PDA

View Full Version : The Alignment of Nations



Fiery Justice
2007-11-26, 05:47 PM
Okay, I've got three kingdoms and I need them to be evaluated for alignment, to settle a dispute on their alignments.

1.) The first Kingdom is Kingdom A. Kingdom A has no laws beyond not hurting your fellow sapient through deliberate action. Its entirely legal to lynch (or shoot, or whatever) any sapient who harms other sapients without warrant.

2.) The Second Kingdom is Kingdom B. In Kingdom B, the king is elected via Athenian Democracy. Kingdom B has strict trade regulations, high tarrifs, strong law enforcement, government licensed press, and tries to hedge out anything it doesn't like by purchase (buying them out) and public detrimental statements against it. The Kingdom provides for the needs of its citizens with public "places of rest" and "kitchens".

3.) The Third Kingdom, Kingdom C. Kingdom C takes children at a very young age (3) and indoctrinates them in large facilities. These children are put through rigorous testing and training. At the age of 13 every child joins the "service" most appropriate for their abilities. These children are then trained into that specific service. Promotion is strictly meritocratic and the laws are simple, consistent, and concise. However, there are a lot of laws and regulations which apply to every service (including the Publications Service and Education Service) and you can't leave the service you are assigned unless you reach a certain station. Wealth is based purely on station.

puppyavenger
2007-11-26, 05:50 PM
A CN and would colapse quickly
B. LN
C LN

Shishnarfne
2007-11-26, 06:01 PM
I'll agree with the posted decision for #2 (though it appears more good than evil, that could change with the "wrong" ruler). If it weren't for the vigilante-only justice system of #1, it'd lean a bit towards CG. I'd say #3 tends a bit towards the evil side of law, but that's overshadowed by the immensely law-oriented nature.

Though, #3 reminds me of the society in The Giver, which is probably why it rubs me the wrong way, even though the most objectionable parts of that society have been omitted.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-26, 06:02 PM
1.) The first Kingdom is Kingdom A. Kingdom A has no laws beyond not hurting your fellow sapient through deliberate action. Its entirely legal to lynch (or shoot, or whatever) any sapient who harms other sapients without warrant.

This is what is known as an "Anarchy," not a government. It won't be long before people start founding their own quasi-governments (eg organized crime). The fact that it's legal to summarily execute without trial anyone who harms others means absolutely nothing: In essence, this land has no laws, and therefore no laws would prevent such vigilante/mob justice.

If, however, there are actual organizations dedicated to ensuring the land remains in a constant state of anarchy, breaking up any groups that exert undue control over their fellow man, then said government is clearly Chaotic. Morally, they'd have to be Neutral, since they really aren't doing any Good or Evil this way.


2.) The Second Kingdom is Kingdom B. In Kingdom B, the king is elected via Athenian Democracy. Kingdom B has strict trade regulations, high tarrifs, strong law enforcement, government licensed press, and tries to hedge out anything it doesn't like by purchase (buying them out) and public detrimental statements against it. The Kingdom provides for the needs of its citizens with public "places of rest" and "kitchens".

Obviously Lawful. This government is dedicated to absolute control over everything. I'd also peg it as morally Neutral, since it cares only for the needs of its own citizens. Of course, there's no context here: It could also be considered Evil if the tariffs are protecting its own interests above those of its citizens.


3.) The Third Kingdom, Kingdom C. Kingdom C takes children at a very young age (3) and indoctrinates them in large facilities. These children are put through rigorous testing and training. At the age of 13 every child joins the "service" most appropriate for their abilities. These children are then trained into that specific service. Promotion is strictly meritocratic and the laws are simple, consistent, and concise. However, there are a lot of laws and regulations which apply to every service (including the Publications Service and Education Service) and you can't leave the service you are assigned unless you reach a certain station. Wealth is based purely on station.

This sounds like a pretty stringent and immobile caste system (though you aren't born into any particular caste). Lawful again, because it exerts absolute control over its citizens' lives. There's not enough context to judge this as either Good or Evil, so I'll go with Neutral.

