Thought Experiment: Name that society's alignment

[Libertad]

This is for a Pathfinder supplement I'm working on. I want to get your collective opinions and answers. There is no wrong answer.

First, I’m going to make up two fictional societies off the top of my head. After reading my short descriptions of both, I want you to assign them the alignment you think most closely matches their moral and ethical structures. Ready? Here we go.

Society A is a small isolated village. Its inhabitants prize the benefits of collectivism and working together, their economy based upon a system of barters, favors, and shaming to encourage good behavior and cooperation. They have no mayor or king, instead deciding major decisions via temporary alliances of town councils who cooperate together against a major threat or issue. Everybody is equal, and there is no private property; everything beyond personal possessions is either shared or used by people with the proper training. This society does not see the value of written laws, but they do have a malleable system of social rules intended to keep things operating smoothly.

Society B is an advanced civilization of art, knowledge, magic, and warfare. Its people pride themselves on their heritage and favored status in the world, believing that their ancestry alone makes them worthier than other people. Racism is prevalent in their ways of thinking, and they have trouble understanding why outside cultures act as though this is not the case. Children of mixed race are doomed to a life social isolation and ostracism, leading many of them to leave. Some cities and subgroups even practice forms of inherent social stratification among their own kind, such as a caste system or even indentured servitude by applying their own racial superiority inwards.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Society A seems True Neutral or Neutral Good to me.

Society B seems Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil.

[FidgetySquirrel]

A. Strikes me as LG, perhaps NG. Lawful doesn't have to mean written law, after all. It can apply to characters with strong personal codes. This society seems to have a strong, unwritten, societal code, which, if not lawful outright, is certainly not chaotic. They work actively toward bettering themselves and each other. Arguably they use generally good means to try to achieve a good end, which makes them solidly good in my book

B. Well, IIRC, racism is evil by RAW. However, if the worst they do is ostracizing and implementing indentured servitude, I could see LN over LE. Racially speaking, these people are jerks, but jerk=/=evil and evil=/=jerk. I'm willing to lean toward LN, here.

EDIT: I find this sort of thing fascinating, by the way. Please let me know if you do another one.

[Nilehus]

Hm. Society A I'd peg at Lawful Neutral or True Neutral, for reasons I can't quite put into words.

Society B is definitely LN/borderline LE. Institutionalized and cultural oppression typically does not fall on the higher ends of the spectrum.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Hm. Society A I'd peg at Lawful Neutral or True Neutral, for reasons I can't quite put into words.

Society B is definitely LN/borderline LE. Institutionalized and cultural oppression typically does not fall on the higher ends of the spectrum.

Did I just summon Orcus?

On topic: It is rather difficult and thought-provoking, isn't it? Nothing like engaging my brain with a complex topic at 2:30 in the morning!

[Nilehus]

Did I just summon Orcus?

On topic: It is rather difficult and thought-provoking, isn't it? Nothing like engaging my brain with a complex topic at 2:30 in the morning!

Nah, I can't just resist a topic with the words "Thought Experiment" in the title.

It is interesting. My reading of Society A made me think of them as a sort of hive-mind, in a way. Granted, there's no queen or such giving orders, and most likely no actual telepathic connection, but the wording of it just made me think hive-mind.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Nah, I can't just resist a topic with the words "Thought Experiment" in the title.

It is interesting. My reading of Society A made me think of them as a sort of hive-mind, in a way. Granted, there's no queen or such giving orders, and most likely no actual telepathic connection, but the wording of it just made me think hive-mind.

That's exactly what happened to me!

My reading of A had me thinking of an ideal interpretation of a Marxist society, something which I have no desire of getting into the nuts and bolts of for obvious reasons.

[Nilehus]

That was partially my thought, as well. It's probably best not to tick off the mods too much. I'm still waiting for the hammer to drop in the other thread.

Still, it's always interesting seeing three different people come up with four different interpretations of the same paragraph.

[FidgetySquirrel]

That was partially my thought, as well. It's probably best not to tick off the mods too much. I'm still waiting for the hammer to drop in the other thread.

Still, it's always interesting seeing three different people come up with four different interpretations of the same paragraph.

As long as things stay civil here, and there's no actual discussion about real-world politics, I think we're fine? Even in the other thread, I get the feeling the mods just find it too darn entertaining to stop the trainwreck.

That is the beauty of thought experiments, isn't it? People with different perspectives themselves have the potential to interpret even little things in vastly different ways. I hope this thread catches on, because eventually we'll probably have both societies having been assigned each alignment with a plausible explanation as to why. The human mind is a fascinating thing.

[Sartharina]

Society A is Chaotic Evil, given that the only known race capable of functioning with that sort of government is Kender.

