D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Steampunkette]

There has to be some benefit to serving these gods or else this entire exercise is no better then a kindergarden discussion. There has to be a perceived positive for the people, even if that positive is "we should all die so no one suffers anymore" etc etc.

Agreed.

But since eternal torment exists in the Abyss and the Nine Hells and a bunch of other Divine Domains out in the cosmos...

It's gotta be something like "Except me. -I- don't get punished."

Or "I get punished less"

Or "I get to do the punishing"

just -something- that gives an explanation for the rampant wickedness.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm referring to people who actively worship and/or serve demons, devils, and evil gods.

Even without actively serving them: They -exist- and are present in the world. Outright showing what evil literally, fundamentally, is.

For those folks, they often don't think the afterlife will be all that bad and/or the power they get from the bargain, whether it's warlock powers or something else, is worth the cost. Soul, worship, etc.

 

[Steampunkette]

For those folks, they often don't think the afterlife will be all that bad and/or the power they get from the bargain, whether it's warlock powers or something else, is worth the cost. Soul, worship, etc.

Generally speaking they tend to have an Intelligence of 8 or higher, which means they're smart enough to know THAT isn't true.

 

[FarBeyondC]

In the October Greyhawk thread from @Snarf Zagyg, there was (to me) an interesting back and forth about muscular neutrality:




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?

I suspect some folks will be inclined to refuse the premise here--either by stating that there isn't a valid muscular neutrality for the good v. evil dichotomy, fudging "good" somehow, substituting law and chaos for evil and good, or in some other way (Enworlders are never short on ways to refuse a premise).

...But the goal here is to start with seemingly contradictory premises and reconcile them in an interesting way. In my experience, that always makes for cooler and more novel ideas than I would have come up with otherwise.

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.
2. Evil has a Dead Man's Switch and the muscular neutrals are acting in the enlightened self interest of reality.
3. Variant of 2, Evil and Good can both bring about mutually assured destruction--and this is poorly understood by everyone except the muscular neutrals, who have taken it upon themselves to prevent Armageddon.
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. The muscular neutrals are carrying out its will for fear of what would happen if they didn't.

Thanks for reading, what are your ideas?

Hmm... The immediate thing that comes to mind would be some sort of cosmic need for stress - or at least the kind of advancement that can come from overcoming stress.

The muscular neutral individual attempts to regulate stress so that there's enough to ensure continued advancement/growth but not so much as to overwhelm and cause ruin.

 

[Shardstone]

Hmm... The immediate thing that comes to mind would be some sort of cosmic need for stress - or at least the kind of advancement that can come from overcoming stress.

The muscular neutral individual attempts to regulate stress so that there's enough to ensure continued advancement/growth but not so much as to overwhelm and cause ruin.

This is a way more succinct way of getting at what I was getting at.

 

[Maxperson]

Generally speaking they tend to have an Intelligence of 8 or higher, which means they're smart enough to know THAT isn't true.

Ahh, but the 5 wisdom....

 

[lall]

Helping others (within reason) is part of being a good neighbor. You can be a tolerable neighbor without doing it, but not a good one.

It’s part of being a good neighbor when altruism is part of the definition of being good. MN opposes this slavery mindset.

 

[Hriston]

It’s part of being a good neighbor when altruism is part of the definition of being good. MN opposes this slavery mindset.

Then they are evil.

 

[lall]

…because they oppose slavery. Okay.

 

[Hriston]

…because they oppose slavery. Okay.

If by “slavery” you mean the “slavery mindset” that altruism is a good value, then yeah, because that’s the premise of the thread. It’s the position of evil that altruism is an injustice that deprives the truly deserving of reaping the earned benefits of their superior ability to dominate, subjugate, and oppress those weaker than themselves and that a just state of affairs is one in which their actions are unfettered by such trifling moral concerns. If that’s not what you meant by opposing the “slavery mindset”, then maybe you should clarify.