PDA

View Full Version : DM Help What is the goal of a society? (worldhelp)



ddude987
2015-07-09, 10:32 PM
Hello all!

I have been doing some serious thinking and world building for my campaign setting which I plan to run in the fall. The rules will be 3.5 and the goal is to be a sandbox campaign, with things happening that a regular world would experience. It is set in the beginnings of an age after a golden age of society where magic is scary and most nations that are around are very newly created. After thinking up races and cultures I've come to construct a map of some nations that exist.

That all being fine and dandy, I arrived at a question... what is the goal of a society? What do nations (especially where the known world is full of new nations) want to do? I realize this is dependent on cultures, terratory, terrain, et cetra... but just in general (or with specific criteria i.e. warring people on the plains try to expand their territory) what is the goal of a society?

elliott20
2015-07-09, 10:53 PM
I know this isn't exactly on topic but... I'm having a hard time understanding your campaign pitch here.

I get the 3.5 + sandbox bit, but what about the whole real world experience thing?

From the description it seems like it's basically a post-apocalyptic game where civilization is rebuilding itself after some cataclysmic event that wiped out most of the older governments / institutions. Am I in the ball park here?

Anyway, as for your question, I'm guessing you're asking this because you want to set the agendas of your new villages / countries / etc. And I believe you would be right in assuming that the technically correct, but not very helpful answer is, "it depends on a lot of things".

However, the primary reason that people began to band together in the first place is pretty simple, I think, and that's security / survival. By pooling resources together, you can better help survive the harsh environments you live in. In a setting where civilization is JUST re-emerging from the ashes of a post apocalyptic world, I can totally see this as being the case for a lot of smaller settlements, living on the edge of civilization and away from any established authority.

Nations, however, are a different beast. While survival can certainly be part of the equation still, generally the size of a nation is such that the interests of those who administer the nation is far enough from those they govern that primary agendas will begin to differ, and then you start seeing things like ambition playing a role in decisions made.

It all depends on the context of the nation, I guess. err... sorry if my answer is not very helpful.

golentan
2015-07-10, 12:22 AM
The general goal of society is "I don't wanna get killed, and I wanna eat, and both those things are easier around other people."

Sometimes (feudalism) this takes the form of "Give me food and I won't kill you with my weapons/magic, and will even defend you from people who would." Sometimes it takes the form of a social compact with rules and laws about who's allowed to kill people and under what circumstances and how you trade food. Sometimes it's "Hey, I killed your doodz, give me food." Sometimes it's "I will pay you food to protect me from that guy's doodz." Usually food is not the end all be all when people realize they can also benefit with furniture and toys and stuff. But that's the basic.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-10, 12:46 AM
How reductionist do you want to get? Because ultimately the fundamental goal of any society is "minimize mortality rates, at least among those whom the Powers That Be care about."

AceOfFools
2015-07-10, 11:54 AM
In no particular order:
> Recover lost technology and magic
> Wealth (natural resources, trade routes, skilled crafters, slaves...)
> Security (treaty, arms, intelligence assets, soldiers, buffer territory)
> Prestige (art, education centers, best/coolest armies, territories, imports or exports)
> Social change (civil rights movements, revolts, moves to expel certain minorities)

Also think about the individuals that direct or control resources want, as that can and should impact how societis play out. "We want a worthy princess as a bride for our beloved Prince." "The Duchess's vendetta is stupid, but whatshee pays her soldiers is too good to pass up."

Your goal should be to create a dynamic backdrop with many different conflicts to generate hooks that the PCS can get involved in or exploit for their own gain. I deliberately chose "good" and "bad" goals in my examples so there are things the PCS can either aid or opose.

Gain also doesn't have to be financial gain, "If I can get access to the Isluland government records, I may finally know where to look for my list sister."

Slipperychicken
2015-07-10, 11:56 AM
Society is composed of an enormous number of groups and organizations with often-contradictory interests and goals, whose methods often work against their stated intentions. To say they all have the same set of goals which they consistently work to advance is to lie to oneself.

