D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Vaalingrade]

Folks, I found the Chaotic Neutral!

I feel like 'caring about others is slavery' dips into 'Care Bears villain' more than just CN.

 

[TiQuinn]

Part of the thing with Neutrality that got me thinking about law vs chaos and good vs evil in a D&D multiverse is that viewing these alignments as mortals might be different than viewing them cosmically.

The “evil” of a random bandit, unscrupulous merchant, or even a cultist is very different from the BIG EVIL that is responsible for the Blood War, or wanting to unmake Creation, or creates evil artifacts of immense power. It’s a question of scale and that there are entities that are truly evil (as if evil was an actual element - like Prime Evil from Time Bandits, concentrated evil and you don’t want to touch that stuff) and truly good which is equally alien and inscrutable to mortals because it is so far removed from day to day concepts of what it means to be “good”. It’s almost a Mythos level of evil vs good where these forces really don’t translate to our notions of good and evil but their actions still reverberate in the Prime Material.

So into this you get muscular neutrality (MN). MN doesn’t really mean caring that Furyondy is growing too powerful vis a vis The Great Kingdom. It’s concerned about actual demons and gods from other dimensions swaying the events on the prime material in either direction and both directions are I hostile to normal life as mortals know it.

 

[Umbran]

Ok, so the thought experiment is this:

Taking it as given that

1. Muscular neutrality between good and evil is a metaphysically valid position,
2. "Good" is "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings",
3. and "Evil" is "harming, oppressing, and killing others",

what justifies a position of muscular neutrality?

So, the problem with how this question is that it is formed discussing alignment from a real-world perspective, in which alignment's only impact is upon those who are treated in a good or evil manner.

But, in a D&D world Gygax was setting up, Good and Evil were not merely concepts. They were forces of the universe. Magic actually interacted with alignment. One side or the other winning would have cosmological impact. Therefore, you can't discuss the topic without knowing the cosmology and metaphysics of the universe in question.

Anyone interested in this topic should read the 1995 novel Villains by Necessity by Eve Forward. It is a D&D with the serial numbers scraped off, in a world in which Good has, in fact, won.

Some answers I came up with (not that they're particularly good ones):

1. There is some kind of Problem of Evil or Free Will logic going on, where Evil is necessary as a counterpoint to good. I don't think this really makes sense as justification for neutrals to prop up dark lords and armies of Evil, and it's too philosophical for my tastes... but it's there, with centuries of argumentation to consider.

But, in a D&D world of the Gygaxian form, it isn't philosophical. Alignment is as much a real force as gravity is for us.

4. Also sort of a variant of 2, the creator of the universe is a stifling and ignorant demiurge who wants there to be Evil in the multiverse.

Um... this assumes the universe was created by a single sentient being with motivations we can actually understand. There are others. For example:

5. The creation of the universe was a combination of forces (gods, natural phenomenon, Wyrm, Weaver, and Wyld, or whatever) such that imbalance of those forces breaks the underpinnings of the universe, and it unravels if any of the original founders are too weakened or eliminated.

5a. (in standard D&D cosmology) The Prime Material Plane happens at the joining of all the elemental planes and the Positive and Negative energy planes. If Good or Evil were to win, the Prime Material would be flooded with the corresponding energy. The godly forces of Good and Evil would be okay with that happening, but it ends natural processes as we know them in the Prime material.

 

[MarkB]

Perhaps one way to look at it would be through the lens of the Planescape, in which places drawn too much towards one alignment or ideal may be displaced into planes better reflecting that ideal.

In those terms, the material plane is literally "neutral territory" not particularly aligned with any fundamental ideal, and that allows it to keep functioning as it does. Were it ever to move far enough towards a specific alignment, a world might no longer be securely tethered to the plane, and might be sequestered into another, either accidentally or by the direct efforts of divine beings.

While being in a plane of pure good might seem like a fine idea, simply existing in such a realm would warp mortals and hinder their free will. It would also make that world a prize to be won in the battles between otherworldly forces, no longer considered off-limits to more direct means of conquest.

 

[Mind of tempest]

While I'm one of those who disagree with your premise, specifically your description of good and evil, I'll play along.

In a nutshell, good needs evil. First of all, good has no definition without evil to compare it to. Secondly, life would stagnate without the threat of evil (those who've read the end of the Wheel of Time series know what I'm talking about). Finally, one could consider that the death created by evil is necessary to maintain balance between the forces of life and death. An agent of Balance would know this and strive to keep either side from overwhelming the other.

the balance between good and evil need not be 50/50 it could 95/5 with good being the higher value?

neutality always seemed more sane in a stasis versus chaos situation where both are needed but one winning is hell

 

[TwoSix]

Except... that's generally not what happens. In societies where people's basic needs are met, people will turn to non-basic needs, such as art. Not necessarily art made out of a commercial need to sell it for bread, but art for its own sake. There's a quote by someone that goes something like "I study tactics and war, so my son can study engineering and science, and his son can study art." – in other words, the goals of society should be to first provide security, then wealth, and finally leisure.

That said, it's certainly a belief some people could have and use to justify keeping people struggling.

The idea that even a conflict-less utopia can be negative because lives lose meaning without struggle is an old one.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

that always struck me as odd as that is not what good is in almost any societies framework aside from the most impractically zealous.

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.

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...

capital G good by its nature of being an ontological force can't ever morph from good as to do so would break what it is, e.g. gravity can't stop being gravity.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

I assume most of good has a sanity clause as in it understand that people also need rest hence why it tried to foster many groups to solve the problem for when one fails or can't respond.

 

[Zeromaru X]

So, the problem with how this question is that it is formed discussing alignment from a real-world perspective, in which alignment's only impact is upon those who are treated in a good or evil manner.

But, in a D&D world Gygax was setting up, Good and Evil were not merely concepts. They were forces of the universe. Magic actually interacted with alignment. One side or the other winning would have cosmological impact. Therefore, you can't discuss the topic without knowing the cosmology and metaphysics of the universe in question.

Anyone interested in this topic should read the 1995 novel Villains by Necessity by Eve Forward. It is a D&D with the serial numbers scraped off, in a world in which Good has, in fact, won.




But, in a D&D world of the Gygaxian form, it isn't philosophical. Alignment is as much a real force as gravity is for us.



Um... this assumes the universe was created by a single sentient being with motivations we can actually understand. There are others. For example:

5. The creation of the universe was a combination of forces (gods, natural phenomenon, Wyrm, Weaver, and Wyld, or whatever) such that imbalance of those forces breaks the underpinnings of the universe, and it unravels if any of the original founders are too weakened or eliminated.

5a. (in standard D&D cosmology) The Prime Material Plane happens at the joining of all the elemental planes and the Positive and Negative energy planes. If Good or Evil were to win, the Prime Material would be flooded with the corresponding energy. The godly forces of Good and Evil would be okay with that happening, but it ends natural processes as we know them in the Prime material.

Again, all this means that Good is not actually good, but rather a well-intentioned and less mean-Evil.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, all this means that Good is not actually good, but rather a well-intentioned and less mean-Evil.

I think it's more complex than that.

If the final victory of Good means that the universe transcends struggle, and all of creation is unified into a joyful Oneness of being, is that Evil?

Is the maintenance of discrete identities a greater good than the elimination of all pain and strife forever?