AslanCross
2007-11-26, 06:15 PM
A. Not much of a nation to speak of. It's an anarchy. If you wanted an alignment, CN. As the others have mentioned, it would either collapse quickly or be quickly controlled by organized crime guilds. These would be LE or NE.

B. LN, with slight LE tendencies. One could argue that they stamp out stuff that goes against them to further the cause of order (LN), but when abuse starts creeping in and they resort to excessively brutal methods, you're creeping into LE territory.





Though, #3 reminds me of the society in The Giver, which is probably why it rubs me the wrong way, even though the most objectionable parts of that society have been omitted.

My thoughts exactly. I see C as definitely lawful, but with indoctrination and strict meritocracy it would be more of LN. We might need to know more about it if we were to judge whether it were LG or LE.

In The Giver, for example, the people were deliberately kept ignorant of their outside world, but this was done to protect them. However, there are a lot of other, more sinister things done there:
-people do not reproduce sexually. Feelings of attraction are stamped out at puberty via drugs.
-strict criteria for the test-tube babies that are born. If they don't make a certain cutoff in terms of health and viability, they are executed (didn't want to use the term euthanized) via lethal injection and disposed of.
-The elderly are executed when they reach a certain age. This is hidden under a veneer of "passing on to a happier place" where the elderly are wheeled into a room that they believe is an entrance to another place. They are killed in this room via lethal injection.
-People are strictly forbidden from leaving the community, and military dispatches are sent to pursue anyone who leaves.

It may seen LN because it does have the "order" justification, but the methods are cold, oppressive (though most people don't realize it) and in my book, LE.

weenie
2007-11-26, 06:24 PM
I'll have to agree with most of what's been written so far, but "kingdom" B troubles me a bit. The society you have described is a mix of capitalysm, communism and democracy. I'm not sure how this would actually work out in practice, but I must say it doesn't sound very convincing. Free food and free beds? Where the hell do rich people get their money from? Who does the ugly jobs around here? I really don't see why someone would bother collecting trash of the streets if there's a meal and a roof above his head wether he does it or not. Or are there some kind of regulations about such stuff? And if there are, how do they determine who's the one who serves at tables and who's the one who picks up said trash? And without more specifications I'd rate it as NG. Law is enforced, but people still seem to have a wide array of freedoms. And a nation that feeds people for free should count as good I think.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-26, 07:25 PM
I'll have to agree with most of what's been written so far, but "kingdom" B troubles me a bit. The society you have described is a mix of capitalysm, communism and democracy. I'm not sure how this would actually work out in practice, but I must say it doesn't sound very convincing.

I don't see where the capitalism comes into play. Capitalists don't like tariffs and rigid enforcement. They interfere with trade. The "democracy" is a joke as well: The government controls the media entirely, so at the very least they won't provide a lot of screentime to anyone that threatens their power. Lastly, I've got no idea where you get theses ideas of communism. The government provides free food and lodging, true, but there's nothing that implies active redistribution of wealth.


Free food and free beds? Where the hell do rich people get their money from? Who does the ugly jobs around here? I really don't see why someone would bother collecting trash of the streets if there's a meal and a roof above his head wether he does it or not. Or are there some kind of regulations about such stuff? And if there are, how do they determine who's the one who serves at tables and who's the one who picks up said trash?

For the same reason people would rather live as millionaires than subsist on a minimum wage. Sure, everyone's guaranteed a roof over their heads and a chicken in their pots, but sooner or later people get tired of that. They'd rather not sleep next to everybody else in the city, they want to eat a steak dinner every once in a while, and they want an HD plasma TV that they can set to whatever channel they want.


And without more specifications I'd rate it as NG. Law is enforced, but people still seem to have a wide array of freedoms. And a nation that feeds people for free should count as good I think.

The people don't really have all that much freedom, actually. If they ever attempt to go against the government, the government shuts them down. Sure, they don't call it that, but it's basically a choice between either letting them confiscate your goods (and compensate you with whatever price they offer) or watching them drive all your customers away. The free food and lodging isn't necessarily good, either; it just means that they want to keep people from becoming beggars on the street (and nobody likes that).

