D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[EzekielRaiden]

I would assume that in a setting based on cosmological moral conflict, Good, Evil, and Neutrality are all “true”.

I'm not really sure how that's even possible, particularly since Good and Evil make, y'know, directly contradictory moral claims.

 

[Voadam]

What if you are toxically hurting people while trying to be good? For example, by forcibly converting the local goblin tribe to the Church of Bahamat so you can save their eternal souls? What if Bahamat directly tells you to do that, through his clerics?

Given the definitions of good and evil the evil is weighed against the good.

This is mostly a question of intentions versus means and ends.

I wasn’t trying to say intentions only matter for good. A bad guy doing good as a cover is doing good things.

You get credit for good intentions but demerit for evil means and actions. The total is weighed to say whether the evil is enough to lock you from good to neutral or evil or minor enough to leave you still good.

In my opinion Bahamut is just an NPC who is overall good morally but also very filled with the power of supernatural [Good] which I think of as more holy and ritually pure. I don’t go with him being definitionally morally good in every way even though he is the exemplar crusader for good.

And take mortal crusader cleric pronouncements with a grain of salt and apply your own judgment to them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Given the definitions of good and evil the evil is weighed against the good.

This is mostly a question of intentions versus means and ends.

I wasn’t trying to say intentions only matter for good. A bad guy doing good as a cover is doing good things.

You get credit for good intentions but demerit for evil means and actions. The total is weighed to say whether the evil is enough to lock you from good to neutral or evil or minor enough to leave you still good.

In my opinion Bahamut is just an NPC who is overall good morally but also very filled with the power of supernatural [Good] which I think of as more holy and ritually pure. I don’t go with him being definitionally morally good in every way even though he is the exemplar crusader for good.

And take mortal crusader cleric pronouncements with a grain of salt and apply your own judgment to them.

I mean, if Bahamut himself is actually saying those things, something has corrupted Bahamut and we must save him. (Which, to be clear, could be an awesome adventure! But it wouldn't be against a Good opponent. It would be against whatever evil thing has corrupted this deity.)

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, people can use whatever label they want, but it's a bit disingenuous to call something "Good" when it flagrantly, blatantly is not.

But there is no intrinsic meaning of good. There's cultural meanings, sure, but exploring those boundaries and definitions is part of the fun of speculative fiction.

I think where we differ is that you're using "Good" as automatically synonymous with "true" and "right" (and inherently contradictory to not associate them), whereas I think if we're assuming the baseline posted in the OP, you have to break that linkage.

Tropes are tools. Some are more useful than others. This is a flagrantly over-used tool, and one almost always used insanely ham-fistedly. Just because it might theoretically be possible to do it well does not mean it is a wise choice to try.

For D&D-style fiction, we want ham-fisted and obvious. Nuance is not a virtue for these cases.

If we establish that the party wants to deal with nuance, then we can build cracks in the cosmological edifices to allow for explorations.

You didn't say anything about an afterlife, which is a continuation of existence. You said ending existence. That means nothing. Zip, zero, nada. Absolute and total annihilation. Not even the ineffable, inexpressible whatever that is compatible with the state of Nirvana (since the Buddha explicitly rejected both any assertion of an identifiable "self" and any denial of a "self" as equally leading to wrong results.) Nothing whatsoever. Total zeroing of the scale.

Fair. I assumed from what I had posted that my meaning of "material existence" had been clear, but perhaps I was in error.

Nah. CG has plenty of actions it wouldn't ever do either, no matter what. They're just a different (but in many ways overlapping) set. I would give examples but, well, they're necessarily going to be some of the most horrible things human beings can do to one another, so I think you'll understand why I am choosing not to make a list thereof.

Maybe? My gut feeling is that "pure" CG would be roughly consequentialist, and fairly opposed to rule-based thinking.

 

[Charlaquin]

I love this. It's so odd and quintessentially D&D, "[Mortal actors] oppose evil and chaos due to their ideological convictions, but recognize that the total victory of good over evil or law over chaos would make the world more vulnerable on the perpendicular axis." Gold. You did not disappoint.

