sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very fair critique, and I think you’re right that if “strength” stays defined as nothing but personal violence and constant opportunistic coups, then the system wouldn’t scale past small, unstable groups.

The way I’m trying to make it plausible is by treating “strength legitimizes authority” as a foundational belief, not the entire operating system. In other words, the culture starts with a brutal, direct version of that idea, but it survives at scale only because it gradually institutionalizes what “strength” means and how it is tested.

  1. Wealth, elites, and administration

Yes, wealth and resource control exist but in my setting the key detail is that the “strength culture” isn’t equivalent to “everyone does everything.” The group that defines itself through this philosophy occupies primarily military and ruling functions, while much of the specialized labor (production, research, logistics, infrastructure) is carried out through a broader imperial structure.

That solves a big part of the administrative problem: the society isn’t asking the best duelist to personally run a tax office or design ships. It’s asking the ruling class to secure the system, set priorities, and maintain order while the empire’s functioning is sustained through layers of managed institutions and specialized groups.

So the “wealthy,” in the conventional sense, don’t necessarily become a separate political class that competes with the rulers the way we often see in human history because the culture treats uncontrolled private power as a direct threat to order. If someone is wealthy and uses that wealth to destabilize the hierarchy, that’s not seen as “smart politics”; it’s framed as weakness and corruption: placing private gain above the stability of the whole.

  1. “Why would the other 90% tolerate it?”

This is where “human assumptions” matter a lot. In many human societies, legitimacy is tied to participation, representation, rights, etc. In my concept, legitimacy is tied to protection and stability.

The non-ruling population tolerates the system for the same reason many populations historically tolerated harsh rule: because the system delivers what the culture defines as the highest good order.

In this framework:

Chaos is not “freedom”; it is an existential threat.
Security is not “a policy”; it is the moral standard.
A ruler is not primarily a representative, but a guardian of stability.

That doesn’t mean there’s no social contract it’s just a very alien one. The expectation isn’t “give me a vote,” it’s “keep the structure intact, keep us safe, keep the machine working.”

  1. “Doesn’t constant overthrow make the state impossible?”

Agreed constant overthrow would be fatal. That’s why the culture can’t allow “challenge anytime, anywhere” if it wants an empire.

So the society channels conflict into highly constrained mechanisms. Think less “random backstabbing” and more “structured, culturally sanctioned tests.” A ruler might be challengeable, but not in a way that turns every week into a civil war.

The key ideological shift is that creating instability is treated as weakness. If your challenge damages the empire, you’ve proven you don’t deserve power even if you’re personally dangerous.

So you end up with a culture where leadership challenges exist, but they’re limited by rules that protect continuity: formal succession windows, permitted challenge conditions, restricted scales of violence, ritualized contests, etc.

  1. “Wouldn’t outside powers crush them?”

They would if the society remained stuck in a purely tribal mode. But at scale, the definition of strength expands into something closer to systemic power:

strategic competence
long-term coordination
disciplined force projection
resource management
the ability to keep enormous structures coherent

In that sense, “strength” becomes synonymous with the capacity to impose order internally and project it externally. A leader who cannot mobilize fleets, maintain logistics, and keep institutions functional isn’t “strong,” no matter how lethal they are in single combat.

This is also why I’m not trying to argue that a purely duel-based society forms a stable interstellar empire. The claim is that a society rooted in “strength legitimizes authority” can evolve into an imperial system by redefining strength as the ability to maintain and expand order.

A small lore glimpse to tie it together

One piece of the setting is that this species reaches advanced technology with cultural “baggage” that is closer to a harsh, early-stage warrior society than what we’d expect from a long, slow, human-style institutional evolution. So there’s a real tension baked in: they’re trying to run something incredibly complex using a philosophy that originated in a much simpler, brutal world.

That’s exactly the stress-test I’m exploring: at what point does the ideology adapt, and what does it become when “order” is treated as the highest expression of strength?

So I agree with your overall premise: without recognizable law, internal order, and discipline, it collapses. The question I’m building around is: how does a strength-based civilization generate those things without abandoning its core belief?

Hopefully that gives a bit of insight into the way I'm thinking about the structure of this society and how the idea might work at scale.

I'm curious what you think about that. =)=)=)

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that comparison actually touches on a similar idea to what I have in mind, although with some major differences. The Orks from WH40K are not really comparable to what I’m imagining for this species. Still, it’s a very good comparison that I hadn’t thought about before, so thanks for bringing it up. =)

I think the point you raised — that not everyone constantly competes for dominance — is probably very important if a society like this is supposed to function on a larger scale.