Chronos
2007-11-26, 08:42 PM
The first kingdom, I'll almost entirely agree with everyone else and say it's CN. The one place where I'll disagree, is that it won't end up being controlled by organized crime. For as long as the current system lasts (which won't be very long), there is no such thing as crime, and once the organized groups (whoever they are) take power, they're still not criminals, since they're now the legitimate authority. None dare call it treason, and all that.

The second kingdom, my best bet is LN, but we don't really know enough to say on the moral axis. Most particularly, I'd be interested to know what their foreign policy looks like. Caring for your own citizens is lawful, but not necessarily good or evil. Good or evil is in how you treat the folks who aren't your citizens.

The third kingdom is definitely lawful, but I'd be more inclined to say that it's LE (though again, more evidence could change that view). Mostly, this is due to pulling children from their families against their will, which can't really be good.

Fiery Diamond
2007-11-26, 09:09 PM
A- CN (chaotic, amoral except for one good law. basically a form of anarchy)
B- LN (lawful, no particular moral tendencies [buy-out is a neutral tactic])
C- LE (lawful, evil for the same reason chronos said)

- Fiery Diamond

Fatso
2007-11-27, 02:53 AM
I'll have to agree with most of what's been written so far, but "kingdom" B troubles me a bit. The society you have described is a mix of capitalism, communism and democracy. I'm not sure how this would actually work out in practice, but I must say it doesn't sound very convincing. Free food and free beds? Where the hell do rich people get their money from? Who does the ugly jobs around here? I really don't see why someone would bother collecting trash of the streets if there's a meal and a roof above his head whether he does it or not. Or are there some kind of regulations about such stuff? And if there are, how do they determine who's the one who serves at tables and who's the one who picks up said trash? And without more specifications I'd rate it as NG. Law is enforced, but people still seem to have a wide array of freedoms. And a nation that feeds people for free should count as good I think.

Sure it would work.
It's called Sweden.
Rich people get their money they always do:
1: Inherit the money
2: Work hard for it
3: Work less hard but in corrupt ways.

As for housing and meals:
It's called welfare.
Believe it or not, but it actually works. Less crime. And those who work get far more pay than anyone on welfare gets so the working stiffs get to buy all the goodies.

But I agree insofar that it would be hard pressed to work at a socio-economical level as primitive as found in most fantasy worlds.
It feels more like a product of the industrial age.l

Paragon Badger
2007-11-27, 04:44 AM
If Kingdom number A is a barbarian tribe with lots and lots of cultural 'dos' and 'do nots', then it woulden't collapse so easily.

Look at native americans, they would be 'chaotic' by D&D standards (Hierarchy: I'm the Chief, You're not. [And even that rule wasn't a strong one]) and they only collapsed due to outside influence.

Tempest Fennac
2007-11-27, 07:41 AM
Regarding Kingdom B, Capitalists tend to like tariffs and enforcement if they allow them to have a monopoly (eg: the Corn Laws were brought in by the British government after the Napoleonic Wars to stop cheap grain from coming into the country to allow the landowners to have a monopoly while adding a lot of tax to the price of domestic corn: Income Tax was unpopular among the landowners (who tended to be MPs, as well as the only people who could vote) as it cost them more more money then adding tax to things did). I'm tempted to say Lawful Evil for Kingdom C due to how sinister the whole thing sounds (I'd class the other 2 as CN and LN, unless Kingdom B becomes more tyranical, which could easily happen considering the set-up they have.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-27, 08:05 AM
I personally need more background info to make a truly informed decision, however my basic instincts are as follows:

1: CN or CG. It depends on how active everyone is in stopping harm from being inflicted on others. The impression I am getting here is a wild west town with everyone packing a pistol or a shotgun. The people are basically nice and just want to go about their business, but if you cross the line...

2: Any. It all depends on how things really work in the town.

