Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?
- Thread starter Chrisling
- Start date
mkletch
First Post
This thread has spun around so many times I'm dizzy. Real world examples, fantasy/book/movie examples, blah, blah, blah. We can't define any of the terms we use. Where to go? How about this for a new shot at it.
Lawfulness cannot in itself be defined in terms. Chaos cannot be defined in terms either. But if we look at them as order and disorder (almost like the thermodynamics definition of chaos), we can put them to some use. Law and chaos can only be truly defined in terms of each other, but sometimes a circular argument is what you have to deal with...
The supremely lawful society or culture (I prefer culture as the reference point) has made every effort to banish disorder through whatever means (laws, traditions, programs); everybody knows the 'rules' and how they fit into the picture. You could illustrate this entire culture with a standard outline structure and org-chart. A supremely lawful individual has made every effort to banish disorder from his or her personal life, affiliations and desires.
The supremely chaotic society or culture has made every effort to banish order, through whatever means. This culture has no structure whatsoever. Even concepts such as power are meaningless, since that would inflict a type of order all its own. The desires of the supremely chaotic individual are paramount, with no concern for good or evil, or frankly anything other than that individual's perceptions at a particular moment.
Neither vision can be fully realized, but we can see where different cultures or individuals fall within the spectrum. As there is no number that is mathematical infinity, there can be no example of the 'perfect' Law or Chaos. The only reason that the lawful situation is a bit easier to describe is that thought itself is the collection and organization of ideas, concepts and their relationship to each other. A pure chaos would be characterized by madness, a pure lawfulness would be characterized by rigid adherance to the structure, even if logic dictated otherwise. Logic or reason (in some form or other) mitigates both structure and madness into the variety of behaviors that cultures and individuals display. A pure lawfulness or chaos could drift to goodness or evil freely, or ignore both (passively neutral), or consider both (actively neutral).
This is only in regards to the D&D alignment system. It probably holds no water in any real world situation (kind of like the simplistic concept we call Armor Class).
-Fletch!
Lawfulness cannot in itself be defined in terms. Chaos cannot be defined in terms either. But if we look at them as order and disorder (almost like the thermodynamics definition of chaos), we can put them to some use. Law and chaos can only be truly defined in terms of each other, but sometimes a circular argument is what you have to deal with...
The supremely lawful society or culture (I prefer culture as the reference point) has made every effort to banish disorder through whatever means (laws, traditions, programs); everybody knows the 'rules' and how they fit into the picture. You could illustrate this entire culture with a standard outline structure and org-chart. A supremely lawful individual has made every effort to banish disorder from his or her personal life, affiliations and desires.
The supremely chaotic society or culture has made every effort to banish order, through whatever means. This culture has no structure whatsoever. Even concepts such as power are meaningless, since that would inflict a type of order all its own. The desires of the supremely chaotic individual are paramount, with no concern for good or evil, or frankly anything other than that individual's perceptions at a particular moment.
Neither vision can be fully realized, but we can see where different cultures or individuals fall within the spectrum. As there is no number that is mathematical infinity, there can be no example of the 'perfect' Law or Chaos. The only reason that the lawful situation is a bit easier to describe is that thought itself is the collection and organization of ideas, concepts and their relationship to each other. A pure chaos would be characterized by madness, a pure lawfulness would be characterized by rigid adherance to the structure, even if logic dictated otherwise. Logic or reason (in some form or other) mitigates both structure and madness into the variety of behaviors that cultures and individuals display. A pure lawfulness or chaos could drift to goodness or evil freely, or ignore both (passively neutral), or consider both (actively neutral).
This is only in regards to the D&D alignment system. It probably holds no water in any real world situation (kind of like the simplistic concept we call Armor Class).
-Fletch!
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
mkletch said:
But abstracting a mechanic for whether or not you get hit with a sword makes sense. Abstracting a character's morals and motivations does not. Unless you're just there to kill stuff & snarffle some magic items, which, while a perfectly good way to play, is not the way I prefer.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Canis, if you're looking for an "educated nobility" type, try the Samurai from Oriental Adventures. 4 sp/level, a few fighter-ish bonus feats, and a magical pair of swords are the class's main powers...
Oh, and being lawful rich aristocrat-types that can kill those dirty peasants good and dead!
Samurai: They're like RAID for the unwashed masses!
A*hem.
Anyway....er....hiel chaos!
Oh, and being lawful rich aristocrat-types that can kill those dirty peasants good and dead!
Samurai: They're like RAID for the unwashed masses!
A*hem.
Anyway....er....hiel chaos!
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
Kamikaze Midget said:Canis, if you're looking for an "educated nobility" type, try the Samurai from Oriental Adventures. 4 sp/level, a few fighter-ish bonus feats, and a magical pair of swords are the class's main powers...
Oh, and being lawful rich aristocrat-types that can kill those dirty peasants good and dead!