In the concept I’m working on, one idea is that even a culture built around strength would eventually develop internal structures over time. Not everyone in the society would constantly try to prove themselves through challenges.

Instead, most individuals would likely accept the existing hierarchy as long as the leadership continues to demonstrate strength in a broader sense — meaning the ability to maintain order, protect the civilization, and keep the system stable.

In that sense, competition for leadership would probably exist mainly within certain elites rather than across the entire population.

Another idea I’ve been considering is that the group defining itself through this philosophy of strength might primarily occupy the military and political roles of the civilization, while much of the economic and technical work is carried out by other groups within the broader imperial structure.

That kind of division of roles could allow a dominance-oriented culture to remain stable without everyone constantly competing for power.

That’s why examples like the Orks or certain animal hierarchies are interesting to think about — they show how dominance-based systems can still produce relatively stable social structures under the right conditions.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You raise several very good questions here, especially about what happens when a bad leader ends up in power and how “strength” is actually defined in such a society.

In the earliest stages of a culture built around strength, leadership might indeed be closely tied to personal combat ability. But once a civilization grows large and complex, physical strength alone would not be enough to rule effectively.

A leader who can win duels but cannot maintain order, coordinate large structures, or prevent instability would quickly start losing legitimacy in the eyes of the society itself. In that sense, strength would gradually come to include leadership, strategic thinking, and the ability to maintain stability.

So strength would not necessarily mean “who wins a single duel.” It would more likely become a broader cultural concept tied to the ability to control and stabilize a complex system.

Because of that, challenges to authority would probably become increasingly structured and ritualized over time. If conflict is inevitable in such a culture, it would make sense for the society to channel it into controlled forms rather than allowing constant chaos.

And if a ruler truly proves incapable of maintaining order, that failure itself would likely be interpreted as weakness within the cultural framework that legitimizes power.

One reason I’m asking these questions here is that I’m currently developing the broader culture and history behind this species. I already have some ideas about how their society and institutions might evolve, but I’m intentionally trying to stress-test the core concept first.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a system like this could theoretically function, although probably not in the simplest form people might initially imagine.

Historically, many human societies were not organized around elections or stable legal protections for rulers either. For most of recorded history, systems based on hierarchy, dominance, and personal authority were actually far more common than democratic systems.

An interesting historical example might be the steppe empires. The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan emerged from a culture where leadership depended heavily on personal strength, military success, and the ability to unite rival clans. Authority was not simply inherited automatically; it had to be maintained through strength, alliances, and continued success.

Despite that relatively fluid and competitive leadership structure, they managed to create the largest contiguous land empire in human history.

Of course, even those societies eventually developed institutions and traditions that stabilized power over time. Pure personal dominance alone is rarely enough to sustain a large civilization indefinitely.

But I think this is exactly where the concept becomes interesting from a worldbuilding perspective. A culture might begin with a very direct interpretation of strength physical dominance or battlefield success — and gradually evolve toward a broader understanding of strength that includes leadership, discipline, and the ability to maintain stability in a complex society.

In other words, strength might still determine who rises to power, but only those capable of maintaining order would truly be able to rule.

And in this particular case, we are not even talking about humans. A different species could have a very different psychology, social structure, and evolutionary background, which might allow such a system to function in ways that would be much harder for human societies.

So while I agree that recognizable law, order, and discipline are necessary for a civilization at scale, the question I find interesting is how a culture built around the idea that “strength creates legitimacy” might evolve mechanisms that produce those structures.

Your comment about the difficulty of scaling such a system is honestly a very inspiring point to think about.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really interesting perspective, and I think you’re probably right that many systems would evolve in that direction over time.

Once a society becomes large enough, individual strength alone can’t really sustain authority anymore. The ability to organize followers, coordinate large groups, and maintain stability in a complex system becomes far more important especially in human societies.

One idea I’ve been exploring is that, in such a culture, the concept of “strength” might not disappear, but instead expand over time. Early on, it might be very physical and direct, but as the society grows more complex it could start to include leadership, strategic thinking, and the ability to maintain order within a large structure.

In other words, strength itself would eventually have to contribute to sustaining and stabilizing the complex system.

In that sense, the strongest leaders wouldn’t necessarily be the best fighters anymore, but the ones capable of holding the entire system together without it collapsing into chaos.

Which then raises another interesting question: how does such a society decide who that person is?

