What would a functional Chaotic Neutral Society be like?

[liquidformat]

So I have been scratching my head over this for a while and as near as I can I believe it would be like most cities and countries in a Wuxia. You would have a society where right and wrong really didn't mean much and in the end the stronger party is always right. If the two parties are on equal grounds then it falls to who can put the better spin on things.

What do other people think of when talking about a CN society?

[SimonMoon6]

Look at China.

Sure, they have laws... but still...

Take the way they drive in China. They don't have the same sorts of regulations or even basic "let others go ahead of you" ideas. It's more of a "I'm gonna drive wherever I want, and if you happen to get in the way, too bad." If you're speeding, no policeman will ever pull you over, so it's basically fine to go as fast as you want. In some places, there may be cameras that watch you go through red lights or whatever, but they'll just send you a ticket in the mail, rather than having a policeman lecture you about how you've done something wrong.

Take the way that certain building construction happens. The government pays companies to build lots of new buildings... so the companies build a lot of buildings as cheaply as possible (and they then fall apart), so that the companies can make the most money as quickly as possible, without actually contributing anything of quality.

Take the way that they view intellectual property rights. They basically believe it's okay to copy anything from any other country, whether it's movies, handbags, or even car designs. They don't have much of a concept of plagiarism (or at least, they don't think plagiarism is bad). This contributes to Chinese students in America having difficulty in college classes where citing sources and using your own words is an expected part of the class. If the idea is right, who cares where they stole it from.

Consider the way they take standardized tests to get into college. There was an uproar when one group of students was NOT allowed to cheat. Everyone cheats. It's expected.

And overall, there's a "me first" attitude (which can make them sometimes seem rude to Westerners) which (I have heard) may come from the fact that there are so many people in China that a person living there must take what they want without regard for others because otherwise, the others will take it all.

So, I'd say China would be a good example of a CN country. You can't spell ChiNa without C and N.

OTOH, I'm not an expert on China, so this is only what I've gleaned from various YouTube videos about Chinese culture and could be completely wrong.

[Goaty14]

Think of a normal government, with hierarchies and everything. Instead of any nonsense like "democracy" or "election", officials are decided on who gets to the position first (thus showing the person's dedication towards the position), and can be replaced at any time if the new applicant beats them in an arm-wrestling match, best out of 5.

There you have it, a perfectly normal government that survives by keeping its officials in check constantly and ensuring that only the most qualified individuals lead.

[Falontani]

I believe a cN society would be interesting:
There would not be vast communities of people so much as sparsely populated areas.
Without law there wouldn't be a very structured society, so the economy would not matter as much. Bartering would become more normal.
Since people are bartering more than using currency those that make things would be much more in demand than those that serve; Fast Food places would not exist however street vendors and food trucks would be much more normal. Chain stores wouldn't exist, so trading goods would be normal. Money could still be a thing, but you may find people that will turn down outrageous sums, because they won't meet someone too often that will trade for money and money does them no good unless it can turn into food, water, or clothes. Dragonlance (at least the first novel that I have just picked up and begun reading two days ago) portray this a decent way with their coins being backed by each one being worth a barrel of water. The coins have established worth, however if the old lady can never trade her coin for a barrel of water then the coin is useless, she'd prefer a barrel of water.

A lot of every day items that we think of comes from the fact that money means something, within a chaotic society unless someone enforces the fact that money means something, then it becomes much more difficult to get your food, water, clothes, and supplies that you need. Many more people living off the land means that more advanced goods (like alchemical items, magic items, and the like) becomes more rare, making them even more expensive to get.


That is the start of the rabbit hole. Find a basic aspect that will be different because of the different rules (or lack of rules). Then follow what impacts this has for other aspects of society. Another example:

Someone kills someone else. Congratulations, what happens to the murderer? Is there a law against it in your society, or just an unspoken thing that you dont do. Is there no precedent? How do others feel? Without law enforcement there will be one of three reactions: Passiveness (they dont like it, but no one does anything about it, this will quickly devolve your area into the strongest takes what they want, a brigand society) Vigilante justice (there are no laws, so the person has broken no rules, however ethics are still a thing, and you have just committed an evil that needs to be justified, the people, or perhaps a single person will hunt down the murderer and kill him, possibly causing a chain of vengeance) or the change of society (The rules or lack of rules do not have a way to deal with the murderer, so they change the rules, create new ones, and follow these new rules. This will slowly push the society towards N)

[SangoProduction]

Society is neccesarily a lawful entity. At best, you've got a system that highly favors personal freedom above all else.
But what happens when someone's personal freedom is being used to deny others of their freedom. (Such as if it's one group's religious belief that sacrificing virgins will bring prosperity. Clearly a pretty big breach of the virgin's freedom. Even more so if they start "cultivating" virgins.)

If it does nothing, it's not a society. It's just a group of people. This is chaotic neutral.
If it prevents it, it's chaotic good. Or at least leans on either the side of Good or Lawful.

[zlefin]

So I have been scratching my head over this for a while and as near as I can I believe it would be like most cities and countries in a Wuxia. You would have a society where right and wrong really didn't mean much and in the end the stronger party is always right. If the two parties are on equal grounds then it falls to who can put the better spin on things.

What do other people think of when talking about a CN society?

that depends which definition of chaotic neutral you're using; as there's a whole lot of different ones that could reasonably be applied, especially given how bad the alignment system is. Limits on talking politics could heavily restrict use of real-world examples though.

[OgresAreCute]

To me, chaotic neutral is all about personal freedom, so I'd say a CN society would have a big emphasis on individualism without a lot of government regulations ("free/open market" and such).