Generally, I think some basic ideas could be things like:

Protect favored group-members from harm, organize to ensure the continued security of the group
Maintain the status quo, both socially, politically, and economically.
Increase the wealth of the upper classes, whether by generating new wealth and exploiting resources or trade, or by diverting it from lower classes.
Interact (peaceably or otherwise) with outside groups to improve the wealth and well-being of the upper classes
Perpetuate and spread the group's values and ideals, usually by extolling said values and punishing or shunning those who are thought to purposely deviate from them.

elliott20
2015-07-10, 12:23 PM
Society is composed of an enormous number of groups and organizations with often-contradictory interests and goals, whose methods often work against their stated intentions. To say they all have the same set of goals which they consistently work to advance is to lie to oneself.

Generally, I think some basic ideas could be things like:

Protect favored group-members from harm, organize to ensure the continued security of the group
Maintain the status quo, both socially, politically, and economically.
Increase the wealth of the upper classes, whether by generating new wealth and exploiting resources or trade, or by diverting it from lower classes.
Interact (peaceably or otherwise) with outside groups to improve the wealth and well-being of the upper classes
Perpetuate and spread the group's values and ideals, usually by extolling said values and punishing or shunning those who are thought to purposely deviate from them.

My take away from this post is that it would probably be helpful to define the different groups within the community, with some broad strokes on what their agendas are. Maybe a shorthand format of some sort to help keep them organized.

peasantry
representative: village elder Taril, commoner 3
agendas
1. economic stability
2. social stability

war hawks
representative: prince Arturius, 3rd son of the great King Darius, Noble 12
agendas
1. increase glory for the kingdom
2. increase power for the kingdom
3. increase influence of the group
4. achieve 1 and 2 via means of military conquest

merchant class
representative: Malchius, the Mercantile Guild Master, Noble 7
agendas
1. economic expansion
2. push more kingdom resources into trade development
3. prevent events that destabilizes trade relations with other kingdoms. (i.e. war)

something like this would give you a good starting point on how to structure the events of the game.

Slipperychicken
2015-07-10, 01:02 PM
My take away from this post is that it would probably be helpful to define the different groups within the community, with some broad strokes on what their agendas are. Maybe a shorthand format of some sort to help keep them organized.


That sounds like a great idea to get more detailed about it. One may also bear in mind that groups are not homogenous, and individuals or sub-groups often pursue agendas which are contrary to group interests (i.e. "Secure retirement" and "Send children to school" may contradict with "Bring criminals to justice" when a gangster offers to bribe a poor policeman).

Eisenheim
2015-07-10, 04:57 PM
Doesn't seem like anyone's made this explicit: societies don't have goals. Individuals within those societies have goals, and they acquire power in various ways, including money, office and the forming of organizations with others who share a particular goal or set of goals, in order to further those goals.

Vitruviansquid
2015-07-10, 06:55 PM
It's not so much that people create society in order to achieve a goal, but that society is the name we give to phenomena that arise because people are together. There is no explicit purpose shared by all cases.

A lot of societies may offer perks like increased stability, protection from violence or starvation, the opportunity to specialize labor, and so on, but take away any of those, and you still have a society.

As the writer of the setting, you decide what the point of societies are in your setting, and in doing so, decide how you will portray human nature.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-07-10, 06:58 PM
A goal that hasn't been mentioned yet is legacy.

If these nations are young, they're going to care a lot about the future. Kings generally want to create or further a dynasty rather than just themselves.

Look at the so called dark ages when lots of new kingdoms arose on former Roman territory. Looking at a map you might see only one nation that's familiar to the modern world (probably the Franks), the others all had varying degrees of transience. A new nation doesn't just want power now, it wants power that lasts. In times of instability nations can be born and destroyed very quickly.

Looking at history, young dynasties are very vulnerable. People followed the Habsburgs and the Capets because they had been around for centuries, Hideyoshi rose from nobody to the most powerful man in Japan but nobody cared about his son once he died.

Another thing that's really important for a young nation is creating an identity. They want to create myths, draw connections to the past, write their own version of history. They might be competing with each other not just for resources but for the best bards and poets to sing about them. They might want the best fashion designers for their national dress, the best artists to design their flags and coins. They might want to take a territory because it contains a landmark that can help define their nation's character. They might want to steal the bones of an ancient hero so they can claim him as an ancestor or obtain the crown of an ancient kingdom so they can claim legitimacy.


Doesn't seem like anyone's made this explicit: societies don't have goals.

