Endur said:
I vote neutral. As others have said, a chaotic nation is much more disorganized than this.
I agree, the described nation is largely neutral with a slight lawful tendency. This is because the traditional organizations are still there and still powerful. The measure of lawfulness is not legality but order and for all that the nature of the organizations have been compromised the underlying order still exists.
I'm going to reference some real world example here but strictly as a matter of contrasting law and order, no politics involved, still anyone objects I'll dump them right off.
Lawful- This alignment is about order, about organization and collective behavior and patterns. Basically I would say that all nation-states are Lawful by nature. They can organize in different manners, have different views of what their legal systems will be but ultimately they will all share common characteristics of systemic behavior and patterns.
Example: Comparing, say the U.S., The EU, Russia, PRC, South Africa, Mexico, any number of others. The differences between any one and another can be huge, but they all are lawful because the basic premise of them all is that they are made up of organizations with delineated sets of characteristics rather than individuals.
Neutral- More difficult, because nation-states have a general strongly Lawful tendency. This is the region of nation-states with compromised organizations. Places where organizations exist and are the source and arbiter of power in the fashion of a Lawful state but individuals have managed to subvert the workings of organizations in their own favor. This is where the OP's example would sit, the state has an orderly system of governance that has been used by individuals within them as a device to extend their personal influence rather than that of the organization.
Example: can be found in nearly any nation to one extent or the other, but only truly affects the alignment of the nation as a whole once the bevior reaches a scale that is systematic of itself. A good example would be The U.S. during the Teapot Dome scandal a bit over a century ago. Individuals with positions within powerful organizations using that power to subvert the orderliness of the system for their own personal gain.
Chaotic- This is the most difficult because nation-states can't be chaotic and remain nation-states. As organizations within a state become more compromised by individual powers the systems themselves are weakened. A state can reach neutral with chaotic tendencies, but by the time it hits the chaotic region it has become a failed state as individuals assume the powers that were once held by organizations and displace those organizations that were necessary for the survival of a state.
Example: Failed, or failing states or those on the verge of becoming so. Somalia, Sudan, Nicaragua(during the late 20th), Sierra Leone during its civil war, Angola during the same, border regions of Sudan, DRC, and Uganda at various points over the last thirty years.