Samurai: They're like RAID for the unwashed masses!
A*hem.
Anyway....er....hiel chaos!
KM, you haven't been taking the wrong pills again, have you?
Thanks for the suggestion. Samurai are almost as good as paladins. (I like fighters with codes of honor
)Just out of curiousity, does anyone know the class skills off hand?
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
Chrisling said:If you want to go farther afield, the Rokugan book actually does add a Wis based skilled called "Battle." Again, I hesitate to go afield from the core books and believe that it should be possible to create a competent general with core rules.
Actually, Chrisling, I kind of got discouraged by the "Generals" thread, for a few reasons:
1) IMO, tweaking the class skills really does seem to be the best way to do it. Which suggests that a Fighter can't sharpen both his body and his mind. Which is a load.
2) It seems like most people there use a "realistic" model for their world rather than a fantasy one. Which is just bizarre, IMO.
3) Many people seem more interested in showing off their education than answering the question. While I'm all for showing off your education (I even managed to do it in the "Single Women gamers" thread
), it should be in answer to a question that came up, or roughly on topic, not digression to minutae in order to prove how much more you know than the people around you.[/whining]
Besides, I've been trying to talk myself into OA anyway.
Canis,
I've actually posted my last post about generals thinking this was the thread about them!
I hope I wasn't one of the people who turned you off the generals thing by going on about Byzantines and all that. I just thought your question was actually valid and I wanted to see how other players would handle such a thing. Sorry if I offended.
I've actually posted my last post about generals thinking this was the thread about them!
I hope I wasn't one of the people who turned you off the generals thing by going on about Byzantines and all that. I just thought your question was actually valid and I wanted to see how other players would handle such a thing. Sorry if I offended.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
No, you didn't offend me. Nor did anyone else there. I'm not that easily offended.
VERY easily frustrated, but pretty hard to offend.
It's part of my Individualist Good outlook. People are entirely free to be wrongheaded if they want to be.
VERY easily frustrated, but pretty hard to offend.
It's part of my Individualist Good outlook. People are entirely free to be wrongheaded if they want to be.
MavrickWeirdo
First Post
I've only been able to read about half of the posts in this thread, but I think I have a different angle. The difference between Law and Chaos is RESPONSIBILITY.
What do I mean by that. A lawfull person is responsibe to others and accept (or even looks for) new responsibilities. Responsible to family, business associates, deity, community, or nation. The more responsibilites you accept the more "Lawful" you are. A Lawfull society is one which is responsible to it's members, or where all it's members are responsible to each other.
A chaotic person avoids responsibility or is irresponsible. They don't make commitments, or don't keep them. The are responsible to no-one but themself, and sometimes not even themselves. A chaotic society is where people try to get more than they give.
A Lawfull Good character would save a group of children from goblins and escort them back to safety.
A Chaotic Good character would save a group of children from goblins and tell them the village is out of my way so I can't go with you, but if you hurry you might make it there before dark.
A Lawfull Evil character would consider who would pay him more the children or the goblins, but would keep any deal he made.
To answer the origional question of "Can you have a Lawful/Clan based culture?" My historical canidate would be the Jewish people. Strong family/racial orientation, sometimes nomadic (usually through nessity not choice), yet a sophisticated culture with high standards of responsibility.
My historical canidate for a Chaotic/Empire would be late 18th-early 19th century France. You have a succession of rulers who placed their own wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of the country. Occasionally what was "good for the ruler" was also "good for the people", but most of the time it wasn't.
United States might be a Chaotic Good culture, where many people try to help others, but no one is responsible.
What do I mean by that. A lawfull person is responsibe to others and accept (or even looks for) new responsibilities. Responsible to family, business associates, deity, community, or nation. The more responsibilites you accept the more "Lawful" you are. A Lawfull society is one which is responsible to it's members, or where all it's members are responsible to each other.
A chaotic person avoids responsibility or is irresponsible. They don't make commitments, or don't keep them. The are responsible to no-one but themself, and sometimes not even themselves. A chaotic society is where people try to get more than they give.
A Lawfull Good character would save a group of children from goblins and escort them back to safety.
A Chaotic Good character would save a group of children from goblins and tell them the village is out of my way so I can't go with you, but if you hurry you might make it there before dark.
A Lawfull Evil character would consider who would pay him more the children or the goblins, but would keep any deal he made.
To answer the origional question of "Can you have a Lawful/Clan based culture?" My historical canidate would be the Jewish people. Strong family/racial orientation, sometimes nomadic (usually through nessity not choice), yet a sophisticated culture with high standards of responsibility.
My historical canidate for a Chaotic/Empire would be late 18th-early 19th century France. You have a succession of rulers who placed their own wellbeing ahead of the wellbeing of the country. Occasionally what was "good for the ruler" was also "good for the people", but most of the time it wasn't.
United States might be a Chaotic Good culture, where many people try to help others, but no one is responsible.
Similar Threads