[Fizban]

Chaotic means not being bound to particular responses: laws would be more about who makes the ruling than setting the penalty based on the crime, so very medieval. Neither Good nor Evil means that it's not particularly exploitative, so it probably has reasonable input from the appropriate people, but isn't particularly protective, so there probably isn't much in the way of appeals or defense. To the individual it seems that their lives are subject to the whim of whoever's in charge, because they are, but that's not necessarily bad as long as the person in charge isn't terrible. The person who is in charge stays in charge by adapting to circumstances that would suggest they should stop being in charge, rather than appealing to tradition. Things probably look a lot like a pre-feudal medieval society, where things get done because people mostly know each other and want them to get done and the local "lord" is just whoever they put or accept in charge of the martially inclined population for mutual defense.

Remember that by the DMG, the alignment of a "society," or rather a given town or city, simply refers to the ruling body. The people can be whatever, and the ruling body could be anything from a single person, to a loose group of "people everyone trusts," to merely describing the average effects of people taking the law into their own hands in that location because there isn't any.

[hamishspence]

Remember that by the DMG, the alignment of a "society," or rather a given town or city, simply refers to the ruling body. The people can be whatever, and the ruling body could be anything from a single person, to a loose group of "people everyone trusts," to merely describing the average effects of people taking the law into their own hands in that location because there isn't any.

Cityscape provides its own percentages for "population alignment" (which differ from the percentages for "power center alignment". You could easily have a population and power center have differing alignment (which tends to result in friction, tension, overthrow attempts, etc). Like a Good leader coming to power and having to rule over an Evil population, or vice versa.

A long period of power centers of the same alignment, tend to move the population in that direction.

[Jowgen]

If we go full Chaotic Neutral, I think it would be the end-result of a survival of the fittest scenario.

Factions would form based on the competitive advantage awarded by pooling resources. Some factions would be in conflict, others would stick to non-aggression agreements, but on the whole a balance of power would establish itself.

In some places factions might be based on craft (e.g. merchants union), or they might be based on access to a resource (e.g. the river folk), or even belief or origin, and it's entirely possible that some factions might overlap to significant degrees.

In the end, order would not exists because of the existence of authority or laws as such, but purely based on the threat of retaliation if the rules aren't followed. You don't do business in a place unless this local group signs off on it. If you attack one of these guys here, this faction is gonna burn your house down.

Over time, power might get consolidated in one place and that place may try to enforce a more ordered system, but due to everyone's CN nature, the unity would invariably fracture rather quickly.

It's not about what's allowed, it's what you can get away thanks to who has got your back.

So in essence, you are looking at gang culture.

[SangoProduction]

So in essence, you are looking at gang culture.

That's....actually...pretty close.

[Thurbane]

"Anarchy is a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)

I mean, it's not a perfect depiction of a CN society, but it's probably one of the closer real-world analogies.

[Almadelia]

Depends a lot on just how Chaotic this society is. If you're happy-go-lucky with assigning alignments, then really any individualistic society with a small central government or a lot of delegation counts. Any society without too much socialistic tendencies, or ones where it's optional to 'opt in', would count as CN (assuming it's also neither Good nor Evil), as would societies which have a "don't bother me and I won't bother you" approach to law and order or cooperations. The old Swiss Cantons might count as CN, as would any sort of gang-based Fallout style culture. If you go a bit further you'd need an anarchistic society, so look into anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-liberal, and anarcho-communist theory. They're not especially practical in real life for various reasons but in a fantasy world it's not impossible, especially if they're relatively isolated or if magic fills the gaps. Even further beyond lies the realm of outsiders, which, well, Chaotic outsiders don't have a society really. CGs mostly just wallow in Arcadia, CNs are whirlpools of randomness living in a whirlpool of randomness, and CEs are basically whipped by the biggest baddest CEs and are constantly dying in droves besides. It would end up being rule of the strongest in that case.


OTOH, I'm not an expert on China, so this is only what I've gleaned from various YouTube videos about Chinese culture and could be completely wrong.
Yeah, it shows. You're describing an NE-CE society in any case, which is also what those Youtube videos would like to have you believe so :smallsigh:

[gkathellar]

I'm not convinced that a society can have an alignment, but assuming that what's actually intended is, "most people in the society are Chaotic Neutral ..."

I expect that connections would be the predominant social currency, with most activities grounded in informal networks rather than established rules. Procedure and precedent might exist but would be largely overlooked in favor of context-dependent solutions to problems. Violations of established norms would be overlooked in the absence of a public accusation (i.e. "everybody knows you're breaking the rules but unless somebody makes something of it we're all going to ignore it"), with the social acceptability of such an accusation depending on how much people actually expected the norm to be policed - people would expect you to raise a hubbub about a murder, but might look down upon someone who dishonored someone with accusations of using harmless narcotics. Honor and/or face - in the social sense of, "my public standing and the esteem others hold me in" - would be very important, and there might be some expectation of self-policing by dishonored or socially censured individuals through self-exile, public repentance, or self-harm.

Note that none of this actually necessitates the lack of a state apparatus, or even a ruling class that is generally Chaotic Neutral. It only requires that people in general have both the preference and ability to act out norms informally.

[Almadelia]

Note that none of this actually necessitates the lack of a state apparatus, or even a ruling class that is generally Chaotic Neutral. It only requires that people in general have both the preference and ability to act out norms informally.

