Alignments of governments

[Cirrylius]

I've been knocking these two subjects around in my head for a while, and the Kingmaker rules updated in Ultimate Campaign finally gelled the question enough for me to toss it to the Hivemind:

1- How do you reconcile Neutral or Chaotic governments with the idea of an organization which is responsible for enforcing laws? I mean, I can see how it would be a good gauge of alignment for the citizenry, but even a Chaotic Evil dictatorship will have a set of laws and strictures it enforces (albeit often at whim). Is it a matter of scale? Are Chaotic societies limited to small groups, since maintaining a power structure becomes difficult with too many people making independent decisions? And it seems to me that X-Neutral societies have a number of different interpretations on how they work; either balancing freedoms with constraints, or working towards perfect ideals.

2- What do you believe to be the alignments of some real world nations, as examples? What about fantasy nations (IMO, they tend to fit alignments better in any case).

[Clistenes]

I think only Lawful governments are governments as we think of them.

Chaotic governments would mean a land without an unified ruler. A Chaotic Evil rulership would mean that gangs of brigands led by warlords roam the land taking whatever they want. A Chaotic Good Rulership would mean patriarchal (or matriarchal, depending on your setting) tribes, with the elders taking the decisions.

Neutral governments would be medieval-like feudalistic governments. Might is so important as Right, and laws can be broken without much trouble if everybody around you don't mind, or if the one breaking them is powerful enough, but the King or Lord still makes laws, enforces them, and keeps an organization and hierarchy.

Also, I think the alignment of the government isn't the same as the alignment of the ruler. A mad roman emperor could be Chaotic Evil, but he was the head of a Lawful system. Said emperor could rule because the was the legitimate ruler, according to his time's accepted laws, and people did as he asked because they followed the law. An example of a Chaotic Evil "government" would be a sadistic pirate who keeps his men in abject fear.

EDIT: Hey! I'm a Barbarian now!

[hamishspence]

2- What do you believe to be the alignments of some real world nations, as examples? What about fantasy nations (IMO, they tend to fit alignments better in any case).

The first question can't really be answered within the constraints of this forum- the second maybe could.

There's some room for a Chaotic leader of a non-Chaotic government- Shojo in OoTS is an example.

[ArcturusV]

Well, the typical "Chaotic Evil" examples in the books I can think of is the Drow Societies in Faerun. But I don't actually list them as Chaotic Evil. They are actually ridiculously codified, and the behavior of their standard citizens follows laws, mores, and can be counted on to act in a dependable way. They're more Neutral Evil.

I think most fantasy authors pull out the "Promotion via Assassination" when they want to make "evil" governments. Similarly when they make "Chaotic" governments they tend to make an Ultimate Law for the society of "Don't get caught".

Basically though when you're talking about Governments, there's more or less two long term solutions I see. One would be more Oligarchical, the other being a Law based society. Even in setting where you have some super optimized "Mage-King" or the like... it's not exactly just one man ruling the roost. Still needs loyalists to help support him up. He's still counting on an organization, even if it's some Golems, Homunculus, etc, that he's reaching out to tap. The King needs his nobles, advisors, government grunts, etc. They may have absolute power, but it's spread around a small group rather than a single individual.

And that's part of the problem with a "Chaotic Evil" or really any "Chaotic" Government. They are usually defined as being kept in line only by the sheer power of a single person. But a Single Person never could manage to do it. Except maybe when dealing with organizations more the size of extended families, bandit bands, etc.

So as I see it, the Alignments of a Government naturally have to be Lawful, or Neutral, most of the "Chaotic" governments are really more Neutral as they depend on some regulation and order in order to... well... be a government.

Chaotic can exist, but it's more of a "Culture" thing rather than a Government. For example, the people who are frontiersmen are probably fairly Chaotic as a whole. People who vacated the safety and regulation of society to go out and be Trappers, homesteaders, settlers, loggers, general mountain men, etc, out on the fringes of the known world. They wouldn't have anything quite approaching the levels of "Government" as we think of it. No real affiliation. Though if they are aware of their neighbors they might band together temporarily when the local Gobbos try to go raiding them all.