Societies don't usually have goals, but there's no reason why they can't have them. A group doesn't need its members to be unanimous to have a character as a whole. A group can have goals that any individual member would oppose if removed from the group. A group can work towards something that none of its components really care about or believe in. One individual can enforce his will on a group and shape its members thoughts and actions.

NichG
2015-07-10, 09:22 PM
I'm running a long-timescale nation-building game (every 3 sessions is 15 years), and I'm very interested in questions like this - not for NPCs so much as for what kinds of goals the PCs who control the nations might find compelling in the long-run. Its too easy to fall into the 'a threat arises, PC nations respond to deal with the threat, new status quo' loop, so I'm always looking for interesting potential goals to seed the world with that the players might pick up and run with if it catches their interest.

erikun
2015-07-12, 06:42 PM
what is the goal of a society?
The general goal of a society is to promote the well-being of its members and protect them from dangers. At the most basic, this means not letting them murder each other, not letting them be murdered, and making sure they have basic necessities.

Any society that allows its members to starve or be killed is not going to last long, through depopulation if nothing else.

Beyond that, it will mostly be the goals that the members of a society desires. If the people of a society desire more land to thrive on, then the society will be expansionist. If the people of a society desire safety, then they will either build walls or hunt down threats. If the people of a society desire wealth, then the society will be about collecting wealth for its members. If the people of a society have some sort of ideology, then the society will be about spreading that ideology or making it happen.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-07-14, 06:56 AM
Any society that allows its members to starve or be killed is not going to last long, through depopulation if nothing else.

Transient societies do exist.

A young society that simply doesn't work and is falling apart can be an interesting setting.

Mastikator
2015-07-14, 07:40 AM
Societies don't have goals, societies ARE the goals.

People come together to form societies to help each other and help themselves to each other, those who lead or rule said society act to either benefit themselves or their society, they only help other societies if they think it will reciprocate. What counts as "benefit" is sometimes subjective, and you have a lot of space for political nuance there.
The goal of a society is the benefit of those who live in the society.

You know, more resources, more land, more security, more power, alliances. What do nations want? In the words of Petyr Baelish "Everything"

Reltzik
2015-07-14, 08:18 AM
Okay, ddude. The question you're asking is the sort of thing that someone could get a doctorate in sociology or social anthropology, write a life's work on, and only barely scratch the surface.

But let's see if I can't scratch the surface in a bit less time than that.

Nations care, first and foremost, about their own survival. This means that they spend most of their energy on strategies to achieve the following tasks: (1) don't get invaded and wiped out by their neighbors, (2) don't disintegrate due to internal feuding or preference for independence, and (3) see to the well-being of their people, at least to the degree of keeping all their citizens from being wiped out by plague, famine, or so on. (No citizens = no nation.) As nations are run by individuals or parties, there's generally a fourth task: (4) Advance the present leaders' personal objectives. Usually this involves keeping the present leaders in power and in the lap of luxury, but might also involve securing the dynasty, altruism towards the people, commissioning pretty art, spreading their personal philosophy to the people, or so on.

Most nations will come up with some set of laws or conventions that advance (in the minds of their authors) these objectives. Of particular interest will be settling disputes over things like property or land/water rights (objectives 2 and 3), ensuring resources and labor is diverted for government projects (objectives 1, 4, and possibly 3), establishing a military (objective 1) often through establishing a system of feudalism in which lords are receive special rights in return for military service and leadership (kind of objective 4 as well as 1), and improving the economy (objective 3, but with implications for objective 1, 2, and 4).

That doesn't mean the nations know HOW to go about those tasks. Sacrificing goats to prevent volcanoes from wiping everyone out doesn't necessarily work, but if the nation's leaders THINK it will work, it can become a national goal. Or if the people think they'll work, and the leaders decide it's worth the expense to kowtow to their beliefs and achieve Objective 4. Similarly, building great tombs for the leaders might be seen as giving them luxury in the afterlife or bringing blessings upon their survivors in this life, which would seem (if one believes it) to advance objectives 3 and 4.

A militaristic, expansive policy can be understood as a framework which some leaders regard as the best strategy for achieving these objectives. Objective 1 is achieved by conquering neighbors before they conquer you. Historically a foreign war stifles internal disputes (and moves a lot of hot-blooded types that might otherwise rebel to the front lines), and a war can provide a unified purpose to the people, advancing objective 2. Spoils from a successful war can enhance the lives of the people, achieving objective 3. And successful war can both make an unpopular ruler popular, and make the population respect and fear the military he might use to control them, while also making him very wealthy (objective 4).

