to find in history traditions and duties that the adherence of which did not create any discernably lawful effects, but increased the tendency towards chaos and anarchy.

Furthermore, in all your examples you do have a centralized authority: the people who control the traditions, their promulgation and education in them. These rules of society that everyone should follow, these social rules, etc., are social constructs which someone made. The fact of their universality bespeaks centralization -- ideological centralization is as valid a form of centralization as authority vested in the hands of a single king. However, that nevertheless speaks to Umbran said more than to what I said, so . . . .

It does mean that it is possible that a clannish society can be lawful. I've argued myself into a corner, hehe. Too bad my player didn't bother to get this far with me. ;p

 

[Tonguez]

I'd say you were wrong, yes - it is possible to have a clan-based social structure and still be a lawful culture. Some middle-eastern tribal cultures might fit the bill. I'd class the medieval Mongol Empire as generally Lawful-Evil, for instance. You can be clannish and chaotic too, of course - Somalia in the anarchy-state period probably CE, medieval Highland Scots clans probably N/CN tendencies - but clan cultures generally embody very strong respect for authority and tradition, if these are the dominating factors in the life of the community I'd be willing to class it as lawful.

The Mongol Empire was not Lawful Evil!
If anything it was Lawful Neutral

The whole point of Genghis Khan was that he turned the formerly chaotic system of the mongiol clans on its head "the heavens turned in the sky" and imposed a system of law and honour which created a empire in which crimes of theft and violence were unknown, and peace was guaranteed. Religious and Social tolerance was the order of the day and christina, bhuddistm muslim and shamanistic priests were often entertained in the great Khans tents.

Anyway my own people are clan based and yet very lawful as it is based on hereditary hierarchies the difference between lawful clans and lawful empires is scope not degree of law.

As to Chaotic societies - I'd tend to look at gangs and wolf packs as models (and the Warlords of Somalia etc)

Anyway Polynesia has the full range from Stratified Monarchies, Chaotic Warlords and closeknit clans

 

[Chrisling]

Chaotic Means Having Social Mobility

I was walking to the store and I had another standard with which to judge law and chaos in a society: social mobility.

Lawful societies have no social mobility. When a person is born in a spot, they stay there. Chaotic societies have great social mobility, and the sons of farmers can become mercenary captains and rise to be the duke of a great province (to pick the example of Ludivico Sforza).

It also means that the government is virtually irrelevant for deciding law or chaos in a society. A government that has laws, powerful centralization, etc., can be chaotic because what defines chaos isn't the degree of centralization (or the lack of centralization) but the social mobility within society. So, Napoleon Bonaparte was Chaotic Neutral, because he promoted a system with tremendous social mobility (as well as flouting every tradition he came across). Likewise, feudalism was a lawful society, despite it's fragmentation, decentralization and lack of coherent legal system because, despite all that, social mobility was about nil.

Interesting. Giant, ancient, chaotic empires and decentralized, fragmented lawful societies. I think I'm getting it, now.

 

[Urbannen]

Really, the big question here is "What do Lawful and Chaotic actually mean, anyway?" These concepts are very badly defined. They aren't even opposites: The opposite of Law would be Crime, the opposite of Chaos would be Order. And since you can have Organized (i.e. Orderly) Crime, where does that leave you? But I guess that's another thread.

Currently in the world, First World nations would be Lawful. Second world nations, such as the Latin American countries, India, Indonesia, and some Arabic countries would be Neutral. Third world nations, such as sub-Saharan Africa, would be Chaotic. First world nations have codified, enforced laws. Non-lawful members of the society try to get around them, but everyone enjoys the benefits of living in a society in which people are help accountable for their actions (if caught). Very importantly, people are treated as impartially as possible. Second world nations have codified laws that are not necessarily enforced. Usually they are, sometimes they aren't, and who you know or how much money you have is often more important than what the law says your rights are. Third world nations have codified laws that are not enforced. The few lawful people try to get outside support to get things running smoothly, while chaotic individuals end up seizing power and fighting amongst themselves.
Does this sound like a legitimate way to describe of governments of these alignments?

In the example of the original poster, you each had a different conception of what "Lawful" meant. This is easy to understand, because there are lots of possible interpretations to choose from. The only way around it would be to establish in the beginning non-subjective definitions of Law and Chaos for your campaign. Probably the dwarven society would be Lawful, unless YOU define Lawful as meaning Much Central Authority, or Subscribes to Nation State.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Chaotic Means Having Social Mobility

Interesting. Giant, ancient, chaotic empires and decentralized, fragmented lawful societies. I think I'm getting it, now.

Permit me to confuse the issue again.

I believe I mentioned this in another thread where you were in attendance, Chrisling, but since it's the topic this time, maybe I can get more opinions from people.

I subscribe to the notion that Lawful vs. Chaotic has to do with where you put your priorities. Umbran touched on it when he used the axiom "the needs of the many generally outweigh the needs of the few or the one." That would be the core of a Lawful outlook. The good of society as a whole is more important than what is good for an individual.

Order, stability, written and codified laws... these are just tools to promote the growth and prosperity of large groups of people sharing a pool of resources. Individual happiness is unimportant compared to the survival of society. Clannish societies can fit this bill fine. Their clan IS their society. There's no need to be all-inclusive.

A Chaotic outlook is individualistic. Society can go hang. Each individual should watch out for him or herself. There's nothing wrong with society per se, except when it starts asking me to limit my freedom.

 

[Gizzard]

A Chaotic outlook is individualistic. Society can go hang. Each individual should watch out for him or herself. There's nothing wrong with society per se, except when it starts asking me to limit my freedom.

How do you see Lawful Evil then? I see it as "I'd do whatever makes me happy if I could; but I realize that there are people more powerful than me, so I reign myself in a bit." Evil is inherently a bit individualistic, but Lawful Evil is constrained by the bounds of fear and respect.