Society B is Neutral Good, leaning toward Chaotic - While the racism may make it look bad on the surface... this is fantasy, and there are real problems with the half-races being unable to function in society - namely, it's impossible for them to live long enough to learn enough about their culture to succeed in it.

[Jeff the Green]

Society A is probably Lawful, but I don't really have enough information to say where they fall on the Good-Evil axis. I mean, it would certainly be consistent for them to sacrifice any outsiders to Agagogoth in exchange for him not eating their kidneys, but they could also be quite nice and give outsiders fruit baskets as parting gifts. Just because they're pro-in group doesn't make them good.

Society B is probably Evil, but I don't have enough information to say where they fall on the Lawful-Chaotic axis. Do they value individual freedom or conformity? Do they expect everyone to follow a code, or can people act on their whims?

[Vitruviansquid]

Before looking at anyone else's answers:

A - Chaotic Neutral

This seems like a society that regards rules, hierarchies, laws as necessary evils rather than things that are helpful or powerful in themselves. This makes the society Chaotic to me. Of course, it's not *as* Chaotic as a society of total do-what-you-want anarchy, but then the latter is the extreme end of the Chaotic spectrum.

B - Lawful Evil

In contrast to society A, society B seeks to impose hierarchy between people inside and outside of it, making it Lawful. That the hierarchy is based on race, which is self-serving because it exalts the members of the society and denigrates all others, makes this society evil.

[Malar]

I would say the population of A is mostly neutral lawfull. They dont have real laws but they have some other rules. Everyone is treated equally and neutral people behave good.

B would be Evil Neutral and Evil Chaotic.
They only think of themself that then genes are the best in the Universe and other humanoids dont have rights. I think they have at least laws, in such a big culture so most people are not random killing/betraying each other. But maybe there are some random murder or genocides. They are doing something for their own good, regardless of other people but most people arent betraying and stealing and murdering the whole time so they would evil neutral.

[Jeff the Green]

If nothing else, this thread illustrates well why D&D alignment is not a useful tool.

Yes and no. On the one hand, I think applying alignments to societies is silly, and part of the reason there's disagreement is that the Law-Chaos axis isn't defined very precisely (and there wasn't a book dedicated to each like Evil and Good got). On the other hand, part of the reason we disagree is that the descriptions are incomplete.

[Lord Raziere]

If nothing else, this thread illustrates well why D&D alignment is not a useful tool.

or better yet, illustrates why DnD Alignment is more like a Rorshach blot test for how one sees the world than an actual good measurement system. The answers say more about yourself than it does the society.

A: Is True Neutral. Not lawful enough to be Lawful neutral, not Chaotic enough to be chaotic neutral.

B: Lawful Evil. I personally think anything with both in built racism and classism, is pretty much evil and incredibly lawful about doing so.

what do these answers say about me? that is for you to figure out.

[JusticeZero]

A is Lawful. Insufficient information for the other axis. It's small, so written laws are unimportant. You start writing laws down because you want to build conformity in the law in a place too far away to visit often.

I'd peg B as LE. The reasons have already been discussed.

The consistency of the alignment system is unimportant in this case. I'm a physicalist, so the only thing that matters is that the judgment is consistent and predictable.

[Fire Lord Pi]

The first seems to be be somewhere in between neatural and lawful. I'd say it's probably a good society because it employs methods such as shaming as opposed to worser punishments.

The second sounds to be LN. Borderline evil, but racism and subjugation into indentured servitude are, as have been stated, minor evils (compared with things like sacrificing children).

As for alignment, it only works if everyone at you table has agreeing morals. I like the comparison to a blot test.

[Arkanist]

Civilization B seems to be Lawful Evil, in a rare case where it isn't actual laws but instead the evil is institutionalized into the very social structure.

Civilization A may seem Good, but have you forgotten the evils of Communism?

[draken50]

The first I'd say is Chaotic Neutral.

The lack of set laws and the societal behavior being set by whatever the social norms at the time seem more chaotic to me. There doesn't seem to be any real variance in the moral scale, basically "live and let live" which seems pretty neutral to me.

The second I'd say is Neutral. Though I do get the impression of lawfull, but the concept that "some" of the groups within the nation/empire/whatever implies that a fair amount are not as regimented within a caste system. I don't see any thing that would point evil. While they're are certainly evil people perpetuating the racism implied, evidently people are free to leave. Where the city actively engaged in finding and enslaving/exploiting those they find to be lesser races or the like, that would lean more evil, but unless the majority of the population maintained the elitist viewpoint I wouldn't go full evil.

Personally, I have a difficult time naming any nation either Good or Evil in most cases, their governmental powers on the other hand.... So I wouldn't call North Korea evil, but their regime, absolutely. If you're going by the regime, I would need to see specific deeds to define and even then it gets tough to say "[country] is evil/good]"

Though Sweden sounds pretty good, but hey, I haven't lived there sooooo....

