D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Steampunkette]

It's how humans work. Selfishness in some way is at the core of all we do.

Good and evil need to take that into account.

Maybe it's at the core of what -you- do... and you're extrapolating that onto everyone else?

For me, doing good for other people is just standard. I don't feel "Happier" when I do good things 90% of the time. I just do it because it feels appropriate to do so.

Like. Vin Werneck lives in Brazil. Paypal adds a bunch of fees to every transaction between the US and Brazil. So when I commission art from him, I pay it all up-front rather than doing my standard "Half now, half on delivery" thing. I also tip an extra amount above and beyond the agreed on price so that I eat the extra fees. Why? Because it doesn't seem fair to make him eat the fees and get paid less money for the work.

Though that might be because my brain is not great with Dopamine and certain other chemicals, so maybe it's just me?

But somehow I don't think so.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Or does your soul still carry the debt of all those years of evil, requiring you to do the actual work of reform, repentance, and restitution? If you spend a lifetime squeezing every penny out of people who owe you money and threaten them with foreclosure and ruin, not giving your employees any holidays and maintaining unsafe working conditions, and generally being an a-hole... would a single day of generosity following a night of nightmares caused by indigestion be enough to get you into the Good Place?

I'd say it's very setting dependant. Religions could have an conversion ritual like the 5th level Atonement, that purge everything. Or they could ask for a certain length of repentance. They must have a way, because if not, they can't convert anyone. "Sure, you can joint the cult of Lathander. However, as you have been True Neutral and did nothing for the first 31 years of your live, and you're destined to die at 61, sorry, no happy eternity for you, you'll be stuck in the Gray Wastes boring yourself to dea... well, a lot." Not a nice proposition for prospective converts. But then again, I don't believe the Evil God wouldn't have thought of creating an appealing afterlife either so...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

That’s why altruism being part of good per OP doesn’t work as altruism is essentially unselfishness, which arguably doesn’t exist.

There is a possibility that Good-as-per-the-OP doesn't exist IRL, and might not even be common in-setting. Maybe most people are "non muscular neutral", and a handful are Good, a handful are Evil and a handful are Muscular Neutral.

After all, how would a society without oppression functions? I already wrote that I can't see how a kingdom wouldn't check the evil list of "oppressing people". If you rule over people and set laws, and you rule because you're the strongest, the holiest, or the offspring of the former ruler, you're oppressing people to follow your laws. Even your law code is the best ever, people didn't ask you to make it. But there is a possibility that even a democracy checks oppression, where the minority is the oppressed party. It's just that unless there is complete anarchy, society is based on oppressing its members into following its rules. Same with the checklist part about harming others. It's very difficult to make a society work without the possibility of harming people who don't abide by the rules, either by depriving them of the benefit of being members (banishment, privation of civic right or social security) or by outright harming them (fines, prison, lash, dismemberment...).

So most people wouldn't be outright evil (they don't kill people or support doing it) and they wouldn't be good by lack of true altruism. It opens the way to a setting with 99% neutral people and parangons of either alignment being quite rare (or extraplanar creatures: possibly an archon can be truly selfless because he doesn't care more about its self-preservation that the goal of Good).

 

[Vaalingrade]

This reminded me of that Friends episode where they torture Phoebe for thinking about selfless good in the service of the dark god Cynicism.

Trying to tear down general kindness and goodness by trying to call it selfish is really just trying to tear down kindness and goodness.

 

[lall]

There is a possibility that Good-as-per-the-OP doesn't exist IRL, and might not even be common in-setting. Maybe most people are "non muscular neutral", and a handful are Good, a handful are Evil and a handful are Muscular Neutral.

After all, how would a society without oppression functions? I already wrote that I can't see how a kingdom wouldn't check the evil list of "oppressing people". If you rule over people and set laws, and you rule because you're the strongest, the holiest, or the offspring of the former ruler, you're oppressing people to follow your laws. Even your law code is the best ever, people didn't ask you to make it. But there is a possibility that even a democracy checks oppression, where the minority is the oppressed party. It's just that unless there is complete anarchy, society is based on oppressing its members into following its rules. Same with the checklist part about harming others. It's very difficult to make a society work without the possibility of harming people who don't abide by the rules, either by depriving them of the benefit of being members (banishment, privation of civic right or social security) or by outright harming them (fines, prison, lash, dismemberment...).

So most people wouldn't be outright evil (they don't kill people or support doing it) and they wouldn't be good by lack of true altruism. It opens the way to a setting with 99% neutral people and parangons of either alignment being quite rare (or extraplanar creatures: possibly an archon can be truly selfless because he doesn't care more about its self-preservation that the goal of Good).

