D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

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?
That's definitely likely, yeah.

No -person- is entirely good or entirely evil. Most of us are some blend of good and bad traits with a whole lot of "Meh" traits making up the bulk of who we are. Like me being neurodivergent and trans and liking TTRPGs. None of that is is good nor evil, they just are aspects of me.

But I'm also kind of a jerk, sometimes. I can be petty. I do lie, sometimes. These are traits that in a world where good is all there is would not exist. But how to get them out?

Well. Me being a jerk would mostly require therapy and probably medication to deal with anxiety and depression. Stopping me from being petty mostly just means I need to live in a wholly good society where there's nothing to be petty -about- because nothing sucks that I feel the need or desire to be petty over. And a society that is largely nonjudgemental would keep me from lying because pretty much all the lies I tell are ones that hide an aspect of myself I feel uncomfortable about or have received negative reinforcement of in the past. (Like DAVE related time management issues)

But if I'd grown up in a society without bullies and that was nonjudgemental, how many, if any, of these traits would I even actually have?

Just a thought.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So I read everything that's been posted here and this might have already been brought up and I missed it, but there is, as I remember it, mentioned in one of the old Planescape books something quite similar to this idea as presented by the OP.

Here is a paraphrase from memory. "The people on the Outlands (the plane of neutrality) keep a tally of good and bad deeds they have done, and try to maintain a balance between the two sides".
 

I don't believe those are the only two things that make this work.

Muscular Neutral also works if Neutral believes the Balance represents the minimal amount of Evil that can exist in the world. Muscular Good must be opposed because Hell is paved with Good intentions. Any attempt to eliminate Evil in the world inevitably disturbs the Balance, unintentionally creating an opening for more Evil to exist until the Balance is restored.

Edit: In other words, Neutral believes we exist in the best possible world, so any attempt to make the entire world better will inevitably make it worse, not matter how well-intentioned the effort.
But that is just an example of what they said...?

You have redefined Good so that it has evil in it. "Any attempt to make the entire world better will inevitably make it worse" IS "Good isn't actually Good, it just thinks it's Good, but it's actually Special Purpose Evil With A Lot Of Hangups."

The "muscular" Neutrals are thus the actual Good faction, trying to prevent both of the two squabbling Evil factions from winning--assuming they're correct, I mean. If they're incorrect, then they're the ones who are Special Purpose Evil With A Lot Of Hangups. Or...

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.
...what she already said.
 

So I read everything that's been posted here and this might have already been brought up and I missed it, but there is, as I remember it, mentioned in one of the old Planescape books something quite similar to this idea as presented by the OP.

Here is a paraphrase from memory. "The people on the Outlands (the plane of neutrality) keep a tally of good and bad deeds they have done, and try to maintain a balance between the two sides".
I wouldn't call them "muscular" Neutrals though. They only keep that tally because they're aware that if they fail to do this, it will literally reshape the world around them to suit their behavior. Alignment is outright prescriptive in Planescape. E.g. in Planescape: Torment, the people of the town of Curst--originally part of the Outlands--caused it to "slide" into Carceri because of the influence of Trias, the Betrayer. Fixing the town, doing good and keeping your promises, helps to restore it to where it was before. The careful (but not TOO careful!) record-keeping of Outlands residents is simply pragmatic self-defense.
 

But I'm also kind of a jerk, sometimes. I can be petty. I do lie, sometimes. These are traits that in a world where good is all there is would not exist.
Getting right down to brass tacks, if pettiness and lying are evil, then 'evil' is a result of emotion and consequence. Pettiness comes from the greatest and most powerful of human emotions: spite, and lying is how sapient beings from humans to chimps to dolphins to elephants and all the other D&D species were share this setting with an absolutely terrible language system with avoid negative consequences.

So what, are we supposed to delete emotion and have zero consequences for anything?

So either 'good' is casting way to wide a net, or evil is inherent to sapience.
 

Getting right down to brass tacks, if pettiness and lying are evil, then 'evil' is a result of emotion and consequence. Pettiness comes from the greatest and most powerful of human emotions: spite, and lying is how sapient beings from humans to chimps to dolphins to elephants and all the other D&D species were share this setting with an absolutely terrible language system with avoid negative consequences.

So what, are we supposed to delete emotion and have zero consequences for anything?

So either 'good' is casting way to wide a net, or evil is inherent to sapience.
Lying is a result of social structures that rely on blame and punishment. Not just "Consequences" but explicitly punishment for wrongdoing or even just making a mistake.

Dunno if anyone else got a whupping for breaking a window or a vase or other fragile item in a completely unintentional manner, but I expect even a strong negative verbal reaction would result in avoidance strategies to mitigate future shame and degradation. Or, y'know, lying. The consequences of accidentally breaking a delicate object are that the object is broken. Not a freshly spanked backside or going to bed without dinner. Those are punishments we apply to the accident.

Lying in animals typically comes as a result of resource allocation, with negative consequences happening when poor choices are made in times of scarcity.

It's not as if lying appears out of nowhere. It's a learned behavior based on past experiences and present threats.

Pettiness, on the other hand, relies on there being something to be petty -about-. In a utopic society in which everyone is treated like equals and kindness is the key word in describing how people interact, there would be no pettiness 'cause you'd have nothing to be petty about over anyone else.
 

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.
In my proposed thought experiment, the Neutrals aren't maintaining Evil. Some amount of Evil will always exist, without needing anyone to maintain it. And at no point was it proposed that Neutrals go about killing Good people.