Arguably speaking, if the ruling class is mostly not Chaotic Neutral, then the society in general can't possibly be Chaotic Neutral since the people running everything would simply change it to be more in tune with their own alignment. People can be Chaotic Neutral without being allowed to act Chaotic Neutrally, after all.
Really though, assuming that OP is talking about relatively human beings (so dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, all the DMG races and none of the ones who are either outsiders or basically cursed by the gods), the idea that everyone is of one alignment doesn't make too much sense. TN is supposed to describe the normal potato farmer, a TN character does basically what your random nobody off the street would do (if you use that particular angle of TN at least). Everyone being CN sort of doesn't work.

[hamishspence]

TN is supposed to describe the normal potato farmer, a TN character does basically what your random nobody off the street would do (if you use that particular angle of TN at least). Everyone being CN sort of doesn't work.

Rulers tend to shape the alignment of the ruled over long periods of time.

In Fiendish Codex 2, a point is made that, after several generations of influence by LE leaders (and devils) 90% of the population "goes to Baator after death" due to being LE.


Now imagine that CN leaders have been in power for generations. Their teachings will shape the way people choose to live their lives, and the values people develop as they grow up, too.

[Fizban]

That's because the Lawful Evil societies (as written in FC2) institute things like coming of age rituals that require Evil acts in order to gain your adult rights, and FC2 explicitly assigns point values to various Evil acts and declares that anyone past a certain point is going to Baator (and has a further list of "obeisant" acts that corrupt you to Law). If you're not using their specific corruption mechanics, then the line is drawn wherever you want it. If you're using their mechanics, and as such people who join in the jeering chants out of fear for their own lives are eternally doomed, well then I guess 90% of the society is now Lawful Evil.

Since FC2 treats lawfulness as the sticky side of law/chaos (something something Pact Primeval something *afroakuma probably tears their hair out*), you wouldn't be able to claim the same of a CN society forcing everyone to commit "random" acts and thus all become CN. You'd at least have to flop it first.

[Almadelia]

Rulers tend to shape the alignment of the ruled over long periods of time.
In Fiendish Codex 2, a point is made that, after several generations of influence by LE leaders (and devils) 90% of the population "goes to Baator after death" due to being LE.
Now imagine that CN leaders have been in power for generations. Their teachings will shape the way people choose to live their lives, and the values people develop as they grow up, too.


Well, I'm just the type who strongly objects to every half-cent corner shop robber being CE and every random kind old man being NG is all, but sure if you want to hand out alignments willy-nilly that works I guess. Raises serious question about what your true neutral society actually looks like.

[hamishspence]

Well, I'm just the type who strongly objects to every half-cent corner shop robber being CE and every random kind old man being NG is all, but sure if you want to hand out alignments willy-nilly that works I guess.

Not me - D&D writers.

[JMS]

I feel like a CN government might resemble one of my brother’s ideas - bocceocracy, where a decision is made by playing Bocce. It may not be functional, but it would be Chaotic.

[gkathellar]

Arguably speaking, if the ruling class is mostly not Chaotic Neutral, then the society in general can't possibly be Chaotic Neutral since the people running everything would simply change it to be more in tune with their own alignment. People can be Chaotic Neutral without being allowed to act Chaotic Neutrally, after all.

You're assuming that the ruling class is able to control the way people behave. There are many societies, both historical and in the present-day, in which this is not the case or is only partially the case. Hence why I was explicit that the stated scenario, "requires that people in general have both the preference and ability [emphasis added] to act out norms informally."

If the king can't persuade the people to report crimes to the royal magistrates, and he is unable or unwilling to establish a police state, then it doesn't matter how Lawful Neutral he is. The society's Chaotic Neutral majority will continue to dictate how crimes are actually dealt with. That same king may be able to control economic and military policy quite effectively, but local customs and norms may be entirely outside of his reach.

This isn't to say the a predominantly chaotic government would be impossible or even unlikely. Off the top of my head: an institutionalized version of the above, a kleptocracy or plutocracy, certain types of authoritarian states, more free-wheeling versions of feudalism, anarcho-capitalism, and some forms of de facto oligarchy all sound plausibly chaotic to me.

Incidentally, I wouldn't describe most formulations of anarcho-syndicalism as chaotic at all, because while they stress flexibility and individual liberty they do so within structural and procedural constraints that are held to be not only useful but morally necessary. It's actually more on the lawful side of things.

[Florian]

Chaotic doesn't mean "no rules, rulership, laws and law enforcement", especially when talking about a society - not even dedicated anarchists think that.

I think it´s quite helpful to compare some of the underlying differences between various RL "liberal" countries, to see how a CN society could look like: The laws are there to protect the citizens from the state and each other, the state might be strong on the outside, but intentionally weak on internal matters, individual rights and freedoms (as long as you don't treat on the rights and freedoms of others) are of utmost importance.

[hamishspence]

I think it´s quite helpful to compare some of the underlying differences between various RL "liberal" countries, to see how a CN society could look like: The laws are there to protect the citizens from the state and each other, the state might be strong on the outside, but intentionally weak on internal matters, individual rights and freedoms (as long as you don't treat on the rights and freedoms of others) are of utmost importance.

Or take inspiration from fiction. In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Professor makes a lot of recommendations for setting up a government, which sound rather CN:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress

[Particle_Man]

Alternatively, The Muppet Show. :smallbiggrin:

[liquidformat]

If we go full Chaotic Neutral, I think it would be the end-result of a survival of the fittest scenario.

Factions would form based on the competitive advantage awarded by pooling resources. Some factions would be in conflict, others would stick to non-aggression agreements, but on the whole a balance of power would establish itself.

