D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Clint_L]

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.

Sure. It seems like you are taking a utilitarian approach - greater good; intentions are irrelevant.

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.

Classic utilitarianism.

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 think these are meaningless words so I am not going to address them.

I don’t go with him being definitionally morally good in every way even though he is the exemplar crusader for good.

Also, "definitionally morally good" is undefinable, so best to set it aside.

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

Well, not exactly, not in a scenario like D&D where the gods and outer planes are demonstrably real and can be contacted and visited. Let's say the paladin in your party has verified: yup, Bahamat really wants you to slaughter all the adult goblins and take their children to be raised, along with all their descendants, in his religion so that they can all be eligible for an eternity of bliss or whatever.

Surely, that's a moral imperative, given how this universe works. I mean, if we are looking at the greater good, a literal eternity of bliss (or whatever that god's definition of good is) has to immeasurably outweigh some brief, mortal pain and suffering, doesn't it?

If we assume such a world, shouldn't the logical outcome be that all of the forces of Good are relentlessly crusading to bring everyone into their light, temporary earthly suffering be damned? If not, why not?

 

[TwoSix]

Surely, that's a moral imperative, given how this universe works. I mean, if we are looking at the greater good, a literal eternity of bliss (or whatever that god's definition of good is) has to immeasurably outweigh some brief, mortal pain and suffering, doesn't it?

If we assume such a world, shouldn't the logical outcome be that all of the forces of Good are relentlessly crusading to bring everyone into their light, temporary earthly suffering be damned? If not, why not?

And if we assume that as the basis of the setting, having a heroic PC (or PCs) join forces with the "muscular neutrals" because "Good isn't really good" would make a lot of sense.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I was thinking, for example, sexual assault. There is no context I can conceive of where a CG person would do that. I don't personally see CG as consequentialist.

I also find that consequentialism has a very serious risk of actively encouraging evil behavior in the name of good, if it is calibrated at the wrong scale. Things of the "well if we purify the gene pool now, we make everyone better forever after!!" that are, as stated, literally just evil in a funny hat.

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

Really? I find it trivially easy to keep the two separate, and I say that as someone who has been described by friends as actually Lawful Good in real life.

Law is a tool. Good is a goal. Laws are by definition teleological, they pursue some chosen end, but Law itself cannot tell you which ends are worthy. Good (or Evil!) can tell you which ends are worthy, but need not specify any particular method for seeking those ends.

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.

"Sacrifice" only when it is needful or highly beneficial, to be clear. Sacrifice simply to be sacrificial is generally frowned upon. ("Or if I give my body to the flames that I may boast, but I have not love, I gain nothing.")

I also don't think electing to make sacrifices for another, nor choosing to do something kind purely because kindness is the right thing to do, need to have any relationship whatsoever to individual relationships. Firefighters save people from burning buildings without knowing anything about them. Some people donate huge sums of money to charity and yet wish their donations to remain anonymous; that is altruism specifically without individual relationships, since the donation is made in secret. I myself have tried to give aid and charity to people I have never met and will never know, because I believe it is the right thing to do, even if nobody ever knows about it. "Character is who you are in the dark."

Good is about doing right by others, even if it isn't easy or comfortable to do so. Part of doing right by others is trying to understand what they want and need, and respecting them as ends in themselves, never to be seen as means to some other end. Another part is sharing what you have with those in need, even if that means you get less as a result. A further part is making sacrifices for others that are in need. Etc. These things require thought and consideration to implement wisely. They cannot be boiled down to a pithy maxim or list of singular instructions.

(And, to be clear? I LOVE it when works actually put in the time to give Evil the same treatment. It's boring to make Evil boil down to "graaah, feel my unholy rage!!!!" or "what if Nazis....were ALIENS???" It's so much more interesting when Evil has reasons, and is trying to win the argument, not just kill their debate opponent.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Isn't the fundamental problem here that you are not just asserting that "muscular" Neutrality is reasonable, but that it is in fact true?

Because that very much seems to be the problem here. You've eliminated moral quandary, by way of making morality a solved question. There is a right answer, and that answer is "muscular" Neutrality.

That is incompatible with Good as I understand the term.

The conceit I'm working with is, "The cosmos works like what Muscular Neutrality says it works like - that if Good or Evil get 'too much' power, the balance tips, and the setting ends somehow. The only way to preserve the setting is to keep the balance."

And then asking, "How can one still be actually Good in that setting? Is it possible to be Good, knowing it will end the world if too many people are Good?" Not evil-by-another-name, not abandoning the traits that make one Good (altruism, compassion, a respect for life, etc.), but being Good, fighting for Good, knowing that it could tip the scales too far.

And finding, yeah, there's definitely ways to embrace apocalyptic Good. Good is not incompatible with the idea of the end of the world. It's just very particular about how you'd have to achieve it. With consent.

And then playing with that very interesting idea about consenting to the end of the world.

In most D&D contexts, "everyone lived happily ever after" is a fine ending, one that Good strives for. However, it's a fantasy game, and the cosmos is our plaything. I'm not committed to a cosmos where "everyone lived happily ever after" is a possible ending. So if we remove that possibility, as the Muscular Neutrals have done, what happens to the setting and the characters in it? If everyone being happy means that nobody lives? Or if everyone lived, they couldn't be happy forever after? Very juicy fantasy topics to explore.