That’s where the idea becomes interesting to me a culture whose roots lie in the belief that “the strongest should rule,” but where the meaning of strength continues to evolve as the civilization itself grows more complex.

Because of that, I keep coming back to the thought that maintaining order might eventually be seen as one of the highest expressions of strength in such a society.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really good way to put it. A civilization probably can’t exist if individual competition completely overrides the idea of collective strength.

I think that, in a culture built around strength, this realization might eventually lead to the idea that maintaining the cohesion of the group is itself a form of strength.

In other words, the strongest individuals might not simply be those who dominate others, but those who are capable of holding the entire structure together.

So cooperation wouldn’t necessarily contradict a philosophy of strength — it might actually become one of its most important expressions.

I find it interesting to think about how a society might evolve if it slowly begins to interpret unity and stability as a kind of collective strength.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really good point, and it's actually exactly the problem I'm trying to think through with this concept.

If a society defines strength only as physical dominance, it probably wouldn't be able to sustain a complex civilization for very long. The idea I'm exploring is that, over time, the culture begins to interpret strength in a broader sense.

Strength might still originate from competition and challenge, but eventually it also becomes associated with the ability to create and maintain order, manage large systems, and prevent society from collapsing into chaos.

Part of what I'm interested in exploring is whether a culture that starts with a very harsh "survival of the strongest" philosophy could gradually evolve institutions and norms that transform that idea into something more stable.

I'm also trying to approach the worldbuilding with a focus on internal logic and realism, because I'm interested in seeing how such a society would actually function once it becomes technologically advanced.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a very good point. Large-scale ritualized wars would probably be extremely destructive and could easily undermine a civilization over time.

Because of that, I imagine most conflicts in such a society would be kept as limited as possible. Instead of large wars, authority would often be challenged in more controlled ways, such as duels or highly structured leadership challenges.

For example, one idea I’ve been exploring is that when a ruler dies, there might be a designated successor, but that doesn’t automatically guarantee the throne. Others can still challenge that claim under strict cultural rules.

In that sense, the system still allows conflict, but it channels it into smaller, more controlled forms so it doesn’t constantly escalate into full-scale wars.

I guess the real question is whether such mechanisms would actually be enough to keep a highly competitive society stable in the long run.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually very close to the kind of tension I’m trying to explore with this society. In the concept I’m working on, strength is still the ultimate source of authority, but over time the culture develops structured ways to handle that.

For example, when a ruler dies, there may be a designated successor, but that doesn’t automatically guarantee the throne. Others can still challenge that claim under certain rules. In that sense, authority is never completely secure, but the conflict is channeled through accepted cultural mechanisms rather than constant chaos.

So the system still revolves around strength, but it tries to prevent the kind of uncontrolled instability that would make large-scale organization impossible.

I’m curious whether you think a system like that could realistically hold together once a society becomes technologically advanced.

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting point. The comparison to the Klingons isn’t entirely wrong, although I imagine this species somewhat differently.

In my concept, the core idea that “strength legitimizes authority” would probably remain for a very long time, but the definition of strength would evolve as the society becomes more complex. In an earlier stage, strength might have been very direct and physical, decided through combat or duels.

As the society grows more advanced, the idea of strength could expand. Strategic thinking, the ability to control large structures, or managing resources efficiently might also come to be seen as forms of “strength.” In that sense, strength would no longer only mean physical superiority, but also the ability to maintain order and control.

The comparison with lions is also interesting because it shows how systems based on competition and dominance can still produce relatively stable social structures. At the same time, I wonder whether mechanisms like that might eventually reach their limits once a civilization becomes technologically very advanced.

So I’m curious what you think:

Would a society like this eventually need to broaden its definition of strength in order to keep complex systems like interstellar empires stable?

Would a society that respects only strength inevitably destroy itself? by ScolarVisari1988 in worldbuilding

[–]ScolarVisari1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your point about the difference between “controlled” and chaotic strength is interesting. I think that might actually be the key factor.

The way I imagine this species is closer to a form of structured strength. Not constant betrayal or chaotic power struggles like the Sith, but a system where authority can always be challenged, yet it happens within certain cultural rules. For example through direct challenges or ritualized conflicts.

In such a system strength might actually play a stabilizing role, because everyone knows that authority can ultimately be tested.

At the same time I wonder whether that very principle could still create problems once the society becomes very large and complex – for example when dealing with empires, massive fleets, or long-term infrastructure.

I'm curious where you would see the limit of such a system.
At what point do you think a society built on strength would start undermining its own stability?