In some places factions might be based on craft (e.g. merchants union), or they might be based on access to a resource (e.g. the river folk), or even belief or origin, and it's entirely possible that some factions might overlap to significant degrees.

In the end, order would not exists because of the existence of authority or laws as such, but purely based on the threat of retaliation if the rules aren't followed. You don't do business in a place unless this local group signs off on it. If you attack one of these guys here, this faction is gonna burn your house down.

Over time, power might get consolidated in one place and that place may try to enforce a more ordered system, but due to everyone's CN nature, the unity would invariably fracture rather quickly.

It's not about what's allowed, it's what you can get away thanks to who has got your back.

So in essence, you are looking at gang culture.

That really does sound a lot like most cities and countries in Wuxia, most cities are controlled by a couple big families or sects that while they may bicker with each other they still have a certain level of support for each other. The descendants of said clans and sects can as long as their sect/clan allows it do pretty much anything they want without any repercussions as long as they don't offend someone from a more powerful clan/sect. The general populace is more or less left to the whims of those in power and business really can't be done without giving said big clans and sects their 'fair' share which is determined by said sect/clan. Change often happens quickly and is accepted easily as the strongest person is obviously the most right since they won.

There are a lot of good ideas and points here. I personally am of the opinion that societies can and often due have an alignment, though not sure if my interpretation of alignments is the same as the DMG's. I also believe for the most part at least one of the nation's alignments tend to be neutral especially with larger nations. I would agree that the more powerful the ruling body is the more closely the country would follow their alignment.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would look to historical examples like the Italian merchant city states and such. Basically gold is everything and power goes to the one who can pay for it. There is no "government". There are powerful individuals who exist in and around eachother. Order is held by paid guards who serve a merchant lord.

[Buufreak]

A barbarian camp, mostly. If that is what you can consider as functional, then great. I, however, don't think you are any sort of civilized and functional until you hit at least renaissance era.

[SangoProduction]

A barbarian camp, mostly. If that is what you can consider as functional, then great. I, however, don't think you are any sort of civilized and functional until you hit at least renaissance era.

Depends on what you mean by Barbarian Camp. If you mean D&D barbarians, then yeah. Maybe. Eventually ruled by the strong, and their whims.
If you mean "someone who doesn't speak Greek"...well, I'd argue otherwise.

But if you mean "anyone who's not technologically advanced", well again I'd argue against it. In fact, due to the very close-nit nature of villages, you absolutely would have very traditional social norms. Due to the lack of formalized rules, and mostly going on what everyone feels are the rules, it'd hard to argue it is particularly lawful, but it is in no way chaotic.

[tiercel]

A Guild of Retired Adventurers?

If your entire CN society actually lives up to the Forgotten Realms stereotype of “can’t throw a rock without hitting a permanently improved invisibility 15th+ level character” and everybody wants to do their own thing, singly or in small groups, and everyone has the power to back up whatever it is they want to do and not kowtow to anyone who would push or force them to do otherwise, fine.

But if we are talking about primarily low-level NPC-classed schmucks who “just want to do their own thing” without the big, bad nobility/guilds ever telling them what to do, the first sociopath with any amount of power to show up either unhindered by anything like any glimmering of conscience about the direct use of force to get his way (e.g. CE) or with any kind of a plan and organized group of dedicated followers (e.g. LE) will likely be able to tip over the whole society, unless it does contain a significant number of “Bob and Carol, the retired 17th level wizards who just want to run a crappy frontier-town general store” characters.

[purpenflurb]

This is perhaps a different angle to approach it from, but what if you had a relatively normal society that was taken over by chaotic neutral individuals?

The first question is, why would a chaotic neutral individual want to be in power in the first place? They probably don't have any huge overarching goals, so they're probably looking to gain some sort of personal advantage from it. Which likely means money. I'm imagining a system where laws are in effect, but somewhat lazily enforced. And if you want to get around or change those laws, there's always a price.

Some elements of this certainly exist in current governments, but take it to the extreme. We are discussing a neutral government, so people aren't actively exploited. But if, say, your family member gets murdered, maybe a little incentive will get things taken care of more quickly, unless of course the murderer has a more enticing offer. Overall, those in charge are mostly interested in enforcing the rules when they see something in it for them, and they're generally content to leave people alone.

[Elkad]

Or take inspiration from fiction. In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Professor makes a lot of recommendations for setting up a government, which sound rather CN:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress

I'd argue the population before the revolution was closer to CN (nevermind Mort the Wart and his goons, they stayed out of it). Prof wanted at least some laws. Excellent laws restricting government, but still laws.

[Luccan]

If we go full Chaotic Neutral, I think it would be the end-result of a survival of the fittest scenario.

Factions would form based on the competitive advantage awarded by pooling resources. Some factions would be in conflict, others would stick to non-aggression agreements, but on the whole a balance of power would establish itself.

In some places factions might be based on craft (e.g. merchants union), or they might be based on access to a resource (e.g. the river folk), or even belief or origin, and it's entirely possible that some factions might overlap to significant degrees.

In the end, order would not exists because of the existence of authority or laws as such, but purely based on the threat of retaliation if the rules aren't followed. You don't do business in a place unless this local group signs off on it. If you attack one of these guys here, this faction is gonna burn your house down.

Over time, power might get consolidated in one place and that place may try to enforce a more ordered system, but due to everyone's CN nature, the unity would invariably fracture rather quickly.

It's not about what's allowed, it's what you can get away thanks to who has got your back.

So in essence, you are looking at gang culture.