[Rhynn]

Lawful governments have a lot of laws, quite possibly codified. See Rome. Decisions are made based on law, codes, and tradition, which may include councils, juries, etc.

Chaotic governments have rulings, which my or may not form a body of tradition, but ultimately everything is decided by a person in charge, often by virtues of personal power. It would be hard for a Chaotic society to grow very large, as it would splinter - in a Chaotic society, you can only rule what you can enforce power over. "Might makes right" is the ultimate rule.

Neutral governments are somewhere in between. Maybe decisions are made by a governing body, or by leaders with advisors, or by consulting those in power. There's some laws, codes, and traditions to go by, but they're flexible.

Good governments generally are beneficent, the punishments not unduly harsh, and at the very least, the notion that the weak should be protected and provided for is held up as a good ideal, and probably pursued when possible.

Evil governments are generally tyrannical, corrupt, and cruel, with harsh punishments, the weak left to fend for themselves or seen as deserving of mistreatment (slavery, death), and a population either living in fear or participating in the evil (leading to horrifying depravity that will probably lead to the society's fall, either from within, from without, or from the sheer impossibility of sustaining itself).

Neutral governments are somewhere in between; punishments may be harsh when the crime is bad enough, but there's probably more looking out for yourself than looking out for the disadvantaged.

Obviously, if the alignment of the government isn't in line with the alignment of the populace, there'll be trouble. A Chaotic population will feel oppressed by a Lawful government, and will probably revolt. A Chaotic government over a Lawful population won't last long as the population seeks to obey their codes and traditions and laws, and will probably revolt against the arbitrariness of its rulership.

Basically, the corruption of alignments has led to confusion: people think "Chaotic" means you can't have order and can't have laws, etc. That causes these dilemmas.

In any case, I'd say most real-world societies were Neutral, some Chaotic Neutral (small, tribal communities), some Lawful Neutral (large, rigid societies). A typical medieval European free city, ruled by a guild council, is a pretty great example of Neutral society to me: self-rule by consensus and agreement, keeping out undesirables, etc.

[Cirrylius]

The first question can't really be answered within the constraints of this forum
:smallannoyed:Fine, how about historical governments then? Is it less controversial if it's not current?

[hamishspence]

:smallannoyed:Fine, how about historical governments then? Is it less controversial if it's not current?

Nope. Fictional only as far as I know.

[Rhynn]

Nope. Fictional only as far as I know.

Yeah, AFAIK discussion of historical pagan mythology has fallen afoul of the "no real-world religion talk" rule, so discussion of historical politics might certainly fall afoul of "no real-world politics talk." More importantly, it's going to inevitably turn into a flamewar, and the spirit of those rules is, specifically, to prevent discussion of topics that inevitably turn into flamewars on the Internet.

[Tragak]

If it helps, the alignment website EasyDamus ends each article with what an entire culture of those people would look like.

Personally: Neutral Evils would either build up or tear down an administration if it would benefit them, so an entire continent as such would have a bell curve of some strong tyrannies that have survived the coups very well (typically due to a stronger Lawful Neutral/Evil presence), a bunch of areas where moderately strong tyrannies have withstood coups reasonably well, and some areas that have crumbled into all but anarchy due to many recent coups (typically due to a stronger Chaotic Neutral/Evil presence)

Chaotic Goods feel that formal institutions have more potential for future danger, however considerate at the moment, than do the more informal with fewer resources, so they would want a government that is strongly answerable to the citizen's interest groups. An entire continent as such would probably look more like America or Europe: technically there is a central-ish bigger government/coalition somewhere, but the smaller, more local branches are the most relevant day to day, being more transparent, answerable, and quicker to respond.

---

Lawful Evil dictators pit their victims against each other with too many regulations instead of too few (applying for own papers doesn't leave time to defend someone without them), and set up detailed, comprehensive "support" systems that don't actually help their victims but don't leave any room or resources for anybody to make a system that would.