So, national goals depend heavily on how the leaders (and the population supporting those leaders) view the world. These 4 objectives will remain in place, but there is room for a variety of strategies (and mistakes) regarding how best to achieve them. How YOUR fantasy country hopes to achieve them will depend heavily on its circumstances and how it views the world.

Jay R
2015-07-14, 09:43 AM
"[T]he goal of a society" is something that doesn't exist, except in the very rare cases of:
a. mind control.
b. extreme indoctrination from birth,
c. the presence of an immediate, society-level threat. (recovery from a large natural disaster, winning the current war, etc.).

In general, individuals have goals.

Charismatic individuals can get hundreds or thousands of people to share their goals, or a particular party or organization might convince a lot of people to join them, but just because they are all working on the Great Wall together, you can't assume they all share the goal of a 3,000 mile wall across China. Most of them are working for the money.

So the entire society might be working on the goal of the current ruler, but they don't inherently share it. The people who built the Great Pyramid didn't want a pyramid; they had no choice.

erikun
2015-07-15, 08:03 AM
Transient societies do exist.

A young society that simply doesn't work and is falling apart can be an interesting setting.
This seems to be - to make use of the phrase - the exception that proves the rule. That is, it is the sort of society which helps to show why allowing you populace to indescriminately murder each other is a terrible idea. It can be interesting, true, but it does so precisely because it is dysfunctional and falling apart.

I should note that the "members" of a society are not always going to be every single individual in it, though. A society which attacks others and takes on slaves, for example, is not necessarily going to treat its slaves as proper members. (Although any long-term enslavement would require some good treatment of them.)

Brookshw
2015-07-15, 08:49 AM
I'm skipping over what's being discussed to give you a few responses. Largely its going to boil down to two things no matter who you ask, property, and exercising power. When I say property I'm including people in that as that was historically a view used in classic philosophy (please don't confuse this with slavery or a view of people as things, its not edit: actually, do consider people as things, its simpler in the long run. Kinda like the sack of meat I see in the mirror is me and I own me).

How and what you can do is the simplest part, this is what exercising power here means.that's pretty straight forward. Property is much more complex, its not just who owns what but also what that ownership means.

I don't have time atm to write a dissertation on this but give these two things some thought, maybe read some Locke and Hobbes.

You're probably wondering about religion and culture, the trappings of society. Those usually stem from the two things I've already mentioned.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-07-15, 10:31 AM
I'd say societies do have goals, but they're extremely broad ones - namely survive, thrive and prosper.

Underneath those goals is where the psychology of those in charge comes into play - are they aggressive, manipulative or passive? Are they expansionist or isolationist? And, as pointed out earlier, there'll be groups within the society that have their own vision of how those three goals should be achieved, thus bringing power games into play.

AceOfFools
2015-07-15, 11:39 AM
I think people are missing the point a bit. To quote the OP:



I have been doing some serious thinking and world building for my campaign setting which I plan to run in the fall. The rules will be 3.5 and the goal is to be a sandbox campaign, with things happening that a regular world would experience. It is set in the beginnings of an age after a golden age of society where magic is scary and most nations that are around are very newly created. After thinking up races and cultures I've come to construct a map of some nations that exist...

In otherwords, dude is looking for inspiration for what to have specific societies do to drive a dynamic background & setting for a sandbox game.

Discussing the overall goals of society as an abstract concept has definite and direct merit, but we should also be looking to come up with "specific things that a society as a whole, or the individuals who wield societal-level influence want to create conflict, opertuniries and threats for the PCs can react to and interact with."

Things like
*"The leaders of city X have no magical talent and have been unable to hire any, and have decided that those who do use magic must be part of a conspiracy against them. They seek o
to bolster groups that have anti-magic sentiment to distract the sinister cabal arrayed against them, and create allies to counter magics obvious advantages."
*"The ruling council of nation Y grew out of band of mercenaris fighting off the worlds monsters and have concept of how to handle the civilian dissent their facing. They drum up a reasons to war with their neighbors in order to create an 'us vs them' mentality and keep support."
*"Children of Population Y were given to Nation Q as slaves to get them away from some danger and now they, an CG types in Q are trying to eliminate slavery and push for full integration of Qish Ys. This is complicated as the Yish nation that survived whatever danvery rebels only that Q refused to help them in a time of need, and are thus bitter enemies."