I agree with this, to a certain extent. Too much violent retaliation would be closer to CE, I think, a "strong rule the weak" scenario. But I also think in this society, there would be patches of CG that balance things out, not enough to change things of course, so maybe it's fine. Another possibility, wandering judges. A village works together and exists because that's the safest and most convenient option, but there are no formal laws regarding their interaction. So, that's where the wandering judges come in. Now, a judge is not an elected official (technically) nor is it strictly a hereditary position. Such positions go to those who are interested and can convince enough tough guys to work for them. Why? Because it works as follows:

A judge comes into a town, you bring them your grievance, they pass judgement. Said judgement will usually be unique to each case and each judge, because their are no laws or regulations. Sentencing is carried out by the judge's henchmen. Said henchmen also keep the judge alive in case the town is unhappy with their verdict and things get violent. The life of a judge is dangerous, but they're also given a good deal of social power and plied with gifts when they enter a town, in attempts to get them to weigh in favor of one side or another. Their "bailiffs" tend to share in these gifts, but some are also fanatics or followers who like the judge and their decisions enough to protect them.

[Florian]

I'd argue the population before the revolution was closer to CN (nevermind Mort the Wart and his goons, they stayed out of it). Prof wanted at least some laws. Excellent laws restricting government, but still laws.

We´re still talking about how a functional CN society would look like. What I don´t get is the insistence of some that C-aligments and laws don't mesh.

Kant: "Don't do unto other what you don't want other to do unto you" is a pretty hard law, if you ask me, but one that on one side guarantees personal freedom, on the other side marks a boundary by pointing out that anything that reduces the personal freedom of another is a no-go and has to be excluded.

Same holds true for Poppers Paradox: "No tolerance for the intolerant". The granted personal freedoms in an open society end at the point that the freedom is used to destroy that society. Ex: A slip up or down (CG and CE) can´t be tolerated because it would violate the N aspect. G will try to make you care, E will regularly overstep the aforementioned boundary by being able to dominate.

The Professor is a classic example of a Libertarian stance. A functioning society is aware that it is not alone and will understand that it will have to pool resources and create some kind of government, institutions and state to deal with the macro level, while still guaranteeing all the freedoms that the citizens need on the micro level.

[hamishspence]

We´re still talking about how a functional CN society would look like. What I don´t get is the insistence of some that C-aligments and laws don't mesh.

Same holds true for Poppers Paradox: "No tolerance for the intolerant". The granted personal freedoms in an open society end at the point that the freedom is used to destroy that society. Ex: A slip up or down (CG and CE) can´t be tolerated because it would violate the N aspect. G will try to make you care, E will regularly overstep the aforementioned boundary by being able to dominate.

BoED on CG:

While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces - religion, philosophy, or community, for example - to encourage good behaviour and punish evil.

So CG and laws can mesh.




A functioning society is aware that it is not alone and will understand that it will have to pool resources and create some kind of government, institutions and state to deal with the macro level, while still guaranteeing all the freedoms that the citizens need on the micro level.


CN individuals generally aren't interested in disrupting societies. Not even LN ones. But they're not really interested in "maximising freedom for all" either:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).


so a case could be made that if you give a very powerful CN individual a chance to set up a society, they won't actually be doing all that much to make sure that society protects the freedom of others.

[Florian]

@hamishspence:

BoED and BoVD are maybe the two worst sources when it comes to alignment.

Ok, again, the point is a functional society. I've had this discussion with punks and autonomy fighters for ages, so I know how deep the divide between theory and praxis is on this matter when you're not talking about it in isolation.

The reality is that you always have to interact with and adapt to outside forces, like other societies. What's relevant is how you can accomplish that without sacrificing your core values for it.

[hamishspence]

BoED and BoVD are maybe the two worst sources when it comes to alignment.They have their flaws, but they also have their virtues. In this case, BoED agrees with you that CG societies, at least, are allowed to have laws.


the point is a functional society.

The reality is that you always have to interact with and adapt to outside forces, like other societies. What's relevant is how you can accomplish that without sacrificing your core values for it.

Yup. 2e CN societies were painted as fundamentally nonfunctional:

Chaotic Neutral: There is no government. Anarchy is the rule. A stranger to such a town might feel he has ridden into a town of madmen.


but 3e can move away from that a bit.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I agree with this, to a certain extent. Too much violent retaliation would be closer to CE, I think, a "strong rule the weak" scenario. But I also think in this society, there would be patches of CG that balance things out, not enough to change things of course, so maybe it's fine. Another possibility, wandering judges. A village works together and exists because that's the safest and most convenient option, but there are no formal laws regarding their interaction. So, that's where the wandering judges come in. Now, a judge is not an elected official (technically) nor is it strictly a hereditary position. Such positions go to those who are interested and can convince enough tough guys to work for them. Why? Because it works as follows:

A judge comes into a town, you bring them your grievance, they pass judgement. Said judgement will usually be unique to each case and each judge, because their are no laws or regulations. Sentencing is carried out by the judge's henchmen. Said henchmen also keep the judge alive in case the town is unhappy with their verdict and things get violent. The life of a judge is dangerous, but they're also given a good deal of social power and plied with gifts when they enter a town, in attempts to get them to weigh in favor of one side or another. Their "bailiffs" tend to share in these gifts, but some are also fanatics or followers who like the judge and their decisions enough to protect them.

