D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[lall]

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

Good people have to do good things. Evil people often control others by murdering them, enslaving them, etc. In a way, both are pro-slavery. Neither are 100% pro-freedom. If good people were truly anti-slavery, there would be no compulsion to help others.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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

I believe they are trying to use a definition of slavery = potential obligations, and not slavery = owning people as property.

 

[abirdcall]

In the Great Wheel cosmology the evil outer planes are necessary for the multiverse.

Prime Material planes are made up of the influence of the alignment and elemental planes.

What would happen without the evil planes?

I think there is a strong case to characterize the Lady of Pain as a muscular neutral entity (and she has direct influence outside of Sigil as she intervenes to prevent destabilizing Wish spells). She forbids worship of her but that doesn't mean people won't be inspired by her.

 

[abirdcall]

Good people have to do good things. Evil people often control others by murdering them, enslaving them, etc. In a way, both are pro-slavery. Neither are 100% pro-freedom. If good people were truly anti-slavery, there would be no compulsion to help others.

That is really not what that word means.

What is 100% freedom? We all need to eat and have shelter. People need to cooperate to that end.

Good people don't compel others to help others so I think you're really out there on this.

 

[squibbles]

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.

Ah, ok, I think that's a good solution to the premise. Muscular neutrals have a (possibly) reasonable fear that once the Good folks are in control, they won't rule as advertised.

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...

So, neutrals as utilitarians to Good's deontologists. I think that's also a solution but, like the problem of evil I mentioned in the OP, it gets complicated, fiddly, and unhelpful for D&D pretty fast.

 

[lall]

Good people don't compel others to help others

That’s fine. They still have to think of others and possibly help them. Slaves.

 

[Zeromaru X]

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.

Well, that's one of my issues with alignment. That "Good" not good, it's just Evil with another name.

Anyways, on topic. I'm one of those who dislike the idea of "muscular neutrality," I just think it makes no sense. Good is Good and Evil is Evil in my view. The thing that "Good is not actually good but is actually a self-serving force that is as bad as Evil, and so there should be a force of the true heroic Neutrals to maintain balance" is one of the reasons I would never like Planescape and its Great Wheel. The World Axis Ruuuulz!

Ejem. That said, in my games I have this concept of "cosmic balance" or "universal homeostasis." In my game world, too much Darkness can destroy life, but too much Light can also be detrimental to life (too much sunlight can destroy the plantlife, even if the plants need light to survive). You can equate Light with Good and Evil with Darkness. Too much Good can lead to complacency, and complacency can lead to stagnation. No evolution, no progress. Eventually, it can lead to extinction, as life will not have will that may impulse it to forward developments.

So, while Good is still good and not mediocre "Evil in disguise", it would be a "too much Good is not a good thing". While Evil is obviously evil, and nobody would want that. That would give the muscular lukewarms... I mean, neutrals, a reason to do their neutral stuff.

 

[squibbles]

Good people have to do good things. Evil people often control others by murdering them, enslaving them, etc. In a way, both are pro-slavery. Neither are 100% pro-freedom. If good people were truly anti-slavery, there would be no compulsion to help others.

This comes back to definitions again, I think.

Part of the premise was that good represents "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

I think implicit in that formulation is that individuals aren't compelled do things--and certainly aren't compelled to think things--they don't want to do for the sake of being Good (beyond a 'do no harm' sort of obligation). To me that would be failing to treat others with dignity, or a society failing to treat its members with dignity.

If the concern is rather that, in an all Good world, all people would want to do Good all the time and that this represents some loss of freedom, I respectfully disagree. That seems to me to be well in line with dignity, autonomy, and free will.

 

[lall]

This comes back to definitions again, I think.

Part of the premise was that good represents "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

I think implicit in that formulation is that individuals aren't compelled do things they don't want to do for the sake of being Good (beyond a 'do no harm' sort of obligation). To me that would be failing to treat others with dignity, or a society failing to treat its members with dignity.

If the concern is rather that, in an all Good world, all people would want to do Good all the time and that this represents some loss of freedom, I respectfully disagree. That seems to me to be well in line with dignity, autonomy, and free will.

I’m down with only a “do no harm” definition of good. In fact, that’s basically my definition of good. Altruism is what inserts the obligation. If altruism is part of being good, then that tired hero that just wants to take a nap has to don their gear and go help that person in need, all to maintain their status as good. Doing no harm won’t cut it.

 

[abirdcall]

There is a conjecture that the Lady of Pain is so called and also causes pain because she believes that pain is what inspires all beliefs.

The tv show 'The Good Place' tackles this idea towards the end of the show.

Druids are often either neutral good, true neutral, or neutral evil and all are considered part of the community of druids. It could be argued that the true neutral druids are often 'muscular neutral' as they work to oppose that which will disrupt the homeostasis of their lands. Sometimes this involves opposing 'good' forces but they aren't evil for doing so.