3: LN or LE. It all depends on what the prevailing cultural beliefs are. If people believe (in general) that doing whatever it takes to get ahead and rising in station are of ultimate importance, that's most likely LE. On the other hand if people don't try to 'game the system' and simply accept their position, doing the best they can for the whole, then they are more likely LN.

geek_2049
2007-11-27, 09:01 AM
A= CG or CN, who decides if the lynch mob is in the right? I say to make it CG assign badasses ie pcs/sherrifs to determine when lynch mobs are necessary or not. Do what you want just don't infringe upon me sounds CG

B= LG or LN, the kingdom has a mindset to help those less fortunate. To make it more good assign more laws to help those less fortunate amd laws to protect the state more good.

C= LN, the kingdom doesn't care who you are it judges based on what you can achieve. Station is determined by merit, good and evil have little role in this gov't. LG and LE can prosper equally, it's the Cs that get humped.

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 09:05 AM
1.) CN
2.) LN in the same sense that St. Cuthbert is LN: only reason it isn't LG is because it isn't lawful enough.
3.) Theocracy of Hextor. Seriously, that nation is built around the dogma of the Herald of Hell.

Fiery Justice
2007-11-27, 09:09 AM
3.) Theocracy of Hextor. Seriously, that nation is built around the dogma of the Herald of Hell.
Glad you recognized it:smallsmile:.

For future reference my own assumptions are:
1) Chaotic Neutral (there is in, fact, standard law enforcement. Its just rather poorly funded. Lynch mobs get things done)
2) Lawful Good/Neutral (Though your right, this could easily change with kings.)
3) Lawful Evil

geek_2049
2007-11-27, 09:52 AM
What about C makes them evil?

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 10:02 AM
What about C makes them evil?Because C is built around the teachings of the LE deity of tyranny, Hextor, as I initially guessed. Oh, and they steal toddlers from their parents.

Fiery Justice
2007-11-27, 10:14 AM
Because of Slave Labor (you can't not work, thoroughly illegal that, and you can't leave) and Kidnapping. Not to mention brainwashing.

Tempest Fennac
2007-11-27, 10:34 AM
Ironically, I wasn't really thinking of it as slave labour beingas they got paid for it (I can see what you mean now, though).

Thinker
2007-11-27, 10:45 AM
Because of Slave Labor (you can't not work, thoroughly illegal that, and you can't leave) and Kidnapping. Not to mention brainwashing.

You have wealth tied to station in a service. If you're getting paid its not slave labor by any means. You can certainly stop working, you must simply reach the appropriate station. You simply painted the picture you wanted based on the text. If it is their culture and society that gives up their children at age 3 it could easily not be kidnapping: people want to give their kids up for the good of the state. Twist a couple of words and it could be LG.

The first "kingdom" is CG.
The second kingdom is LN.
The third kingdom is LN.

The_Werebear
2007-11-27, 10:53 AM
I was actually going to say

A) CN, because it is an Anarchy that can not be reasonably controlled other than what those doing the Lynching believe. If it is a self appointed Sheriff who is actually obeying the rule (singular), then it could well be CG. It would be very easy for this to slip into Mob rule or CE groups. A small group could pull this off. A group larger than a few hundred probably couldn't.

B) LG/LN. It seems rather like they are going out of their way to do the least harm to others.

C) LN/LE/LG, To be honest, it sounds rather like Sparta applied to all of the culture. It is harsh, but fair. You want to advance, you work harder and get better. If the culture is in a point where they can't afford to have dissent (Small, surrounded by wildlands, never high on food supplies), this might be the most Good and best way to run it. Of course, it is far more LIKELY to be LN/LE.

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 10:55 AM
You have wealth tied to station in a service. If you're getting paid its not slave labor by any means. You can certainly stop working, you must simply reach the appropriate station. You simply painted the picture you wanted based on the text. If it is their culture and society that gives up their children at age 3 it could easily not be kidnapping: people want to give their kids up for the good of the state. Twist a couple of words and it could be LG.

The first "kingdom" is CG.
The second kingdom is LN.
The third kingdom is LN.1. He actually said not working is illegal so... no, you can't stop.
2. No painted picture, you're talking to the guy who made the nation. (Not me, the other guy!)
3. People "want" to give up their children because of the alternative being far worse, most likely.
4. Twist a couple words, and any tyrannic regime could be LG.