 

[Voadam]

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

I strongly disagree.

Someone who dedicated a lot of their life to doing good and does great good is very good whether they had to sacrifice or not.

Say someone who works in public health helping people. Someone who is paid well and respected and enjoys their work and wants to do it. A doctor and researcher who helps many and saves lives and makes lives better for many for example.

I see no value in requiring they sacrifice to be considered that good.

 

[TwoSix]

I strongly disagree.

Someone who dedicated a lot of their life to doing good and does great good is very good whether they had to sacrifice or not.

Say someone who works in public health helping people. Someone who is paid well and respected and enjoys their work and wants to do it. A doctor and researcher who helps many and saves lives and makes lives better for many for example.

I see no value in requiring they sacrifice to be considered that good.

Yea, but they’re still sacrificing, in the sense that using their time and energy towards something that helps rather than something that helps themselves.

The opportunity cost of our actions is still a sacrifice.

 

[TwoSix]

I was thinking, for example, sexual assault. There is no context I can conceive of where a CG person would do that. I don't personally see CG as consequentialist.

I imagine most CG individuals would balk, yes. CG as a force, I'm not so sure.

I also find that consequentialism has a very serious risk of actively encouraging evil behavior in the name of good, if it is calibrated at the wrong scale. Things of the "well if we purify the gene pool now, we make everyone better forever after!!" that are, as stated, literally just evil in a funny hat.

I'm pretty sure consequentialism and deontological ethics both continue to exist because they find each other problematic.

I also don't think electing to make sacrifices for another, nor choosing to do something kind purely because kindness is the right thing to do, need to have any relationship whatsoever to individual relationships. Firefighters save people from burning buildings without knowing anything about them. Some people donate huge sums of money to charity and yet wish their donations to remain anonymous; that is altruism specifically without individual relationships, since the donation is made in secret. I myself have tried to give aid and charity to people I have never met and will never know, because I believe it is the right thing to do, even if nobody ever knows about it. "Character is who you are in the dark."

Not individual relationships, an individual's relationship with others. Others in this case being the circles of kin, clan, community, nation, world, and all sapients/all living beings. (And probably some other circles in a fantasy multiverse.) Basic Singer stuff.

Good is about doing right by others, even if it isn't easy or comfortable to do so.

And I would say it's doing right by others, especially when it isn't easy to do so. But that's a fine grain distinction.

(And, to be clear? I LOVE it when works actually put in the time to give Evil the same treatment. It's boring to make Evil boil down to "graaah, feel my unholy rage!!!!" or "what if Nazis....were ALIENS???" It's so much more interesting when Evil has reasons, and is trying to win the argument, not just kill their debate opponent.)

Of course. The most interesting setting with cosmological factions isn't going to label them as "Good", "Evil", and "Neutral"; they'll be labeled as "Good", "Good", and "Good".

 

[Voadam]

Sure. It seems like you are taking a utilitarian approach - greater good; intentions are irrelevant.

Classic utilitarianism.

It’s also classic D&D alignment where the totality says where you are on the alignment axes.

I think these are meaningless words so I am not going to address them.

Wow.

Also, "definitionally morally good" is undefinable, so best to set it aside.

No, can good Bahamut do anything non-good or is he an elemental of Lawful Good whose every action and choice is lawful good? If the latter he is definitionally good as are his choices.

Well, not exactly, not in a scenario like D&D where the gods and outer planes are demonstrably real and can be contacted and visited. Let's say the paladin in your party has verified: yup, Bahamat really wants you to slaughter all the adult goblins and take their children to be raised, along with all their descendants, in his religion so that they can all be eligible for an eternity of bliss or whatever.

Surely, that's a moral imperative, given how this universe works. I mean, if we are looking at the greater good, a literal eternity of bliss (or whatever that god's definition of good is) has to immeasurably outweigh some brief, mortal pain and suffering, doesn't it?

If we assume such a world, shouldn't the logical outcome be that all of the forces of Good are relentlessly crusading to bring everyone into their light, temporary earthly suffering be damned? If not, why not?

Bahamut being real does not change whether some action he calls for is good or evil. Alignment is separate from the gods and does not come from them.

I feel no moral imperative to follow Bahamut even though he is Lawful Good.

The specifics of an afterlife could change some moral calculations but the specifics are debatable.

 

[Voadam]

Yea, but they’re still sacrificing, in the sense that using their time and energy towards something that helps rather than something that helps themselves.

The opportunity cost of our actions is still a sacrifice.

No the example is someone who wants to do it and there is no significant opportunity cost.

Doctors can be very well paid for example and enjoy their work and the prestige and feeling good about doing good.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

That'd be a big no from me.

And I think people trying to make good into a martyrdom competition would be a justification for the buffboi neutrals.

One of the big reasons I hate alignment so is how often someone else's version and expectations of good is so far from mine that the light from one will take ten thousand years to reach the other.

Good being 'not nice'; Good being arrogant; Good paying evil unto evil; Good trying to exterminate other people; Good justifying evil for 'greater' good. All just evil with a rebrand to me.