D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Jfdlsjfd]

This thread now has me thinking more about the implications of a setting where everyone knows that not only are gods unequivocally real, but so are afterlives. Like, you can visit them and come back. Player characters often do.

My favourite is Eberron, and I guess the OP conflict with Muscular Netural would work better in such a setting.

For example, given that you know that there is an eternal afterlife, wouldn't you expect everyone virtually everyone, aside from a few incorrigible sociopaths, to be doing whatever they can, all the time, to get into one of the good ones?

Like, Karl Marx argued that religion is the opiate of the masses, and that was just based on the promise of an afterlife that he didn't believe in and, let's face it, most people have to have at least some doubts about. But if an afterlife is 100% guaranteed, then that completely changes the equation.

Sacrificing yourself for a noble cause should be a no-brainer. Grief would be completely different. And are you really going to commit terrible deeds when an eternity of torture is a veritable certainty, as is an eternity of joy as a reward for showing some restraint?

Yes. And above everything else, since the Lower Planes are defined by the Evil Gods, those Gods would be silly not to make the Lower Planes the nicest place to reward their followers the same as Good. Even if they didn't think of it first, they should see the benefit after the first generation of two of people siding with the better afterlife proposition. Maybe it couuld be attractive differently (if you're Good, you get to bathe eternally in the warm light of Torm. We, on the other hand, have succubi) but in both case the afterlife should be attractive. The idea of a Good and Bad afterlives depending on your action comes from monotheistic religion, where there is a right choice and a wrong choice, and the Evil side isn't simply an alternative to the Good choice.

So maybe we get wrong depiction of afterlives (because we only get the Good version of it). "Here, on the LG side, if you are Good and sacrifice yourself in battle for righteousness, you get a direct entry to our afterlife. Everything will be Good. You'll get to do... basically nothing that would harm anything, sustained as everyone else by divine will, and you'll be rejoicing. No, you won't be able to play dice, because gambling can lead to Evil. Sex? No. Absolutely NOT. Talking to other people? Sure, as long as you don't speak ill of anyone." "Err... sure it's tempting but..." "Oh, and you get to not go the Bad afterlife". "Oh?" "Yes, the damned pay the price of serving Evil by living a very Evil torture forever". "Cool, I guess I'll join".
"Look here, they are engaging in carousing! And here, debauchery! Look at all the torture you've escaped from!"

If you make the Evil afterlife too attractive, though, nobody will take the Good alternative. So maybe the Evil God can't create a truly rewarding afterlife, and there must be a dimension of struggle, so people choosing Evil would be tempted by the Evil afterlife and reading the small line of "But if you're not evil enough, you'll be a servant of a more useful evil worshipper and you access to carousing and debauchery will be much rarer". So the afterlife would be a bet, where if you're not ethically aligned, you choose between the safe Good afterlife, and if you're willing to take the risk, the Bad afterlife.

And, per my example above, is forcibly converting people really wrong when it does, in fact, guarantee them eternal bliss?

If converting people is enough, TBH, the Good thing is to convert babies and put them to death. Sure, murder is very bad, so the executor would go to Hell, but he would save countless people before they have the opportunity to be damned. He'd be a hero sacrificing his soul for the greater good and would probably be pardonned (and even if he isn't, he'd still be saving thousands of souls). That's quite dystopian but in line with Good is altruism AND there is an objectively Good eternity after the short passage of mortal life. It would be so despicable from our world's point of view that the game would have a hard time presenting a civilization (short-lived one, probably) deciding on this policy as Good. Yet changing the fundamental parameters of what is existence would certainly change ethics a lot.

But if entering the patron god's realm requires being faithful all you life instead, then just converting people wouldn't be enough. In such case, most people would be turned into a brick in the Wall of the Faithless, not because they lacked a patron god, but because they faithlessly claimed to follow a god and didn't act accordingly. In which case you can get both side rewarding their own, and all the insufficently aligned (both Good and Evil) would be bored for eternity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This thread now has me thinking more about the implications of a setting where everyone knows that not only are gods unequivocally real, but so are afterlives. Like, you can visit them and come back. Player characters often do.

For example, given that you know that there is an eternal afterlife, wouldn't you expect everyone virtually everyone, aside from a few incorrigible sociopaths, to be doing whatever they can, all the time, to get into one of the good ones?