Fiery Justice
2007-11-27, 10:57 AM
Well, I presumed the majority of people gave up their children willingly, and happily worked. If they didn't, the nation would snap like a twig. But the exceptions, those who wish to do something else (the warrior who wants to work in the Education, the man who doesn't want to enforce the Kingdom's law, ectera.). And those who don't want to give up their children (again, rare, I'm assuming over 99% of many thousands, possibly millions, of people hand over their children readily. Thats still a few hundred that are torn from their mothers arms which is Not Cool).

"One can retire, but only when the Company says you can, one can quit, but only when the company says you can" doesn't sound like non-slave labor to me.

Thinker
2007-11-27, 11:17 AM
Then what is the purpose of wealth? If you are getting compensation for your work it is not slave labor. It is forced labor, but it doesn't sound malicious; it sounds more like if you're not needed you don't work. It puts the good of the society over the good of the individual, which is why I feel it is neutral. Who cares if Joey McCrapperton is happy if the next 99 people are content?

BRC
2007-11-27, 11:19 AM
3.) The Third Kingdom, Kingdom C. Kingdom C takes children at a very young age (3) and indoctrinates them in large facilities. These children are put through rigorous testing and training. At the age of 13 every child joins the "service" most appropriate for their abilities. These children are then trained into that specific service. Promotion is strictly meritocratic and the laws are simple, consistent, and concise. However, there are a lot of laws and regulations which apply to every service (including the Publications Service and Education Service) and you can't leave the service you are assigned unless you reach a certain station. Wealth is based purely on station.
The kingdom is ruled by "Friend Beholder", Hapiness is mandatory

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-27, 11:31 AM
1) CE, you want to kill someone,just remember to lie first.
2) LN, It's definately lawful with an equal mixture of good and evil.
3) LN, seems efficent and should help happiness, but it misses the good spark, because of Mr.Selfish and Mrs.Selfish.

Jayabalard
2007-11-27, 02:13 PM
A. Not much of a nation to speak of. It's an anarchy. If you wanted an alignment, CN. As the others have mentioned, it would either collapse quickly or be quickly controlled by organized crime guilds. These would be LE or NE.This really depends on the people living in the area. I can think of several examples from fiction (though one author in particular stands out in using it often) about societies that function in this fashion without collapsing or being overrun.

You'd need to say more about the people in it before you can make a call on whether it's CG, CN, or CE.

With nearly all good people in it, the society is CG; If a man gets killed then either everyone knows that he has it coming to him, or his friends will take care of the person who did it; either way, the wicked get punished.


In The Giver, for example, the people were deliberately kept ignorant of their outside world, but this was done to protect them. However, there are a lot of other, more sinister things done there:
-people do not reproduce sexually. Feelings of attraction are stamped out at puberty via drugs.
-strict criteria for the test-tube babies that are born. If they don't make a certain cutoff in terms of health and viability, they are executed (didn't want to use the term euthanized) via lethal injection and disposed of.
-The elderly are executed when they reach a certain age. This is hidden under a veneer of "passing on to a happier place" where the elderly are wheeled into a room that they believe is an entrance to another place. They are killed in this room via lethal injection.
-People are strictly forbidden from leaving the community, and military dispatches are sent to pursue anyone who leaves.

It may seen LN because it does have the "order" justification, but the methods are cold, oppressive (though most people don't realize it) and in my book, LE.Other than the "no sex for fun" bit that sounds like a rip-off of Logan's Run.

puppyavenger
2007-11-27, 03:02 PM
Actualy I think the giver minus all the "death after three crimes, if your twins and your lighter than your sibling or your 80" would be LN hevean. That is everything that obstructs soiciety is removed, no extrem weather so no dieing of it, no snow so no clogging up traffic, no mountains or hills so trade is easier. and everyone is the same so there is no bias or racisim.

Wardog
2007-11-27, 04:20 PM
Kingdom A:
Essentially, "Do no harm, and they will reciprocate".

The system itself, IMO, is CN.

I disagree with Emperor Demonking: if someone exploited the system (murder then claim false justification), that makes the murderer evil, not the system.

