D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[squibbles]

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

[...] In addition to all the evil, Greyhawk has a concept that isn't used much anymore- muscular neutrality. The idea that "neutral" characters were not simply staying out of things, but were actively helping both good and evil in order to maintain a balance between the two sides.

So there were powerful forces of neutrality (such as the "Circle of Eight") that would assist both good and evil in order to ensure that neither became dominant. [...]

[...] The one point here that is not so appealing to me is this idea of “muscular neutrality.” I’ve always found the whole “balance must be maintained, too much good could be just as bad as too much evil” thing a bit… I don’t know, silly? It’s one thing to have villains who represent traditionally “good” ideals pushed to an evil extreme, but actually having the ascendancy of good be some sort of existential threat due to “imbalance” just doesn’t work for me.

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?

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

 

[MGibster]

For such a discussion to take place, we have to define good, evil, and neutral by what we find in the text of the game and the discussion must be confined to a hypothetical world where those definitions are valid. i.e. I think we need to pick an edition and see what their defintion of LG, LE, N, etc., etc., are first and extrapolate what musclar neutrality means in that context.

 

[lall]

Altruism is pro-slavery, so N would oppose slavery on both sides. Not everyone has to believe altruism is pro-slavery, just the muscular N folks.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Really, there's a wide (perhaps nearly infinite?) number of ways a "muscular neutral" might not want Good to be triumphant:

• Might have issues with Divine forces of Good being intolerant.
• Or not respecting / rewarding personal effort sufficiently
• Or just annoying
• Or perhaps trying to stifle innate feelings / inclinations (like anger) where they are not altruistic.
• Or maybe they feel that capital G Good societies with excessive altruism feel unnatural / alien
• Or are cosmically unnatural

 

[Kobold Stew]

Is there a version of muscular neutrality that is actively rejecting our world as a battleground for distant cosmic forces?

The gods have their fights, and therse get played out through their pawns (believer/adherents), and it takes heroism to say that they ought not take place here. Neutrality is rejecting the premise of extraplanar influence and any sense of cosmic right and wrong. One that heroically rejects the external and fundamentally embraces this world.

Such a worldview would have no clerics, no warlocks, no paladins, possibly no sorcerers; perhaps no fae, no aasimar, no tieflings.

I've seen a version of lizardfolk, that corresponds to this view, I think. but it's one that could be shared more widely. Not only decaring this plane a neutral zone in the greater conflict, but a view commited to preserving that independence, regardless of the larger picture.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Maybe at a certain point everything is destructive. When idealistic societies have too much power they start restricting freedoms or insist on certain ideals that are impossible for the average person to fulfill so then it starts to morph into something evil. So it's just a cycle.

There's probably some ideal balance between the rise and fall of both evil and good where most things benefit from the balance.

Or, maybe, if good and evil are perfectly balanced, they're at a stalemate. They just stay where they are, posturing and the common person benefits because there is no war or conflict.

So the giants and goblins stay in their mountains and don't raid the farms and the military kingdoms don't venture into the mountains to expand their territory.

 

[Charlaquin]

Altruism is pro-slavery,

I think that statement requires some unpacking… concern for the well-being and/or happiness of others would seem directly antithetical to the practice of coercing others into forced labor…

 

[squibbles]

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

Why thank you , and I am not averse to quibbling over the definitions. How would you have defined Good and Evil?

For such a discussion to take place, we have to define good, evil, and neutral by what we find in the text of the game and the discussion must be confined to a hypothetical world where those definitions are valid. i.e. I think we need to pick an edition and see what their defintion of LG, LE, N, etc., etc., are first and extrapolate what musclar neutrality means in that context.

I define good and evil in the OP, which is from the 3.5 definition (via Wikipedia), mainly because the 5e descriptions are so tepid (or I would have used them instead).

I'd be glad to see you elaborate on the definitions in any particular edition and it's hypothetical world--and where it takes you vis a vis the thought experiment.

 

[Charlaquin]

Would it be against the premise of the thread to suggest that muscular neutrality be strictly an ideological stance held by mortal beings, and not have any metaphysical validity? That is to say, neutrality between the cosmic forces of good and evil is not really beneficial to the cosmos, but that doesn’t stop some people from thinking it is and acting on that belief?

Writing that out, I guess it does kinda seem against the premise.