Like, Karl Marx argued that religion is the opiate of the masses, and that was just based on the promise of an afterlife that he didn't believe in and, let's face it, most people have to have at least some doubts about. But if an afterlife is 100% guaranteed, then that completely changes the equation.

Sacrificing yourself for a noble cause should be a no-brainer. Grief would be completely different. And are you really going to commit terrible deeds when an eternity of torture is a veritable certainty, as is an eternity of joy as a reward for showing some restraint?

And, per my example above, is forcibly converting people really wrong when it does, in fact, guarantee them eternal bliss?

that depends, do the Good afterlives actually provide 'a better afterlife', or merely provide an afterlife that good-aligned people consider desirable? and similarly so with the other afterlives.

 

[Epic Meepo]

In which case they engage in evil. Both in knowingly letting evil exist, and actively -protecting- evil from being destroyed by good.

In which case "Muscular Neutral" is evil, but not 'as' evil as other evils.

You're quoting my post, but you don't seem to be addressing my proposed take on Neutrality.

I'm proposing a Neutrality which believes the world already contains the least possible amount of Evil. According to that world view, any "Good" character who feels compelled to destroy all Evil is actually serving the purpose of Evil. Since the world already contains the least possible amount of Evil, any attempt to change the world into something different will only end up creating more Evil.

Muscular Neutrals aren't "letting" Evil exist any more than they are "letting" gravity exist. You can't destroy gravity and you can't destroy Evil. But if you have enough power and enough hubris to believe you can destroy gravity, there's a good chance whatever plan you come up with to do it is going to end up causing a bunch of collateral damage as it catastrophically fails.

Muscular Neutrals aren't "protecting Evil from Good," because there's nothing Good can do to harm Evil. Muscular Neutrals are protecting Good from hurting itself and everyone else by paving a road to Hell with its misguided Good intentions. Only by accepting that some amount of pain exists in the world can one avoid harmful, ill-conceived attempts to erase all pain from the world.

 

[Clint_L]

that depends, do the Good afterlives actually provide 'a better afterlife', or merely provide an afterlife that good-aligned people consider desirable? and similarly so with the other afterlives.

I don't see "being tortured forever" as being on anyone's short list.

 

[Steampunkette]

You're quoting my post, but you don't seem to be addressing my proposed take on Neutrality.

If there's a minimum amount of Evil that must be maintained, and the neutrals are maintaining that evil, then they are protecting and encouraging evil to exist, and fighting Good to do it.

Which is, y'know. Evil. Killing good people who seek to stop murderers and other forces of evil is not a morally neutral act.

I'm proposing a Neutrality which believes the world already contains the least possible amount of Evil. According to that world view, any "Good" character who feels compelled to destroy all Evil is actually serving the purpose of Evil. Since the world already contains the least possible amount of Evil, any attempt to change the world into something different will only end up creating more Evil.

The key phrase is "According to this worldview".

The Neutrals think they're not doing evil. Or that greater evil will come from it. However, the neutrals in this thought experiment are a bunch of gibbering fools who are committing evil acts in defense of evil while thinking that will somehow keep things 'Balanced'.

Internally they may believe their actions are good (which tips the scales to good, I guess, and breaks the balance any way you slice it) but they're actually just allowing evil things to happen and stopping anyone who tries to stop those evil things from happening.

Muscular Neutrals aren't "letting" Evil exist any more than they are "letting" gravity exist. You can't destroy gravity and you can't destroy Evil. But if you have enough power and enough hubris to believe you can destroy gravity, there's a good chance whatever plan you come up with to do it is going to end up causing a bunch of collateral damage as it catastrophically fails.

"Muscular Neutrals" are -absolutely- allowing evil to exist. Because Good seeks to destroy evil and Muscular Neutrals step in to stop them from landing the killing blow.

If Neutrals just didn't get involved and let good and evil fight it out, they'd -still- be allowing Evil to exist by not opposing it and helping to squish it. They also wouldn't be "Muscular Neutrals" because the whole thought experiment hinges on these neutral entities -acting- to preserve the balance.

I.E. Defending Evil when Good might win, and defending Good when Evil might win. To "Maintain a balance".

