D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Mind of tempest]

That's why in my games is Light and Darkness rather than Good and Evil. I was trying to adapt that premise to the muscle neutrality, but as you said yourself, is not a perfect fit.

light blinds and burns.
darkness hides and shades

 

[Mind of tempest]

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?

I am not getting turned into red ooze like in that strange mech anime from before I had a mind

 

[Tonguez]

muscular Neutrality works along the Law - Chaos continuum and is necessary for the universe to function - too much Law brings stagnation (I always liked that the Clive Barkers Leviathan was a god of Law fighting mortal chaos).

Good is that which promotes neutrality, whereas evil is what pushes towards the extremes of Law (stagnation, totalitarianism, blind obedience/fanaticism) or Chaos

 

[Mind of tempest]

muscular Neutrality works along the Law - Chaos continuum and is necessary for the universe to function - too much Law brings stagnation (I always liked that the Clive Barkers Leviathan was a god of Law fighting mortal chaos).

Good is that which promotes neutrality, whereas evil is what pushes towards the extremes of Law (stagnation, totalitarianism, blind obedience/fanaticism) or Chaos

I prefer the term stasis verse chaos humans have a slight bias towards the word order, whist stasis cuts that out to the naked horror of both.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I think the reason this debate keeps happening is that there is not an agreed upon definition of what terms like "good" and "evil" mean, or how to measure them. So positing that alignment is a real force doesn't give us much to go on.

 

[TwoSix]

I am not getting turned into red ooze like in that strange mech anime from before I had a mind

 

[Zeromaru X]

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?

Are these questions in the context of @Umbran's premises? According to these premises, Good is totally ok with the destruction of the universe just to accomplish its goal of achieving the Ultimate Good.

For me, that's not Good. That's Evil with a hat.

 

[TwoSix]

Are these questions in the context of @Umbran's premises? According to these premises, Good is totally ok with the destruction of the universe just to accomplish its goal of achieving the Ultimate Good.

For me, that's not Good. That's Evil with a hat.

They're in that context, yes. Basically asking if a Good "destruction" of the universe is actually Evil.

Is preserving the painful status quo when we can implement a better universe actually Good?

 

[Zeromaru X]

light blinds and burns.
darkness hides and shades

Yeah, that's my idea. Both Light and Darkness have qualities of good and evil. Light nurtures life, but too much light can burn and destroy life. Darkness will swallow all of Creation, but a certain shade of darkness is needed for life to rest and replenish. So, both forces complement each other.

In my homebrew, even if both forces are impersonal, they have a "self-preservation will" and regulate themselves in a process of "universal homeostasis" to avoid destroying the universe if they become superior to the other force. It's mortals who disrupt this cosmic balance while trying to achieve their own goals, and it's up to mortal heroes to maintain the balance. So, in my setting, selfish individuals = Evil; people who maintains the balance = Good.

Neutrals, in my setting, are those that avoid to involve themselves in the struggle against those who want to disrupt balance. Or, in other words, they are lukewarms.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Are these questions in the context of @Umbran's premises? According to these premises, Good is totally ok with the destruction of the universe just to accomplish its goal of achieving the Ultimate Good.

For me, that's not Good. That's Evil with a hat.

or at least insane as ultimate good depends on reality existing.