Thank you very much!

However, I'm not sure it works on the Evil/Good axis. If Evil is categorically defeated, and the Good alignments become vulnerable to dominance by chaos, doesn't that just get us to chaotic good?

Only if you assume evil is a finite quantity that can be permanently eliminated, rather than a corrupting force that can emerge out of otherwise good or neutral conditions.

That's maybe better than endless cosmic struggle from the perspective of rational thinking creatures. Or does perfect chaotic goodness turn creation into chaos soup?

Haha perhaps that’s my own bias showing, when my preferred system implies chaotic good being the superior ideology

"Law and good are by nature more restrictive than evil and chaos, so it’s much easier for evil to exploit a lawful good society’s rules to its own ends" Yikes... that's uncomfortably timely.

I mean… I’m not saying my thoughts on the nine alignment system mostly arise from parallels between it and the political compass… but I’m not not saying that either…

 

[TwoSix]

Fitness doesn't really serve any purpose, in itself. But, seeing as we're conceiving a fantasy world, maybe there's an out of context threat (far realm, Azathoth, whatever) which the group needs to be strong enough to overcome (which could make sense locally OR cosmically). This would then cast the muscular neutrals as ends-justify-the means consequentialists--but it would make more sense for them to take that tack since they don't have to meet the criteria of Good.

I mean, it can. The whole genre of xianxia (cultivation) is dependent on that idea.

Once you're the strongest force in the universe, you might take a billion years to set up societies that grow the next possible contender to challenge you.

However, I'm not sure it works on the Evil/Good axis. If Evil is categorically defeated, and the Good alignments become vulnerable to dominance by chaos, doesn't that just get us to chaotic good? That's maybe better than endless cosmic struggle from the perspective of rational thinking creatures. Or does perfect chaotic goodness turn creation into chaos soup?

I would think of it as any one side can't win without automatically defeating the other three. Once Good wins over Evil, Law and Chaos become irrelevant. Or once Law wins, Good and Evil cease to matter.

Neutrality exists because once any one side becomes dominant, the other three will ally against them, with multiversal cataclysmic consequences.

 

[TwoSix]

This is conflating Good with Law, as has so often been noted. The thing you are referring to as "good people" are simply lawful people, who live in organized, civic communities rather than dispersed wilderness populations.

It's very hard not to conflate Good with Law; I mean, that's why a lot of OD&D material did so explicitly.

If good is about sacrifice and altruism at its core, those concepts only make sense in the context of an individual's relationships with others.

 

[Voadam]

If good is about sacrifice and altruism at its core, those concepts only make sense in the context of an individual's relationships with others.

I don’t think good is about those. Evil fanatics can selflessly sacrifice themselves for their cause.

Good makes things better. It helps. Selflessness is not the basis of good or necessary for good.

 

[TwoSix]

I don’t think good is about those. Evil fanatics can selflessly sacrifice themselves for their cause.

Good makes things better. It helps. Selflessness is not the basis of good or necessary for good.

I would assume evil fanatics who sacrifice themselves are generally brainwashed into believing there will be a greater reward for their sacrifice.

But yes, even characters who do Evil things can also do selfless things. That’s why morality is complicated!

And I think we would generally acknowledge that a person who helps at no sacrifice to themselves isn’t that good.

 

[FireLance]

I think you all are just overthinking things. Just look at the issue through the lens of cognitive dissonance and self-image.

Neutral recognizes that Good is "better" than they are. They would like to be Good, but can't hack it because they are too greedy, jealous, spiteful, wrathful, or whatever. However, they need to feel morally superior to someone, so they can't let Evil die out. At the same time, they don't want to live in a world where Evil has the upper hand (who would?), so they can't let them win, either.

Thus, they join forces with Good when Evil gets too strong, and quietly help Evil to survive when Good starts winning. To make themselves feel better, they dress it up in high-sounding language like "standing up for the underdog", or "helping the weak", or "maintaining the Balance".

Done.