[MrNobody]

Ok, here's my thought on this very interesting topic.

Society A: Seems to be neutral good: enough laws to grant the existence of a structured society to make it lawful, enough personal freedom and lack of hierarchy to make it chaotic... it stays firmly in between.
It also tends to encourage good behaviour, so it seems tending to goodness.
That said, there are some question that can help better define the concept and (even totally) change the alignment:
It's a "small isolated village". Why is it isolated? This could be very important. If it is only a geographical situation (it's isolated because on a small far-from-the-shores island) it doesn't matter, otherwise there should be an ideological motivation for this isolation, with reflections on alignment. If it's a rebellion against certain law/societies it brings the city to chaos, if it's a research of purity it brings to good (and law a little bit). If the village is secluded because all the inhabitants have the idea "we parted from the world because it's full of stupid people and we are all the best", then this would bring a bit of evil in the alignment. Pride is the most serious of sins.
Major decisions are taken by the councils, but minor? This is important in the choice between law and chaos. what about minor things? a simple theft, a minor infraction... who decides? if there are judges committed to take daily care of this thing, the society it tending to lawful. If, otherwise, revenge it's accepted and everyone can personally take care of offenses without outer control, then it's totally chaotic. A (not "the") neutral way of resolving the situation could be having informal judges (the elders of every family) to take care of this minor problems even through personal revenge with the task of verifying things aren't pushed too far and of calling out a council only when things get serious.
There is no private property. What happens to those that want to keep something for themselves?The desire of owning goods is part of the human nature so, unless all the village is made of exalted VoP NPCs, every now and then someone should want not to share something. Maybe an house is burnt down by fire and the neighbour is entitle of hosting the now homeless family until the house is built again: the council states he has to temporally leave the house to the family. The neighbour refuses because the house has been assigned to his family many decades ago and claims it to be HIS house. What happens next? he gets scolded in public and declared "shameful" and the homelesses go to another familiy (neutral), he gets scolded in public and declared "shameful" and the outraged crowd is allowed to drag him out the house and give the keys to the homeless family (chaos) or does exist some kind of "police" that has the order of the council executed (Law)?

Society B Racism in D&D is not inherently evil: a lot of races, even those strongly tending to good, have heavy traces of racism in their background and even in their mechanics (dwarves and gnomes). An entire base class, the ranger, is built around the idea of [i'm highlighting a possible aspect of the favored enemy ability] hating somone for his race, but still in his description it says that evil rangers are rare.
Remember also that Corellon Larethian, the supergood elf god, is EXTREMELY racist aginst orcs and inspires his followers to do the same still being a bastion of goodness.

I see this society as heavy lawful but neutral on the evil-good axis. The respect of laws and social rules is the first thing. Every deviation, such as mixblooded babies, has to be eradicated. You say that this poor sons are led to leave: if the society were evil, mixblood sons should be killed as soon as they are born. A society that waits them to become adults and let them leave is not good, but neither evil.

And more. LE is tyranny, and one of the first weapon that tyranny unsheates, everywhere and everytime, is ignorance: an ignorant population is far easier to control then a well educated one.
Since you say that this society relies on art and knowledge i can't really imagine it as a tyranny, even if social hierarchy is based on how much one knows and there are "secrets" that are kept hidden from the lower layers of the population.
That said, i confirm my LN idea.

[ReaderAt2046]

I would peg Society A as Chaotic Good and Society B as Lawful Evil.

[Sartharina]

I would peg Society A as Chaotic Good and Society B as Lawful Evil.

Kender and Goblins are Chaotic Good, and Elves and dwarves are lawful evil. Got it!

[White Blade]

Kender and Goblins are Chaotic Good, and Elves and dwarves are lawful evil. Got it!

If Goblins and Kender are amicably running their societies in isolation through social pressure and elves and dwarves are aloof and biased against other races, than yes. I see your argument though.

Society A is, in my mind, a very small village full of lawful good people. It functions on social boundaries, not on violence, and people pretty much operate on a family-esque, "Let's look out for one another" ethic. I suppose they might be neutral or evil, if they respond poorly towards outsiders, but I think they probably have a very strong moral compass to function with a society like the one they have.

Society B is mostly just... racist. Its hard to peg an alignment from, "Educated and racist" but I'd probably tag them at lawful evil, with plenty of room for movement based on their preferences.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Kender and Goblins are Chaotic Good, and Elves and dwarves are lawful evil. Got it!

I'd like to mention that there is arguably a difference between racism as an attitude, like in the case of elves and dwarves, and instituting racism as legal policy, as in the case of Society B. Elves don't like orcs, but they'll generally let them hang around if they're not doing the sort of thing that orcs are expected to do. They may even be well-treated by an elven community if they're good-natured and don't cause a lot of trouble. Society B(Elven Variant) would automatically ostracize any orc, possibly force them into servitude, and no amount of worth-proving would change that.

