D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Snarf Zagyg]

But that would be a group of people choosing to behave that way because of their beliefs (and that is something I can use in my games), not because there is some cosmic force that enforces lukewarmness in the multiverse, something that makes no sense as it forces Good to be Actually-not-Good, or do some ridiculous mental gymnastics for that premise to work as written.

C'mon. Come back to reality. There is a cosmic force already that enforces lukewarmness in the multiverse.

I know this for a fact because I once had the misfortune of eating at Denny's.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, that's the point: taking away agency falls into the Evil department in my book. A person should be allowed to save or damn their soul on their own free will.

You can stop that evil choice by persuasion, force or another method of your choice, but the moment you take away that individual's agency, you are no better than Evilordius, the Evil Lord of Evilness.

But does any individual truly have perfect agency?

What if they're confused? What if they're under emotional strain and can't make a rational decision? Or maybe they're ignorant as to the repercussions of their choice? Or were raised in an environment that didn't teach them the consequences of wrong choices?

Is allowing someone to damn themselves, just so they have maximal agency, more good when they don't fully understand what that damnation might look like?

 

[Zeromaru X]

I think that the one thing that helps to remember is that alignment didn't start as a way of roleplaying or choosing personalities, it started as a way of picking sides in a wargame.

And it made sense while it remained that way. When they made it a thing to determine individuals instead of armies, and added a moral attribute to it as well, it began to lose sense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But does any individual truly have perfect agency?

What if they're confused? What if they're under emotional strain and can't make a rational decision? Or maybe they're ignorant as to the repercussions of their choice? Or were raised in an environment that didn't teach them the consequences of wrong choices?

Is allowing someone to damn themselves, just so they have maximal agency, more good when they don't fully understand what that damnation might look like?

Is allowing damnation as a concept to exist good in the first place?

 

[Clint_L]

But does any individual truly have perfect agency?

What if they're confused? What if they're under emotional strain and can't make a rational decision? Or maybe they're ignorant as to the repercussions of their choice? Or were raised in an environment that didn't teach them the consequences of wrong choices?

Is allowing someone to damn themselves, just so they have maximal agency, more good when they don't fully understand what that damnation might look like?

I note that a lot of colonial atrocities were justified under the argument that they were just bringing truth to the poor, ignorant locals, and a lot of those truths were religious and moral ones.

In other words...who's to say who is confused? A lot of terrible things...possibly most of them...have been perpetrated by people convinced they were doing good. And saving people from damnation, in particular.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And it made sense while it remained that way. When they made it a thing to determine individuals instead of armies, and added a moral attribute to it as well, it began to lose sense.

I mean, sure! I'd argue that it also works fine to the extent it applies to the outer planes. But as I wrote before, if you're using it as a straightjacket (or, worse, trying to police alignment like in the 1e days) it quickly falls apart.

But again- this is a game. It cannot capture the complexity of humanity!

Snarf Zagyg
Level 20 Obfuscator
Alignment: Lotsa Gin

Well, most humanity.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

C'mon. Come back to reality. There is a cosmic force already that enforces lukewarmness in the multiverse.

I know this for a fact because I once had the misfortune of eating at Denny's.

I was in grad school some yesteryear and had not been eating well…

And near passing out my buddy said order this breakfast at Denny’s….Ask for double the meat! I did!

And this week I started a med for cholesterol! I think this argues against entropy and for a very strongly lawful neutral universe!

 

[Umbran]

So, it is forced, and then it is evil.

In the scenario I described, it is not so much "forced" as "the result of the forces of the universe".

I mean, is Gravity evil? It doesn't ask if you if you want to fall off the cliff...

 

[Zeromaru X]

Gravity doesn't influence in the moral quandaries of interaction.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's definitely not a solvable problem.

You illustrated the core problem right there. Without struggle or challenge, life lacks meaning. But to maintain struggle, the universe must allow suffering and evil to exist, in order to allow struggle and challenge to occur.

And that means a cosmological Good focused on preserving free will and a meaningful life must continue to allow suffering and Evil.

But it's a fun challenge here to present perspectives so you can see why a rational person might choose one particular faction over another.

big difference between the minimally viable and the present stare of afires in dnd what with billions of layers of to a world of the most psychoically sadistc monster to ever exist something tells me the balance is towards evil.

The term 'muscular neutrality' is so weird that I really just want them to be opposing both good and evil because fighting both is a great way to get sweet gains, bruh.

got to maximise those gains bruh