Chaotic Evil dictators pit their victims against each other with too few regulations instead of too many (being too busy defending themselves from bandits to risk attacking the soldiers), and destroy any support system that their victims could remotely take advantage of.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think it's useful to determine alignments of organizations. What matters is the people inside them, making the decisions, calling the shots.


An organization of humans isn't one mind. People who make decisions will have different ideas about ethics, mission, goals, implementation, and so on. Their decisions may be differently-aligned, even if they're working to the same objective. For example, a diplomat and a general might have different approaches toward handling international crises. Also, a subordinate might be asked to carry out an act which falls into one alignment, but uses his discretion to carry it out in such a way that it satisfies a different alignment, or simply disregards it.

[Oko and Qailee]

I apologize if this breaks any forums rules in advance.

I would think a Chaotic Government would be one of two things.

1) Free spirited, think kind of tribal. While there is an organizational structure there, it's a bit more chaotic in the sense that spirits and being free willed is encouraged an important.

2) Power hungry? Think Noxus from league of legends. They essentially have one ruler who controls the city. When the ruler dies, the grab for power is completely chaotic, it's whoever gets it and might is right. How a leader is determined is part of government after all. To take this even more extreme, an extreme chaotic ruler would imply that he makes rules at a whim with little consistency.

[zlefin]

This is why I tend to interpret, or reinterpret, the alignments in a form which allows all alignments, even chaotic evil, to be fully capable of supporting governments.

[Ruethgar]

I think an ideal communism would be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, everyone pools resources so no one goes without but there isn't a set and defined governmental structure (unlike socialism and the "communism" we have irl). But such a society would have to be VERY small to accomplish that or innately good and all have a similar moral code(yay celestials). Judgment and criminal activity would probably be handled by group discussion and action such as a town hall meeting. The laws, if they were even written down, would probably just cover the basics, no murder, no harming others et cetera and would be more of a moral code shared by the people than a law written in stone.

NG, N and CE seem a bit harder to put into a governmental mold. I think Drow society is a pretty good example of NE, but not CE. They may value and admire the chaos of their deity, but they have a wealth of rules that seems to tip it away from the chaotic spectrum.

Just my ¢2.

[Rhynn]

I never get people talking about structure and rules in drow society. The only rule I can name in drow society is "don't get caught." Any traditions, etc. (which are not antithetical to being Chaotic; the idea is ridiculous and makes Chaotic alignment something that just wouldn't exist) can and should be broken if you can get away with it. Add in the rampant cruelty and abuse, and that's a Chaotic Evil society. Even as described in Salvatore and War of the Spider Queen, drow society is the ultimate "might makes right" society.

Drow society may appear to have intricate traditions and customs because it is a society of backstabbers who have the potential to live for hundreds of years, but it's all meant to be broken and ignored at convenience, and they all know it. You don't get punished for doing wrong, you get punished for offending or threatening someone.

[Tragak]

I never get people talking about structure and rules in drow society. The only rule I can name in drow society is "don't get caught." Any traditions, etc. (which are not antithetical to being Chaotic; the idea is ridiculous and makes Chaotic alignment something that just wouldn't exist) can and should be broken if you can get away with it. Add in the rampant cruelty and abuse, and that's a Chaotic Evil society. Even as described in Salvatore and War of the Spider Queen, drow society is the ultimate "might makes right" society.

Drow society may appear to have intricate traditions and customs because it is a society of backstabbers who have the potential to live for hundreds of years, but it's all meant to be broken and ignored at convenience, and they all know it. You don't get punished for doing wrong, you get punished for offending or threatening someone. The way I see the Drow: Lolth doesn't want her society to be at all systematic because that would slow down the sacrifices by giving communities a better ability to hide something from her. She doesn't want them to kill each other so much that there's nothing left for her to take, but as long as they hate and fight each other too much to protect each other, then she's still winning.