This is starting to sound like a Western, which actually I think is about right. In romanticized depictions of the Wild West, you have a society that doesn't openly condone inflicting harm on innocents, but nor is it too worried about ensuring widespread quality of life, so definitely N on the G-E axis. On the L-C axis, it's solidly Chaotic. Sure there are laws, and sheriffs, and local judges, and even Federal Marshals (the last of which acts somewhat like your wandering judge). But just as often, disputes are settled through a personal duel, or through hired guns. Law enforcement exists, but it's not far-reaching. It's only as powerful as any individual sheriff or the like can be. Whether that comes through skill with a gun, support from the community, or something else, the degree to which laws are enforced varies wildly based off who is in charge of enforcing them. There might be a central authority located far away which de jure applies all sorts of laws to the area, but de facto their influence is limited.

[King of Nowhere]

Arguably speaking, if the ruling class is mostly not Chaotic Neutral, then the society in general can't possibly be Chaotic Neutral since the people running everything would simply change it to be more in tune with their own alignment. People can be Chaotic Neutral without being allowed to act Chaotic Neutrally, after all.

Have fun enforcing strict laws on a reluctant population. You need the cooperation of the people for it.
If your lawful government says everyone has to act in certain ways, the people are just going to put their signature or punch their tiket and then go back to do what they want. I could make several examples related to Italy, and unlike the china example, i actually live there, and it's a rather chaotic culture. Emphasis is on family ties rather than on social ties, and laws are applied with flexibility - unless you want to go to an actual judge. Of course the way they are applied is very specific to the individual, ranging from the "screw the rules, what i do is right" to the "screw the rules, i'm embezzling money". And of course not everyone is chaotic.
I can't say more without breaking the "no real world discussion" rule

[Florian]

They have their flaws, but they also have their virtues. In this case, BoED agrees with you that CG societies, at least, are allowed to have laws.

No, no virtues, because of three issues:
1) They are heavily influenced by a certain RL religious views.
2) WotC always had a weak grasp on the topic on Neutrality and how the other major conflict lines would look like. (Ex: L vs C, N vs. the corner points)
3) Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptive.

The last point is the major thorn there. SLOTH actually made me laugh out loud with that comment. Germany and Italy are generally seen and understood as being absolutely incompatible in organization, lifestyle and outlook, yet we work well on the micro and macro level and both occupy the top tier ranks of anything worth ranking.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

Look at China.

Sure, they have laws... but still...

Take the way they drive in China. They don't have the same sorts of regulations or even basic "let others go ahead of you" ideas. It's more of a "I'm gonna drive wherever I want, and if you happen to get in the way, too bad." If you're speeding, no policeman will ever pull you over, so it's basically fine to go as fast as you want. In some places, there may be cameras that watch you go through red lights or whatever, but they'll just send you a ticket in the mail, rather than having a policeman lecture you about how you've done something wrong.

Take the way that certain building construction happens. The government pays companies to build lots of new buildings... so the companies build a lot of buildings as cheaply as possible (and they then fall apart), so that the companies can make the most money as quickly as possible, without actually contributing anything of quality.

Take the way that they view intellectual property rights. They basically believe it's okay to copy anything from any other country, whether it's movies, handbags, or even car designs. They don't have much of a concept of plagiarism (or at least, they don't think plagiarism is bad). This contributes to Chinese students in America having difficulty in college classes where citing sources and using your own words is an expected part of the class. If the idea is right, who cares where they stole it from.

Consider the way they take standardized tests to get into college. There was an uproar when one group of students was NOT allowed to cheat. Everyone cheats. It's expected.

And overall, there's a "me first" attitude (which can make them sometimes seem rude to Westerners) which (I have heard) may come from the fact that there are so many people in China that a person living there must take what they want without regard for others because otherwise, the others will take it all.

So, I'd say China would be a good example of a CN country. You can't spell ChiNa without C and N.

OTOH, I'm not an expert on China, so this is only what I've gleaned from various YouTube videos about Chinese culture and could be completely wrong.

I live there. This is mostly correct.

"Heaven is high, and the emperor is far away."

[Particle_Man]

This is starting to sound like a Western, which actually I think is about right. In romanticized depictions of the Wild West, you have a society that doesn't openly condone inflicting harm on innocents, but nor is it too worried about ensuring widespread quality of life, so definitely N on the G-E axis. On the L-C axis, it's solidly Chaotic. Sure there are laws, and sheriffs, and local judges, and even Federal Marshals (the last of which acts somewhat like your wandering judge). But just as often, disputes are settled through a personal duel, or through hired guns. Law enforcement exists, but it's not far-reaching. It's only as powerful as any individual sheriff or the like can be. Whether that comes through skill with a gun, support from the community, or something else, the degree to which laws are enforced varies wildly based off who is in charge of enforcing them. There might be a central authority located far away which de jure applies all sorts of laws to the area, but de facto their influence is limited.

This is making me think of the rpg Dogs in the Vineyard.

[Almadelia]

I live there. This is mostly correct.

"Heaven is high, and the emperor is far away."

I also live there. It sounds mostly like bull**** or taken out of context.

[Particle_Man]

China is a big, big place. Like, really big. Lots of people. Way more than in any other country (only India comes close, and China still has more people than India). USA has less than one third of China's population.

China has more people than Europe.

China has more people than Africa.

China has more people than the Americas.

I would not be surprised to see a wide variety of societies encapsulated within China. Thus, it should contain CN societies and non-CN societies within it.

[liquidformat]

BoED on CG:
CN individuals generally aren't interested in disrupting societies. Not even LN ones. But they're not really interested in "maximising freedom for all" either:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).


so a case could be made that if you give a very powerful CN individual a chance to set up a society, they won't actually be doing all that much to make sure that society protects the freedom of others.

