D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[MGibster]

I define good and evil in the OP, which is from the 3.5 definition (via Wikipedia), mainly because the 5e descriptions are so tepid (or I would have used them instead).

I think the d20 SRD might be a better source. If harming or killing others is evil, then all D&D parties are evil. The whole game revolves around killing and harming other people and creatuers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Given that in (especially older) D&D positioning, Good isn't necessarily about good, but about hurting and beating back Evil*, paying evil unto Evil, it's easy to see the outsider's view that they're not actually ideological forces, but opposing teams, one of which is admittedly full of bad guys and the other full of bad guys justifying themselves.

At which point, you obviously don't want Evil to win, but there's a reasonable fear that once Evil is gone, 'Good' will start rationalizing killing Neutral next.

*And even with 3.5 definitions, the example character for Lawful Good, which 3x treats and implies as best good, is Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy. Because mercilessness is clearly a quality of someone who respects the life and the dignity of anyone.

 

[lall]

I think that statement requires some unpacking… concern for the well-being and/or happiness of others would seem directly antithetical to the practice of coercing others into forced labor…

The forced labor is having to give two flips about other people’s problems and then possibly having to help them out rather than doing what you’d rather be doing. Those of a slave mindset have less of an issue with this loss of freedom.

 

[squibbles]

Really, there's a wide (perhaps nearly infinite?) number of ways a "muscular neutral" might not want Good to be triumphant:

• Might have issues with Divine forces of Good being intolerant.
• Or not respecting / rewarding personal effort sufficiently
• Or just annoying
• Or perhaps trying to stifle innate feelings / inclinations (like anger) where they are not altruistic.
• Or maybe they feel that capital G Good societies with excessive altruism feel unnatural / alien
• Or are cosmically unnatural

Maybe at a certain point everything is destructive. When idealistic societies have too much power they start restricting freedoms or insist on certain ideals that are impossible for the average person to fulfill so then it starts to morph into something evil. So it's just a cycle. [...]

These responses, I think, are rejecting the premise in the "fudging "Good" somehow" sense.

Capital "G" Good isn't intolerant, stifling, idealism or 'told you so' obnoxiousness, it is genuine compassion for other people and care for their well-being in the deepest sense... at least as I've defined it in the premise of the thought experiment.

You'd have to be pretty rebellious to hate the system and want to tear it all down, if the powers that be love you and want you to be happy. Or, dare I say... Evil.

[...] There's probably some ideal balance between the rise and fall of both evil and good where most things benefit from the balance. [...]

Here's the rub, though: if that would true, wouldn't cosmic good itself prefer this balance--since most things benefit?

 

[Zeromaru X]

what justifies a position of muscular neutrality?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

These responses, I think, are rejecting the premise in the "fudging "Good" somehow" sense.

Capital "G" Good isn't intolerant, stifling, idealism or 'told you so' obnoxiousness, it is genuine compassion for other people and care for their well-being in the deepest sense... at least as I've defined it in the premise of the thought experiment.

You'd have to be pretty rebellious to hate the system and want to tear it all down, if the powers that be love you and want you to be happy. Or, dare I say... Evil.

My point is it STARTS capital G good. But it slowly morphs. It's a cycle. It doesn't really answer WHY good is bad. But it answers why Neutral don't want Good to reign supreme. Because once it has power and starts turning bad, it's too difficult to bring back.

Here's the rub, though: if that would true, wouldn't cosmic good itself prefer this balance--since most things benefit?

No, because it doesn't follow the ideal. The ideal is that the lamb sleeps together with the lion. That everyone is happy. Pure good is unsatisfied if anyone is being treated unfairly. And, in fighting for that ideal, it causes all kinds of wars, death and destruction as it goes about wiping out evil.

This premise, though, assumes that Neutral is a form of good because it's looking to find a realistic ideal where the most people can benefit. Why should neutral care if people benefit? So it's probably a more metaphysical things...idk...

 

[Vaalingrade]

The forced labor is having to give two flips about other people’s problems and then possibly having to help them out rather than doing what you’d rather be doing. Those of a slave mindset have less of an issue with this loss of freedom.

That's... certainly an outlook...

 

[Charlaquin]

The forced labor is having to give two flips about other people’s problems and then possibly having to help them out rather than doing what you’d rather be doing. Those of a slave mindset have less of an issue with this loss of freedom.

Could you maybe rephrase this? I don’t think I’m understanding your argument.

 

[squibbles]

Is there a version of muscular neutrality that is actively rejecting our world as a battleground for distant cosmic forces?

The gods have their fights, and therse get played out through their pawns (believer/adherents), and it takes heroism to say that they ought not take place here. Neutrality is rejecting the premise of extraplanar influence and any sense of cosmic right and wrong. One that heroically rejects the external and fundamentally embraces this world. [...]

Ha! love it. I didn't consider militant atheism as a form of muscular neutrality rejecting Good. Great response.

Would it be against the premise of the thread to suggest that muscular neutrality be strictly an ideological stance held by mortal beings, and not have any metaphysical validity? That is to say, neutrality between the cosmic forces of good and evil is not really beneficial to the cosmos, but that doesn’t stop some people from thinking it is and acting on that belief?

Writing that out, I guess it does kinda seem against the premise.

Yeah, the goal is to come up with a muscular neutrality that isn't just wrongheaded on its face.

This is the dilemma you set up in the other thread, so I'm curious to see if it's a circle you can square.

Given that in (especially older) D&D positioning, Good isn't necessarily about good, but about hurting and beating back Evil*, paying evil unto Evil, it's easy to see the outsider's view that they're not actually ideological forces, but opposing teams, one of which is admittedly full of bad guys and the other full of bad guys justifying themselves.

At which point, you obviously don't want Evil to win, but there's a reasonable fear that once Evil is gone, 'Good' will start rationalizing killing Neutral next.

*And even with 3.5 definitions, the example character for Lawful Good, which 3x treats and implies as best good, is Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy. Because mercilessness is clearly a quality of someone who respects the life and the dignity of anyone.

Oh, it's very easy to poke holes in D&D's conception of alignment, as Snarf did in his recent retrospective, especially when it completely undercuts itself. But for the purposes of the thought experiment, lets treat Good as though it really is Good.

 

[MGibster]

I really do wantto engage with the premise of the OP rather than picking over what exactly is good or evil. While I find alignment is ridiculous when trying to apply it to the real world, I think a fantasy setting where concepts like Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral, etc., etc. are palpable forces is actually pretty interesting. It's one of the things that made D&D into the D&D we know and love today.