Think school-yard bullies. As long as you don't beat somebody up for lunch money that somebody who can beat you up already has claim to, you don't risk getting yourself hurt for drawing attention to yourself. Or, if the Biggest Bully tells somebody to beat you up, the middle-man isn't thinking "BB outranks me, no choice (LE)" or "BB can pay me or hurt me, my choice (NE)" he's thinking "BB can hurt me or not hurt me, my choice." You still need lunch money, so if somebody stronger takes it from you, you have to take it from somebody weaker otherwise you go hungry.

The teachers and faculty in this case represent the elf societies that are supposed to take in refugees.

[beforemath]

Nope. Fictional only as far as I know.


I've thought of the chaotic governments in the following fictional ways. Maybe this will be helpful:

Chaotic Evil: A lot of Old West movies have mining towns with CE governments in them, although they don't necessarily look like traditional governments. Sure, they may have a mayor and a sheriff who pretend to keep order, but the real power lies with the gang of outlaws, who ride in to town whooping and shooting. The outlaw gang started off ruling by demonstrating power (where "ruling" is the citizens giving them what they want, when they want), but they eventually only needed to make a token show of violence here and there as a reminder. The citizens usually shy away from conflict out of fear and look for a hero to show up (in the form of a CG drifter or LG law man, usually) to save them.

Chaotic Neutral: TV hippie communes would fall under the CN label because their inhabitants express distrust of authority and a desire to do their own thing. Inhabitants, often to the frustration of lawful types, insist that no one is actually in charge. Sometimes, a citizen will not pull his weight or might do some really creepy things and a few citizens will get together and try to form a consensus about how they feel about that person. They'll either kick him out of the community if they don't like him or keep him in without a word if they don't think that he's hurting anything. This society may become (or superficially resemble) other government types over time, but keeping the society that way for an extended period of time is akin to herding cats.

Chaotic Good: If a CE government is like a "Wild West" outlaw gang, a CG government is like Robin Hood's band of Merry Men (especially the 90's Costner version). They often seem to accidentally run afoul of authorities (by someone stealing food, then being tracked down and arrested/executed by authorities) or intentionally run afoul of authorities (rob the rich! defeat corrupt lawmen in neighboring communities!).

Note that no Chaotic government here is large-scale and only really tends to operate on the local or tribal level. A larger scale chaotic government would probably be an alliance of tribes or gangs, but that starts bordering on Neutral or Lawful.

I feel that it's best to keep Chaotic governments small.

[Sactheminions]

Nearly all real-world governments are lawful evil. The exceptions are generally places dominated by a single individual, which take on that individual's attributes.

The only difference between government and everybody else is the ability to put a gun to the head of your average farmer and take his produce for the "commonweal".

You don't have "good" governments.

[Flickerdart]

A Chaotic government would be one supported not by laws and constitutions, but by the individuals that rule it. A Chaotic Good large-scale government might look like an adventuring party who overthrows a tyrant and is trying to put things back together. They have no legal codes to go on, since every law the tyrant put in place was rubbish, so they do things based on what they feel is right, and people obey them because they are persuasive (either by personal charisma or force of arms).

[ArcturusV]

Reasons I called Drow Neutral Evil, rather than Chaotic Evil:

The schoolyard bully thing isn't entirely fitting in my mind. Drow society is ricockulously codified in how they behave. Yes, they will betray one another or assassinate one another if they can avoid blatant, obvious evidence of it happening.

But the society is highly regimented in a way that doesn't fit the "Chaotic" mindset to me. There is a clear power hierarchy that is related to Family Affiliation and Seniority (To the point where the top people are basically untouchable), that determines a lot of Drow Society and how you fit into it. There's very regular Governmental Services offered across the society. Three "Schools", controlled markets, government subsidized food and water, a standing army which enforces their Laws in the cases where someone flagrantly disobeys.

Of course, they're not inflexible at all. Exceptions can be made. But it's a highly codified society they have. ANd it's not all "might makes right". If it was the Clerics of Lolth would be on bended knee to the Wizards. The "First House" in any city would have total domination rather than the pretenses of councils. The formal army wouldn't exist. Everything would be personal house militias (Which yes, do exist but to the side of, and unable to resist the might of, the formal army).