The best description I have seen for CN is someone who only likes and follows laws when it is convenient to them. If Breaking a law is going to cause a major issue they will generally follow it. If it is going to be inconvenient and especially if it is inconvenient and most likely not going to be an issue they won't follow it. If the law will help them then they will praise it and use it as much as possible, if it is bad for them they will be the first to complain. For the most part I would say the general population of most countries is probably CN or CG depending on how much of an ethical continence they have.



This is starting to sound like a Western, which actually I think is about right. In romanticized depictions of the Wild West, you have a society that doesn't openly condone inflicting harm on innocents, but nor is it too worried about ensuring widespread quality of life, so definitely N on the G-E axis. On the L-C axis, it's solidly Chaotic. Sure there are laws, and sheriffs, and local judges, and even Federal Marshals (the last of which acts somewhat like your wandering judge). But just as often, disputes are settled through a personal duel, or through hired guns. Law enforcement exists, but it's not far-reaching. It's only as powerful as any individual sheriff or the like can be. Whether that comes through skill with a gun, support from the community, or something else, the degree to which laws are enforced varies wildly based off who is in charge of enforcing them. There might be a central authority located far away which de jure applies all sorts of laws to the area, but de facto their influence is limited.
Also Judge Dread...

[Luckmann]

So I have been scratching my head over this for a while and as near as I can I believe it would be like most cities and countries in a Wuxia. You would have a society where right and wrong really didn't mean much and in the end the stronger party is always right. If the two parties are on equal grounds then it falls to who can put the better spin on things.

What do other people think of when talking about a CN society?
Are we talking about a society, or a government? Because many of the replies seem to assume that they are the same, but they're not. I envision that a Chaotic Neutral society would almost have to be pre-feudal, or perhaps early feudal, assuming that not the whole of society is Chaotic Neutral, but that society as a whole generally veers towards Chaotic Neutral, irrespective of moral stances and ideas of good or evil.

And I don't mean to use these terms in a historically deterministic sense. In a fantasy universe, this could be entirely anachronistic to our own experiences and expectations.

You could likely look at the social structures of any early societies and/or civilizations, especially tribal or clan-based ones. Yes, many live by principles, and yes, there are mutual expectations of all in a society, but in terms of organization there is little, and freedom isn't just something the independent groups/tribes/villages/clans expect and would fight for, but it is a near-universal truth that all would agree on, even as they sometimes comes to blows over conflicts of interest.

I'd say that early viking societies (up until the conquest of Britain at least), some celtic periods, North-American Indian society are all good examples of Chaotic Neutral societies, at least for the most part.

[SLOTHRPG95]

3) Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptive.

The last point is the major thorn there. SLOTH actually made me laugh out loud with that comment. Germany and Italy are generally seen and understood as being absolutely incompatible in organization, lifestyle and outlook, yet we work well on the micro and macro level and both occupy the top tier ranks of anything worth ranking.

I'm not quite sure what you're addressing here. I was talking about the Wild West (an ahistoric period of US history), not the current state of the EU. I think this might be King of Nowere that you've meant to address.


This is making me think of the rpg Dogs in the Vineyard.

I'd not heard of this before, but I'm glad to have looked it up. Really interesting/amusing premise for an RPG world.



Also Judge Dread...

Yes, that's also a good example. That's more one that casts the state of affairs in a negative light, though. Most (but not all) Westerns don't try and make out the current state of affairs as a dystopia. Rather, the huge emphasis on personal freedom without descending to total anarchy is viewed as the preferred state of affairs. Not saying I'd like to live in a society like that. I'm happy to live in one with functional laws and next to zero dastardly cattle barons. But in Western genre books/films, it's often considered a more "pure" or idyllic way of life. Contrast to Judge Dredd.

[Darth Ultron]

a very powerful CN individual a chance to set up a society, they won't actually be doing all that much to make sure that society protects the freedom of others.

A Chaotic society in general does very little to protect or help or aid people in general. A Chaotic Society has a simple outlook of : Do It Your Dang Self. If you need protection, protect yourself; if you need aid, then aid yourself and if you need help, help yourself. Chaotic does not expect, need or want things form others...mostly.



Chaotic Neutral: There is no government. Anarchy is the rule. A stranger to such a town might feel he has ridden into a town of madmen.



This is true enough: No Government. But it does not mean no structure or order or rules or even laws. It just means there is no government to ''help and protect people ". It means people must do it for themselves.


To get Chaotic Neutral, just look at the other two ''ends":

Chaotic Good is no or light government and no or few vague laws..and an individual can do what they want, as long as it's mostly Good.

Chaotic Evil is no or light government and no or few vague laws..and an individual can do what they want.

Chaotic Neutral is right in the middle.

Take three little farm towns. As chaotic places, they have no formal government. If something comes up, whoever cares to can meet in the middle of town...and is some way, shape or form they will decide to do something...or not. There might be a handful of vague voted laws, and likely some vague traditions...but no serious enforcement of anything. Individuals are left alone to do as they wish.

CG: As good folk, they will generally help each other. But they will respect someone saying hey did not want help. Each farmer has a vague 'plot' of land..basically as much as they want to say is theirs. As good folks, they don't really bother to dispute land much. A person can do whatever they want...even more so on their land. Each person is expected to care form themselves. Should they have a problem, they can ask for and get help, but only for that. The good idea of ''help others to get help yourself" is in full effect.

CE:As evil folk, they will generally harm each other. For the most part, they will stay away from each other and even simple talks will be done in the open, with weapons ready. Each farmer has a vague 'plot' of land..basically as much as they want to say is theirs. As evil folks, they don't care about others or what they say. A person can do whatever they want, anywhere anytime. They can only get help by force or trickery or a bribe. The evil idea of ''aid another to get aid yourself" is in effect.