MrConsideration
2015-07-15, 06:11 PM
It's already been said, but to re-iterate: societies don't have goals. Societies are just what we call networks of individuals, and we ascribe them motives to simplify the narratives we're using to explain them. eg, 'Russia' was content to support the escalation of WWI because they saw it as an opportunity to gain a warm-water port in the Crimea. Well, certain Russians did - military planners, nationalists and members of the government. Your average serf probably couldn't care less- and his goals would be reduce taxes and earn a better life for his kids.

To help with OP's question, here are some 'sorts' of national/imperial aims with some examples:

- Imperial China: Largely wanted to promote a certain ethnic identity (Han) and protect their borders. They wanted to have other states accept that they were top-dog and pay tribute but were basically disinterested in external conquest.

- Roman Republic: Partician families want to conquer and subjugate foreign peoples to prove their commitment to the 'values' of Rome and earn status and wealth in treasure and slaves. External expansion was driven by internal competition.

- British Empire: Make sure no-one in Europe could challenge the Royal Navy, make sure no-one power (France until around 1860, then the main worry was Prussia/Germany) dominated Europe and therefore threatened British control of the world's trade.

- Aztec Empire: Conquer peoples and force them to give us sacrifices so that we can ensure the sun rises tomorrow. Deliberately provoke rebellion in order to get more sacrifices.

- German/Italian states before their unification: Unite all the people who spoke [language] into one state.

Obviously these are informed by certain combinations of politics, geography and culture, so it's up to you what the nations are like in campaigns. Areas of wide-open plains or steppe tend to incentivise nomadic lifestyles with raiding as the main expression of warfare, for example.

Endarire
2015-07-16, 10:52 PM
Each society wants to continue to exist and, if met with competition, wants to win.

Whyrocknodie
2015-07-17, 07:03 AM
To destroy the sun.

Berenger
2015-07-17, 10:48 AM
The goal of a society is to satisfy the needs of its members.

The needs of individuals are, according to Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, the following:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/675px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

Translated to tasks and institutions a society can provide*:

Self-actualization: Education and institutions that promote arts and science. Also organized religion or higher concepts, e.g. "democracy".

Esteem: A social system that allows to advance in station by personal merit. Protection of basic human dignity by law or custom.

Love: Can't really be provided by a state or larger society, except for the "belonging to a group" part.

Safety: Military, police, fire service and the like.

Physical: All regulations that ensure people have food and shelter. Prevention of diseases and famines.


* This is by no means a complete or scientific elaboration, just the first few thoughts that came to my mind.

Slipperychicken
2015-07-17, 11:34 AM
You know that Maslows hasn't been found to apply consistently in the real world? There are so many exceptions, caveats, and variations across age and culture that it's not widely used for practical purposes.

Berenger
2015-07-17, 12:07 PM
Yes, I study sociology and am aware of its flaws and limitations in the real world. But I reckon that it is a close enough approximation to be useful for RPG world building purposes. Sure, pointing the OP to some scientific works would yield him a more comprehensive view on the subject, but I considered this to be overkill and thus went for the simplification. I guess I shoud have pointed this out, however, so thanks.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-07-18, 05:49 PM
It'warm-water port in the Crimea.

Pretty sure you've got a mistake here.



So the entire society might be working on the goal of the current ruler, but they don't inherently share it. The people who built the Great Pyramid didn't want a pyramid; they had no choice.

Focusing on individuals misses a lot of factors. Groups have emergent behaviours as groups, they're not just the collection of the people in them.

For example, an artist might just want to paint, an artist in a society might want to win an art competition. Many roles held by individuals are impossible without other people (eg you can't be a father without having children). A leader might have no interest in being a leader, but have been forced into that role by others/circumstance.

Nationalism isn't just people being tricked by a charismatic autocrat, its patriotic individuals willing to give up all their individual desires for the prestige of the group. The leader might actually be powerless in the face of his nation's jingoism. She might have to do actions she knows are stupid because if she doesn't her people won't respect her any more and enemies within the country will move to replace her with someone more willing.

I sincerely doubt that the pyramid builders were angry that they'd played their part in making their nation the best monument builders in the world. There's always more going on than just the king's egoism.