[Mastikator]

A is lawful good, no formal rules, but there are unwritten rules that everyone obey and enforce and enjoy, people value justice and equality above all else and individualism is non-existent.

B is lawful evil.

[AttilaTheGeek]

If nothing else, this thread illustrates well why D&D alignment is not a useful tool.

Yes, exactly. At the risk of turning this into an alignment fixes thread, I'd like to link an alignment fix that I think expands the nine traditional alignments to cover more realistic grey areas in an effective and meaningful way: Active and Passive Alignments, by this forum's very own Valadil. In that system, each alignment component is split into one of two parts, active or passive. Active alignments are written with a capital letter and show that a character will go out of their way to promote that alignment. Passive alignments, on the other hand, are written with a lowercase letter and show that the character thinks or feels in accordance with that component without going out of their way to promote it. For example, Hayley Starshine's alignment might be cG (passive Chaotic, active Good) because she might believe that there should be fewer laws, but she doesn't go out of her way to break rules (passive Chaos) and she does go out of her way to help people (active Good).

Under that alignment system, I would call the first society passive Neutral, active Good. They don't like or dislike rules (Neutral), and they don't try to enforce the balance between Law and Chaos (passive Neutral). Not only do they also believe in equality (Good), they also go out of their way to encourage good behavior and, by the sound of it, help people in need (active Good). However, depending on someone's political beliefs, they could call it anywhere from nG to ce.

I would call the society actively Lawful and passively Evil, but they could also be called actively Lawful and actively Evil.

[JusticeZero]

As an Alignment Physicalist, I do not think that the alignment system needs fixing. In any case, we don't have all that much to go on. Still, you don't need formal law writing for a community of less than a thousand people. There are actually a few organizations and cultural groups that function by capping their size accordingly and performing a planned mitosis when they get too big - when the population gets to a certain point, they pick out a few hundred people and send them away to form a new community somewhere else.

[Winter_Wolf]

Both societies come across as LN to me. Sure racism is bad, but having lived in several openly racist and stratified societies personally, I can't in good conscious call them "evil". Society A on the other hand uses shaming as a way to enforce compliance and status quo. If anything I'd prefer to live in society B because it isn't trying to hide behind a veneer, which based on the OP description is what society A appears to be doing. Frankly it isn't that hard to operate in a society like B if you pick up a few tricks and can adapt and improvise, but society A haa a kind of quiet paranoia and desperation if you're not cleaving unto the accepted norm.

[Libertad]

Guess what? Those two societies I did not make up.

Society A is the theoretical framework of traditional anarchism in how they imagine an ideal society to operate.

Society B is derived from a patchwork collection of "high elves" from popular campaign settings. Silvanesti elves from Dragonlance, the Complete Book of Elves from 2nd Edition, Gold Elves from Forgotten Realms, etc.

I understand that there are problems with assigning alignments to entire societies, or providing such a brief snapshot of both, but both groups in D&D are traditionally chaotic-aligned. In the case of "high elves," good even.

In spite of Society A not having a central authority or hierarchy, many of you (on these boards and elsewhere) placed them as a non-chaotic option, even though a popular interpretation of Lawfulness involves this.

My book-to-be specifically is called Death to Alignment! A set of variant rules options and changes to eliminate alignment as a game concept from Pathfinder while still retaining its more popular tropes (virtuous paladins, demonic hordes, etc). To that end I was planning on using this thought experiment (just the questions, not the responses) in it to show readers the shortcomings of alignment, both in the game and in applying real-world values.

[JusticeZero]

I don't disagree with you. That said, i've definitely noted a couple of theoretical constructions for dealing with alignment issues. For instance, some of us have come down firmly into the camp of physicalism, and simply state that alignment is a black-and-white abstraction which need not necessarily link up to modern morality, and furthermore, acknowledges the existence of bad Good people and good Evil people. Others are consequentialists who agonize far more about how to measure alignment and have the most trouble with tags like "Always Evil". Usually this is somewhat tempered by archetypalistic assumptions of a dominant cultural structure, but this is always subject to issues of determining the values of morality in spite of vague and contradictory guidelines.

Also, I have always considered stereotypical Elven societies to have strong LE leanings on account of how they are always described as insulating themselves from problems and sneering at the lesser races. They only seem to be linked popularly to Chaos or Good because trees, a very poor justification which presumably ties back to the pastoralist leanings of the original source material. Additionally, a lot of classical anarchism has to rely on a strict set of rules to maintain the anarchism. The fact that you are talking about a society at all makes it hard to be chaotic.