CN: Is right in the middle of the above two. Not quite a good society or a evil society...but a little of both.

[Elvensilver]

It is definitly hard to imagine a longstanding chaotic society. Some ideas what one might look like:


Bound by necessity: The people enjoy their freedom, but they can't live alone, the land is to harsh for that. Everyone is allowed to do everything, but working together, protecting each other make this a society. You can definitly do whatever you want here, as long as you stand up against the opressive overlord/ help herding the cattle/guard the borders against the destroying ones. Anything is allowed, except murder. Since cooperation is vital, murder will be answered with a range of different measures ranging from: "Really, don't do that again..." to revengekilling. So everything is allowed, as long as the society can persist.

Freed by wealth: In this town, everything is possible for everyone. There are little preconceptions, mostly people only only care about maximising their personal fun. And they have the wealth/power to allow it. The poorer ones still have ample options to better their lots, and are allowed to reach higher levels of wealth unhindered. Due to the vast amount of resources, no conflicts over such things break out, and there are (almost) no laws whatsoever. This might be possible in a high magic area.

Freedom as a principle: In this society, freedom is the only rule. Freedom of the many is valued as the only state in which a society can exist without rebellions of unhappy citizens. In their personal lives people live unhibited, only if a conflict (someones personal freedom is lessening someone else's freedom) can't be resolved by talking the community gathers. Here the citizens discuss what to do in this specific situation and eventually the majority decides: Either a gamble,maybe a competition to see who should win this argument, or declaring the case closed. There are no precedents, and depending on the people in question, the same citizens will decide differently.

[Florian]

It is definitly hard to imagine a longstanding chaotic society.

Not really.

On the basic level, it helps when you know autonomous zones, successful autonomous movements, successful anarchist movements and all the assorted dreck. Berlin, Hamburg and Kopenhagen feature some prime examples, Syria and Iraq feature some lesser examples.

Beyond that, it is actually impressive what variety we have in the group of "Liberal Democracies", when it comes to actual countries. I don't want to get into that too deep, but you must identify the "L"-casses first, then it is quite easy to see and understand the "C"-cases.

[Pippa the Pixie]

It is definitly hard to imagine a longstanding chaotic society. Some ideas what one might look like:


Not for everyone. The Wild West or American Frontier(roughly 1600 to 1900) works just fine.

The Klingon Empire of Star Trek.

The Ferengi of Star Trek.

The Shadows of Babylon 5

[Luckmann]

Not for everyone. The Wild West or American Frontier(roughly 1600 to 1900) works just fine.

The Klingon Empire of Star Trek.

The Ferengi of Star Trek.

The Shadows of Babylon 5
I disagree on the Klingon Empire. Strongly. While they may appear anarchic due to their barbarian proclivities and focus on warfare - and often inherently violent affair - the society is expressly authoritarian and imperial, mired in ancient traditions and arcane principles, the complexity of which is often a plot point. Their colonies are also in no way free or diverse in the way you'd expect a Chaotic Neutral society to be, and all are actually subservient to the emperor and the houses.

I'd go so far as to say that the Klingon Empire could be considered Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil, or True Neutral at best (not due to their principles, though, but because their actions and behaviour being "chaotic" despite lawful motivations and tendencies on a social level).

[King of Nowhere]

I just realized: Discoworld's Ank-Morpork is a perfect example of a functional chaotic neutral/evil society

[Mechalich]

I just realized: Discoworld's Ank-Morpork is a perfect example of a functional chaotic neutral/evil society

No, it isn't. Ankh-Morpork is an excellent example of a Neutral Good society. Lord Vetinari is a classic neutral good 'enlightened dictator.' He wants the city to work and produce the best possible life for the greatest number without any particular preference for how that might be achieved. So he produces unconventional solutions like legalized robbery that fly in the face of lawful ideology while at the same time putting great stock in traditional institutions, most notably the City Watch, to serve as forces of stability.

[hamishspence]

I could see the population's average alignment changing over time. The city as portrayed in the early books, comes across as a bit "eviler" than the more recent ones.

[King of Nowhere]

No, it isn't. Ankh-Morpork is an excellent example of a Neutral Good society. Lord Vetinari is a classic neutral good 'enlightened dictator.' He wants the city to work and produce the best possible life for the greatest number without any particular preference for how that might be achieved. So he produces unconventional solutions like legalized robbery that fly in the face of lawful ideology while at the same time putting great stock in traditional institutions, most notably the City Watch, to serve as forces of stability.

vetinary seems more CG to me. arguments could be made for him being NN, if one puts more emphasis on how he seeks power.
anyway, the population of ank morpork is strongly leaning towards caos, and so is the way it is administered. if all the the mess with the guilds, plus how assassins and thieves have representations, plus the very way the watch is conducted - vimes is definitely not the "protocol & procedure" kind of lawful cop - isn't enough to qualify it for chaotic, then we have very different tresholds for what being chaotic entails.
heck, just look at the whole "calling a dwarf lawn ornament is suicide" thing: they clearly expect that some people will react with violence to insults, and instead of trying to prevent violence while avoiding racial conflict, they are encouraging individual violence by basically giving it free pass. basically, it means they expect the dwarves to protect themselves from discrimination by staying out of their way when they retaliate. what is that but the most excuisitely chaotic solution?

[jdizzlean]

http://xwell.org/assets/images/dnd-movies.jpg

like this.