D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[squibbles]

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.

To clarify the initial premise a bit:

A world where Good has won and the multiverse is under its rule doesn't mean that there can no longer exist people and creatures who are non-altruistic or even selfish and inclined to cruelty. Presumably, the Good rulers would permit those beings to exist and pursue their own ends too, provided they do no harm.

This all starts to feel uncomfortably utopian and implausible to me pretty quickly, but that's the premise of the thought experiment about what Good is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Even assuming we have a Good that is good and not a rationale for a game about home invasion of the unattractive, Neutral does not traditionally have a means of detecting it and thus only has a perspective based on the behavior of those who proclaim themselves as Good, which again puts us in a place of fearing that once Evil is done in, the buffer that keeps Good from killing you and taking your stuff is also gone.

Good and Evil have working friend-or-foe systems, but neutral is entirely blind in that respect and has to take peoples' word for it.

 

[lall]

To clarify the initial premise a bit:

A world where Good has won and the multiverse is under its rule doesn't mean that there can no longer exist people and creatures who are non-altruistic or even selfish and inclined to cruelty. Presumably, the Good rulers would permit those beings to exist and pursue their own ends too, provided they do no harm.

This all starts to feel uncomfortably utopian and implausible to me pretty quickly, but that's the premise of the thought experiment about what Good is.

That’s cool. Muscular N folks would oppose both enslavers and altruists in support of freedom.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Being good means you just want to help others without being compelled.

And you do it when you can, not against all odds no matter what. Altruism is not the total death of the self, just the acceptance of others outside of ourselves and those we consider 'ours'.

 

[lall]

Being good means you just want to help others without being compelled.

And you do it when you can, not against all odds no matter what. Altruism is not the total death of the self, just the acceptance of others outside of ourselves and those we consider 'ours'.

I’m okay with that. I guess it comes down to the definition of altruism. I would use a different word. It would be a shame if a bunch of do-gooders got mowed down by Team Muscular N due to poor word choice.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

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.

Depends what one means by "intolerant" I think. Societies in the real world are and have often been flawed; possessing widely different moral standards. For example, there are places where people are desperately poor and regularly engage in a variety of behaviors that are harmful to others, like petty theft, in an effort to feed themselves and their families. Then we have cases like Ancient Rome (arguably) that may have been fairly moral in many respects...but kept slaves or did a number of other things that we would consider vile and heinous by today's standards. It's hard for me personally to envision either of those things (widespread petty theft or slavery) existing in a capital G Good society. And if these harmful behaviors are NOT allowed in an objectively Good society I would expect there to be mechanisms to single them out and prevent them. But it's easy for me to envision a muscular neutral feeling sympathy for flawed members of flawed societies who are being judged for those harmful behaviors.

 

[squibbles]

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? [...]

This is a proper answer to the premise but, I feel, it's an unsatisfying one.

Why are things set up in a way that evil outer planes are necessary? We know (because we live in a multiverse without a great wheel) that this isn't literally physically necessary. So, did some callous creator decide it liked things this way (my answer #4), was this a mistake, or is there some in-universe rationale for why D&D existence needs to contain Evil?

[...] 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. [...]

This is a bit different from the Good/Evil dichotomy of the thought experiment, I think.

Would you make the case that "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" leads to complacency and stagnation?

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.

Similar answer to Zeromaru X's above, I think; an argument that a little Evil in the world is "necessary"--which is one of the traditional solutions to the Problem of Evil.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Would you make the case that "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" leads to complacency and stagnation?


Similar answer to Zeromaru X's above, I think; an argument that a little Evil in the world is "necessary"--which is one of the traditional solutions to the Problem of Evil.

I don't personally see Evil as necessary. Nor do I see Good as any sort of monolithic nor homogenous. In fact, I kind of have a penchant in my games for pitting different Good-aligned forces in violent conflict with each other over (valid) philosophical differences. I don't personally see cosmic good as necessarily leading to stagnation. But that IS a reasonably common fantasy trope. (Compare how Michael Moorcock treated the Lawfully-aligned)

However, on the other hand it is ENTIRELY possible and in fact quite common for a flawed human being to be BOTH staunchly altruistic but ALSO wantonly or deliberately cruel:

Being good means you just want to help others without being compelled.

And you do it when you can, not against all odds no matter what. Altruism is not the total death of the self, just the acceptance of others outside of ourselves and those we consider 'ours'.

Just under different circumstances or to different sets of people. I wouldn't usually call such people Good aligned, depending on the extent and nature of the cruelty.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Would you make the case that "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" leads to complacency and stagnation?

Not in and of itself, but it would be a consequence of it. In a world where the struggle to live is not necessary anymore, where you don't need to be worried about someone is going to kill you because they want to rob you; or the lion and the deer can coexist together without the lioness never having the impulse of the hunt, and the lion eating those deer that have willingly given themselves so the lion don't starve, etc, you will eventually reach an state of complacency. There is nothing threatening you anymore, there is no need to fight, or to stress over something. Or to worry about something. You are genuinely happy with what you are and with what you have.

And complacency can lead you to stagnation. There is no necessity to evolve, or to strive to be better in a world where everyone accepts you for what you are. People will not deride you for your lack of skills, because they know that you did that mediocre work with your best intentions. And without that will to strive, eventually you get stagnated. And then, stagnation will become eventually in extinction. First of the self. There is no need for struggle when you have all what you ever need. Then, the extinction of life, as the lifeforms will not be able to survive whatever environmental changes occur in the future, as they have no will to adapt.

Muscular neutrals would see that as not a desirable outcome. Yeah, the world would reach an state of genuine altruism, where people is genuinely happy and able to perfectly coexist. But in that kind of world, that spark to better yourself, that struggle that allows you to live, and to be you, is no more. They may want people to chose for themselves if they really want that fate, instead of being "forced" to it by some cosmic force, no matter how altruistic that force is (and that force is not evil or desiring of harming living beings, but it's too impersonal to understand how the need for struggle can shape human (and nonhuman) lives). In this case, Evil adds that "struggle" needed to maintain the will of betterment alive in the self.

I don't remember from where I got this concept. I think it was from some stuff about Buddhism I read when I was young, but I think it was also influenced by the Wheel of Time finale. Nonetheless, I have applied it to my games ever since.

 

[squibbles]

Depends what one means by "intolerant" I think. Societies in the real world are and have often been flawed; possessing widely different moral standards. For example, there are places where people are desperately poor and regularly engage in a variety of behaviors that are harmful to others, like petty theft, in an effort to feed themselves and their families. Then we have cases like Ancient Rome (arguably) that may have been fairly moral in many respects...but kept slaves or did a number of other things that we would consider vile and heinous by today's standards. It's hard for me personally to envision either of those things (widespread petty theft or slavery) existing in a capital G Good society. And if these harmful behaviors are NOT allowed in an objectively Good society I would expect there to be mechanisms to single them out and prevent them. But it's easy for me to envision a muscular neutral feeling sympathy for flawed members of flawed societies who are being judged for those harmful behaviors.

I think that conception is a sort of carefully articulated muscular neutral as defense of the status quo, which, runs toward Charlaquin's critique of muscular neutrality in the earlier Grayhawk thread as it being an ideology that some NPCs hew to and not a cosmologically justified position.

I can definitely see that as good faction to include in a game, but I don't think it quite matches the premise.

Also, fwiw, I'm absolutely not taking a shot at you as defending the status quo, hope nobody reads the above that way.