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.
There's no requirement that Neutrals commit Evil acts. Nor is there any requirement that Neutrals believe they are Good. Neutrals oppose Evil (possibly for selfish reasons) without also seeing the necessity of Good as defined in the OP (they could, for example, beleive a pragmatic society built on enlightened self-interest is more sustainable and beneficial than one that requires universal altruism.)

"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.
Muscular Neutrals aren't preventing Good from landing the killing blow. Good is and always will be incapable of landing the killing blow, and there's nothing Neutral can do about it. Muscular Neutrals are preventing prideful people with Good intentions from dealing collateral damage.

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".
That's not the definition of Neutral that I'm proposing. Neutral isn't trying to prevent Good or Evil from winning. Neutral has come to the realization that it is ontologically impossible for Good or Evil to win, so Neutral acts to prevent either side from causing (intended or unintended) collateral damage to bystanders.

And this is the external "Something bad happens if evil is destroyed" outcome I was suggesting.
Technically, in my thought experiment, Evil can't be destroyed. If I was interpreting you too literally, and you are using "something bad happens if evil is destroyed" as a stand-in for "Good actions can have bad consequences," then I concede my argument. I absolutely agree that Muscular Neutral only works if it's possible for Good actions to have bad consequences.

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"
(Just including this last part of your post for completeness. I've already addressed it above. Muscular Neutrals don't have to believe they are Good. They just have to oppose Evil for whatever reason.)

But that is just an example of what they said...?

You have redefined Good so that it has evil in it. "Any attempt to make the entire world better will inevitably make it worse" IS "Good isn't actually Good, it just thinks it's Good, but it's actually Special Purpose Evil With A Lot Of Hangups."

The "muscular" Neutrals are thus the actual Good faction, trying to prevent both of the two squabbling Evil factions from winning--assuming they're correct, I mean. If they're incorrect, then they're the ones who are Special Purpose Evil With A Lot Of Hangups. Or...


...what she already said.
I don't believe I'm redefining Good. I'm using the working definitions of Good and Evil provided in the OP. To paraphrase what Good and Evil mean in the proposed thought experiment:

Good = altruism and respect for others
Evil = harming and oppressing others

Note that these definitions of Good and Evil don't require Good to be "that which produces the best outcome for everyone." In fact, a Good character (who is genuinely altruistic and respectful of others) can cause Evil outcomes (which result in harm and oppression) without willfully taking any Evil actions. Being 100% Good provides no guarantee that one's actions produce beneficial results.

Good characters fight to protect the dignity of all sentient beings. Evil characters fight to harm or oppress anyone who gets in their way. Muscular Neutrals fight to make sure all these non-Neutral parties are going to war wielding Nerf weapons, so bystanders who get caught in the crossfire are merely bonked on the head, instead of being maimed or killed by idealogical warriors.
 

In my proposed thought experiment, the Neutrals aren't maintaining Evil. Some amount of Evil will always exist, without needing anyone to maintain it. And at no point was it proposed that Neutrals go about killing Good people.
Then there are no "Muscular Neutrals" in your version and it's a moot point.

The premise of the thread is that good or evil CAN be defeated, forever, and the neutral people in the middle are actively maintaining a balance (that's the "Muscular" part) between good and evil to avoid either side "Winning" and disrupting the balance.

Which requires doing "Good" when good is threatened and "Evil" when evil is threatened.
 

Lying is a result of social structures that rely on blame and punishment. Not just "Consequences" but explicitly punishment for wrongdoing or even just making a mistake.

Dunno if anyone else got a whupping for breaking a window or a vase or other fragile item in a completely unintentional manner, but I expect even a strong negative verbal reaction would result in avoidance strategies to mitigate future shame and degradation. Or, y'know, lying. The consequences of accidentally breaking a delicate object are that the object is broken. Not a freshly spanked backside or going to bed without dinner. Those are punishments we apply to the accident.

Lying in animals typically comes as a result of resource allocation, with negative consequences happening when poor choices are made in times of scarcity.

It's not as if lying appears out of nowhere. It's a learned behavior based on past experiences and present threats.

Pettiness, on the other hand, relies on there being something to be petty -about-. In a utopic society in which everyone is treated like equals and kindness is the key word in describing how people interact, there would be no pettiness 'cause you'd have nothing to be petty about over anyone else.
But here's the thing:

There are plenty of people who lie for attention or to elevate themselves, or any other number of reasons aside from escaping punishment.

And my god are there a lot of people who are petty because it gives them delicious seratonins.

I don't think a fair and equitable society will be without lying or pettiness.

And to be clear, I don't see those as evil, just a consequence of sapience that we don't like. And D&D demonstrated that they're justification for being denied mercy or having their body and soul origamied into a gem and tormented until you are sufficiently brainwashed out of it.
 

But here's the thing:

There are plenty of people who lie for attention or to elevate themselves, or any other number of reasons aside from escaping punishment.

And my god are there a lot of people who are petty because it gives them delicious seratonins.

I don't think a fair and equitable society will be without lying or pettiness.
Clearly, the only way to resolve this dispute is to create a pure utopic society with no scarcity of resources or class and find out.

Let's get started!
And to be clear, I don't see those as evil, just a consequence of sapience that we don't like. And D&D demonstrated that they're justification for being denied mercy or having their body and soul origamied into a gem and tormented until you are sufficiently brainwashed out of it.
Fair. But that has to do with D&D's morality being mostly Kantian.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top