On the other hand, it isn't CG, because there is no explicit encouragement or requirement to go out of your way to help others. (Of course, as with the previous example, someone could still be good in this kingdom. And if enough people did so, it would be reasonable to describe it as a CG society. But the system itself is CN).

Incidentally, is there any legal system in this kingdom to deal with cases as suggested by Demonking?

Would the only deterrent or redress to such acts be that if/when the murderer was found out (by e.g. the victim's relatives), he could be killed with impunity? Or would there be some sort of official body that could investigate the case and make an official proclamation that the person in question was a criminal and an open target for vigilantes?



Kingdom B:
Agree with other posters: LN (subject to further details about how it behaves towards other nations/foreign citizens). And probably vulnerable to take-over by a LE/NE king or faction.


Kingdom C:
LN with evil aspects, or LE (depending on whether its rules are essentially traditions that everyone accepts, or real laws that are enforced against people who dissent).

If someone decides they don't want to work their station, are they forcibly returned to work, or can they slip out of the system into a "grey" economy, where they can live without state controls, at the expense of living without state benefits/protection?

Incidently, slavery doesn't mean "no payment" (that is normal characteristic of slavery, but there have been historical exceptions). Slavery means that you are treated as the property of a slaver owner (either a private individual/ group, or the state).

Seatbelt
2007-11-27, 04:24 PM
3.) The Third Kingdom, Kingdom C. Kingdom C takes children at a very young age (3) and indoctrinates them in large facilities. These children are put through rigorous testing and training. At the age of 13 every child joins the "service" most appropriate for their abilities. These children are then trained into that specific service. Promotion is strictly meritocratic and the laws are simple, consistent, and concise. However, there are a lot of laws and regulations which apply to every service (including the Publications Service and Education Service) and you can't leave the service you are assigned unless you reach a certain station. Wealth is based purely on station.


What you just described, my friend, is the Devshirme system used by the Ottoman Empire. They would take boys aged around 14 and enlist them in the Janissary corps, or put them to work in the imperial palace. Many of them rose to positions like Grand Vizier. This would probably be lawful evil except for how amazingly awesome it was for your son to be picked up and taken to Istanbul to become rich and secure.

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 07:23 PM
What you just described, my friend, is the Devshirme system used by the Ottoman Empire. They would take boys aged around 14 and enlist them in the Janissary corps, or put them to work in the imperial palace. Many of them rose to positions like Grand Vizier. This would probably be lawful evil except for how amazingly awesome it was for your son to be picked up and taken to Istanbul to become rich and secure.So, it can't be LE because there's room for an individual to advance through merit rather than backstabbing? LE isn't that narrow.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-11-27, 08:08 PM
Government A is Chaotic Evil in the extreme. Evil because it is governed mob violence without trial or due process is justified, and chaotic for the same reason. It's also an utterly ridiculous society, as its only moral principal is completely contradicted by that principals sole means of enforcement.

Government B is Lawful Good. It is highly structured and consistent in its operation, and embodies significant altruistic and positive values. As far as governments go, this would be a realistic version of LG.

Government C is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, depending on its execution. Lawfulness is a forgone conclusion, it is all about strict control and execution. It verges on evil, and is definitely nongood, but it could be, as mentioned, the kind of society where children where the "chosen" children are given what amount to well paid, reliable posts in the society. Also, the goal of the militarism would affect it's morality.

puppyavenger
2007-11-27, 08:12 PM
Government A is Chaotic Evil in the extreme. Evil because it is governed mob violence without trial or due process is justified, and chaotic for the same reason. It's also an utterly ridiculous society, as its only moral principal is completely contradicted by that principals sole means of enforcement.

Government B is Lawful Good. It is highly structured and consistent in its operation, and embodies significant altruistic and positive values. As far as governments go, this would be a realistic version of LG.

Government C is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, depending on its execution. Lawfulness is a forgone conclusion, it is all about strict control and execution. It verges on evil, and is definitely nongood, but it could be, as mentioned, the kind of society where children where the "chosen" children are given what amount to well paid, reliable posts in the society. Also, the goal of the militarism would affect it's morality.

And how would you go about creating a CN soiciety?