It just is too much pretense of Order to really fit the bill of a "Chaotic" society to me. Chaotic would be more like Confederations with independent sovereignty between small players, or the state of Anarchy in and of itself. None of this is really the model of Drow Society though. While Houses do have a level of autonomy (Barely), they are very strictly controlled by the greater city.

[Rhynn]

There is a clear power hierarchy that is related to Family Affiliation and Seniority (To the point where the top people are basically untouchable), that determines a lot of Drow Society and how you fit into it.

But that's a de facto hierarchy, not de jure. To be on top, you have to kill all your rivals to get there, then survive constant attempts by those below you to knock you off. That's not Lawful, that's how a Chaotic society - rule by the strongest individual - works. A Lawful society will have assassinations, but it'll also have more formalized authority (hereditary, whatever).


There's very regular Governmental Services offered across the society. Three "Schools", controlled markets, government subsidized food and water, a standing army which enforces their Laws in the cases where someone flagrantly disobeys.

I'm not convinced. Schools aren't Lawful in themselves, and you even assassinate rival students in them. I don't know how controlled the markets really are, so you may have it there. I have no idea about the subsidized food and water. There's no "standing army" as such that I can think of, there's individual House armies.


Of course, they're not inflexible at all. Exceptions can be made. But it's a highly codified society they have. ANd it's not all "might makes right". If it was the Clerics of Lolth would be on bended knee to the Wizards.

You're putting rules, in a vacuum, ahead of world description.


The "First House" in any city would have total domination rather than the pretenses of councils.

They can't eliminate all rival houses because then they'd fall prey to hostile outsiders; thus, they have to share power to some degree (relative to your personal and your House's power).


The formal army wouldn't exist.

I really don't recall there being one. House troops. And very Chaotic ones at that, IIRC - they're about individual fighting and skirmish tactics over discipline.


It just is too much pretense of Order to really fit the bill of a "Chaotic" society to me. Chaotic would be more like Confederations with independent sovereignty between small players, or the state of Anarchy in and of itself.

That sounds about right to me. A drow city is a tense alliance of rivals against outside threats they can't win against without the others.


None of this is really the model of Drow Society though. While Houses do have a level of autonomy (Barely), they are very strictly controlled by the greater city.

They're not. The House Matriarchs make up the government directly, and each rule their house individually.

[nyjastul69]

Nearly all real-world governments are lawful evil. The exceptions are generally places dominated by a single individual, which take on that individual's attributes.

The only difference between government and everybody else is the ability to put a gun to the head of your average farmer and take his produce for the "commonweal".

You don't have "good" governments.


Is this your opinion or an objective fact?

[Rhynn]

Let's not pursue that line of discussion and get this thread locked, huh?

[ArcturusV]

The Formal Army in drow society is typically made up of:

All the students at each of the major academies and "graduates" who serve a few decades in formal duty to their City, rather than House, on Border Patrols, Surface Raids, raids against Underdark bound enemies, etc. This formal army is also called on to punish infractions of the city's law, distasteful things like open murder (rather than covert assassination), the attempt to eliminate a House which is unsuccessful in eliminating all the nobles, worshiping a god other than Lolth, and in times of War with another City/Nation where the formal army enlists the house militias under their banner as well.

Least in settings I've seen and read.

[Rhynn]

Ah, okay, that makes sense. Hadn't recalled that. I don't think that's inherently non-Chaotic. Orcish hordes have a "standing army" in the sense that they've got a huge bunch of combat-ready orcs. (Note that many Chaotic societies explicitly have standing armies in D&D, like Silverymoon.) It comes down to the details of organization and discipline, ultimately. I don't see drow militaries as Lawful - they'd lack discipline, be poor at formation fighting, likely to break if faced with real, dangerous resistance, etc.

I also can't help but see the "socialized" House forces as similar to feudal armies: the Matriarchs can decide to call up the House forces, and the Houses will decide how many troops they'll supply, just as for early/high medieval royal armies. (Excessively holding back troops will probably get you punished to some degree, on the whim of the Matriarchs.)