Muscular Neutrals aren't "protecting Evil from Good," because there's nothing Good can do to harm Evil. Muscular Neutrals are protecting Good from hurting itself and everyone else by paving a road to Hell with its misguided Good intentions. Only by accepting that some amount of pain exists in the world can one avoid harmful, ill-conceived attempts to erase all pain from the world.

And this is the external "Something bad happens if evil is destroyed" outcome I was suggesting.

In which case they're performing Evil actions against Good people to prevent a great external Evil. Which is a "Good" thing for their internal worldview, which unbalances good and evil, soooo... Not striking a balance, which is the intent of "Muscular Neutrals"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Considering how inanely evil is described and what are or have been considered evil acts, we may need to reevaluate the goodness value of good 'seeking to destroy' evil.

Because thieves, liars and dudes who use poison are on the list for 'good' murder.

oooh, and remember when 'detect spells would tell you someone was evil if they were carrying an evil item? Destroying Frodo was on the table.

Like I said way back, considering Neutral never had a means of detecting who 'deserved' to be brutally murdered for ideological purposes, killing both other sides is self defense because they can't tell who's Dexter and Frank Castle and who are the serial killers the writers don't want you to like.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

what justifies a position of muscular neutrality?

I think it's easy to reconcile wrt. Law vs Chaos.

I think that this is a hard circle to square when you're talking about metaphysical moral forces, i.e. actually "Good" vs actually "Evil." I think if you rather entertain ideas of "sacred" and "profane" or "holy" and "unholy" it becomes much easier.

I think a utilitarian view is valid wrt. a sort of social/psychological conception of "good" and "evil," and might be justifiable - e.g. society needs a certain number of sociopaths because their transgressive nature fills roles that neurotypicals can't, they illuminate moral choices by their actions etc. In this case, I could envision a muscular neutrality which favours Good, while simultaneously admitting to the need for Evil. But not one where some kind of balance is desirable.

Neutrality representing some kind of gnostic/hidden reality which affords a true vision of right action, and where "Good" and "Evil" are regarded as equally illusory, would seem to be the most plausible solution.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't see "being tortured forever" as being on anyone's short list.

No, but evil aligned people would probably be pretty happy to be given a chance to step on and over others to gain massive amounts of power in the legions of the various hells, and to bring suffering and misfortune to mortals.

 

[Steampunkette]

Considering how inanely evil is described and what are or have been considered evil acts, we may need to reevaluate the goodness value of good 'seeking to destroy' evil.

Because thieves, liars and dudes who use poison are on the list for 'good' murder.

oooh, and remember when 'detect spells would tell you someone was evil if they were carrying an evil item? Destroying Frodo was on the table.

Like I said way back, considering Neutral never had a means of detecting who 'deserved' to be brutally murdered for ideological purposes, killing both other sides is self defense because they can't tell who's Dexter and Frank Castle and who are the serial killers the writers don't want you to like.

This brings up a good question: How is the defeat of evil achieved?

For it to be good, it can't be disproportionate. And for it to succeed, it must defeat -all- evil.

So for liars and thieves, rehabilitation defeats that evil. Social programs and the like keep people from needing to steal in the first place, for example.

But Evil also isn't just people's actions or ideologies in a fantasy game. It's also Hell itself and the demons and monsters within that are evil. It's Evil gods, too.

And if "Muscular Neutrality" is keeping Hell and Bane from being destroyed, I think it's a lot more clear that they're doing evil acts on the cosmic scale than if it's hemming or hawwing over whether or not a thief should get killed.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This brings up a good question: How is the defeat of evil achieved?

For it to be good, it can't be disproportionate. And for it to succeed, it must defeat -all- evil.

So for liars and thieves, rehabilitation defeats that evil. Social programs and the like keep people from needing to steal in the first place, for example.

But Evil also isn't just people's actions or ideologies in a fantasy game. It's also Hell itself and the demons and monsters within that are evil. It's Evil gods, too.

And if "Muscular Neutrality" is keeping Hell and Bane from being destroyed, I think it's a lot more clear that they're doing evil acts on the cosmic scale than if it's hemming or hawwing over whether or not a thief should get killed.

perhaps the degree of good and evil look different when detected, with the very in either way being utterly dominating with the more middle-of-the-road stuff being little more than light speckling with grey cloudy being neutral and dominant for much of life?