ArmorArmadillo
2007-11-27, 09:42 PM
And how would you go about creating a CN soiciety?

For starters, I wouldn't.

This is a bad example of a society because it says "Don't harm others," but it's only method of enforcing that is telling people "Harm others"

For the sake of argument, if I absolutely had to, I would make a Confederacy.
Chaotic Neutral works only on scales small enough to accomodate the conflicting opinions of its individual members without being widespread anarchy.
Therefore to make a meaningfully CN society, you should have what are essentially a large number of small "bands" which function independently, which report directly to states, each of which are compromised of several bands each. The states have no direct superior, but are all linked to a single congress, in which they meet to discuss affairs of the nation.
Each band has soveriegnty within its own affairs, states only control regional issues, and the nation only control basic rights, such as murder and the right to own property, and international matters, such as wars and trade.
Individuals have a great degree of personal freedom, and are responsible primarily for affairs within their own band.


This would be a Chaotic Neutral society, as far as I'm concerned. The problem I see with most CN "societies" is that most people say "Absolute Freedom" and leave it at that.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 10:03 PM
This would probably be lawful evil except for how amazingly awesome it was for your son to be picked up and taken to Istanbul to become rich and secure.

Yeah, the problem is that the people who 'donated' their kids to the Janissary Corps weren't Muslims. They were Christians whom had their children taken away from them in raids and were then forcibly converted. Ironically, these Janissary soldiers were then sent back to their homeland to take more children...often doing quite diabolical things as people seemed to resist having their kids taken.

Frankly, I'm surprised more cultures didn't try the voluntary thing.

Seatbelt
2007-11-27, 10:41 PM
Yeah, the problem is that the people who 'donated' their kids to the Janissary Corps weren't Muslims. They were Christians whom had their children taken away from them in raids and were then forcibly converted. Ironically, these Janissary soldiers were then sent back to their homeland to take more children...often doing quite diabolical things as people seemed to resist having their kids taken.

Frankly, I'm surprised more cultures didn't try the voluntary thing.


Which is, well... wrong. Most of the ottoman court & Janissary Corps were not TURKS, they were all Muslim, having been converted during their youth. But they were all recruited from non-muslim/non-turcik families. Boys from the Balkans who were to become Janissaries were sent to live with a turkish family and learn the language/religion, and boys destined to become members of the Imperial Court lived in the palace as pages and had more or less the same effect. I'm sure you can find instances of this head tax having brutal and unfortunate results, but I can give you instances where they had very favourable results. Some groups even voluntarily joined in this system of recruitment because it gave their children an excelent chance to rise above poverty, and willingly submitting to the Agha assigned to collect the tax was an excelent way to gain favour with the local Sipahi.

Another thing to remember is that the Devshirme had a very low impact on population demographics. 1 in 40 boys were taken, which amounts to something like 1% of the total population. You also have to remember that the system was very irregularly applied.

But they did do a fair amount of recruiting by capturing slaves during campaign, I'll give you that. All things being equal, though, I'd rather be an Ottoman slave than a European one.

Collin152
2007-11-27, 11:03 PM
You know, I see how kingdom C reminds people of the Giver, but my thoughts first jumped to Anthem. People were forced into set paths, individuality was stamped out, law was so absolute, most citizens diddn't know it could be broken.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-27, 11:20 PM
You know, I see how kingdom C reminds people of the Giver, but my thoughts first jumped to Anthem. People were forced into set paths, individuality was stamped out, law was so absolute, most citizens diddn't know it could be broken.

It's not quite Anthem. I thought about that, too, but these castes appear to be assigned by merit, and there is some degree of mobility for those who prove themselves worthy. Anthem implies that the caste you fall in, while not completely arbitrary, is assigned for reasons other than merit. Nation C probably has corruption, true, but it's implied that high-ranking people are expected to be the best, and that superior people of lower ranks will climb the ladders--one way or another.

Collin152
2007-11-27, 11:23 PM
Well, do we have enough information to decide whether Anthem assigned vocations based on merit or not? We only know that the protagonist, who's name escapes me, was considered a troublemaker, and therefore humbled by givin the task of streetsweeping.