Don’t disagree with any of that. In my make-believe perfect reality, the only “laws” that would exist are basically don’t physically agress against another or their stuff. It’s not perfect and there are a lot of what-if’s (electronic stealing of money, pollution from one neighbor’s yard to the next, etc.), but I think it’s basically built on reason/logic that we should each be able to do our own things, but we can’t do those things if others mess with us. It’s oppression of course because who am I to say someone else can’t murder? But it’s oppression I feel based on reason. So in my perfect, little world, good = not murdering, raping, assaulting, kidnapping, enslaving, or stealing. Evil = doing those things. Neutral is sometimes doing those things. With respect to law and chaos, chaotic = imposing a smaller negative (not rape, murder, etc.) on someone else, lawful = not doing that, and neutral = sometimes doing that. Whether or not something is a smaller negative would also be based on reason/logic. An example would be yelling in someone’s face. Even if that was acceptable in a given society, it would still be a small negative (chaotic) in my opinion based on reason. So reason/logic is the backbone of my system, but I get that what’s reasonable differs from person to person.

Anyway, in my system, one can be LG by sitting in their hands. Inserting altruism into the definition of good (per OP) forces one into action (arguably a form of slavery), so the MN might want to oppose that sort of slavery.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Anyway, in my system, one can be LG by sitting in their hands. Inserting altruism into the definition of good (per OP) forces one into action (arguably a form of slavery), so the MN might want to oppose that sort of slavery.

There's no such thing as forcing someone to be altruistic. Altruism is defined by the intent of the person helping others. If someone is forced to help others without a choice, they have no agency and thus no intent, selfless or otherwise.

 

[Clint_L]

Can you be good if your intent is selfish? A deontologist (e.g. Immanuel Kant) would say no, motive is all that matters. But a consequentialist would likely say sure, outcomes are all that matter. The kid who you rescued from the fire doesn't care that you did it out of altruism or because you are trying to earn points to get into Valhalla.

A whole, major branch of ethics argues that motives are basically irrelevant.

In terms of this thread, are you more neutral because you believe in some ideology of neutrality, or because you see it as having the best practical outcome? Perhaps a "muscularly neutral" person doesn't give a toss if your motives are bad or good; they are just dealing with each situation pragmatically and decisively to get to the outcome that they deem preferable. In fact, they might see relying on things like altruism, conscience and empathy as irrelevant and often counterproductive.

Maybe their defining trait is that they are opposed to ideologies.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Inserting altruism into the definition of good (per OP) forces one into action (arguably a form of slavery)

No, it's really not.

You don't have to be altruistic. You don't have to be good. You and your descendants aren't turned into a commodity for being good.

Do not use 'slavery' as 'doing something I don't want to do'. It's as gross as it is nonsensical.

 

[Steampunkette]

Can you be good if your intent is selfish? A deontologist (e.g. Immanuel Kant) would say no, motive is all that matters. But a consequentialist would likely say sure, outcomes are all that matter. The kid who you rescued from the fire doesn't care that you did it out of altruism or because you are trying to earn points to get into Valhalla.

A whole, major branch of ethics argues that motives are basically irrelevant.

In terms of this thread, are you more neutral because you believe in some ideology of neutrality, or because you see it as having the best practical outcome? Perhaps a "muscularly neutral" person doesn't give a toss if your motives are bad or good; they are just dealing with each situation pragmatically and decisively to get to the outcome that they deem preferable. In fact, they might see relying on things like altruism, conscience and empathy as irrelevant and often counterproductive.

Maybe their defining trait is that they are opposed to ideologies.

Deontology focuses on intent and obligation, not emotion. "I hate helping the homeless" doesn't matter so long as you help the homeless. "I wanna help the homeless so people like me better" doesn't matter so long as you help the homeless.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

@Clint_L I think you provided the OP the answer he was looking for.

In the given setup of the thought experiment, there was an apparent difficulty in "how could one be sometime fighting Good" by being a Muscular Neutral who tries to ENFORCE neutrality, or "how can one not enforce Good and not be a jerk at the same time".

I think it's because Good as defined in the OP can't win against Evil because... they can't fight it.

We're told that "Good is altruism, respect for life, and a concern for dignity of sentient beings" while "Evil is harming, oppressing and killing others". It is added that a victoy of Good can't be harmful for anyone and that there will be no brainwashing of people.

So, if I am evil, I go in a Good society, notice a jewelry and take that big fat ruby (that can or cannot help me cast a spell needing a ruby worth 500gp since I got it for free, but that was another thread sorry) and go away. What can Good do? I can't be harrmed or be imposed detrimental effect. So I am put in front of a good Judge who appeals to my altruism and let me free to go put back my ruby in the shop and apologize to the shopkeeper, offering to clean his windows as a gesture of repentenance. Yay me, I can sell the ruby and spend all the proceeds at the tavern! And I won't lie to the judge, I'll just tell him that I didn't made him in charge, so he can talk all he want, he is not my boss and property is theft anyway.

Neutral would oppress me and put me in jail instead, having no qualm in oppressing me to enforce their "property" silliness.

Evil would kill me and take my stuff, even if I hadn't stolen it.

In this setup, Neutral would oppose Evil (because they think the whole killing, harming and oppressing others is not something that should be done... unless one has a valid reason to do it) and they would oppose Good when Good would be on the verge of winning and starts saying things like "hey, we think altruism is so great that we will remove taxes, taxes hurt so many people, I am sure people would give enough money for the keeping the administration in a working state if we replaced the tax code by a charity box!" And then Neutral bash their head with a giant club, tell them "you're not fit for running a government, go back to your monastery/philosophy club and let the reasonable people be in charge..."