D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Steampunkette]

I didn't explicitly state that, though it captures the spirit.

Really, it's simpler: Unless you're a Evil jerk, why would you ever actively oppose Good? And can you (ENWorld poster) contrive a reasonable basis for someone to do so?

Foolishness, selfishness, or ignorance.

You could delude yourself into sitting on a fence, convinced that being "In the Middle" is superior, but it's ultimately a foolish position. You allow evil to exist, or even assist evil, because you think good is "Just as Bad" as evil and vice-versa.

It's the horseshoe theory of morality where good and evil are fundamentally the same thing and the only solution is to stick your fingers in your ears to the screams of the innocent harmed along the way because at least you're not the one harming them.

I like this idea.

Muscular neutrals want to prevent the conflict from escalating.

Good wants to prevent the conflict from escalating too but, by themselves, they can't. Their gains cause Evil to escalate the conflict, which is bad for everyone--and Evil's gains force Good to escalate, for fear of losing and allowing more people to come to harm by Evil. Escalation might just mean sending more outsiders and empowering more mortal vessels at first--but everybody knows that world ending power is on the table if things escalate too far.

This is, by it's nature, a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict between good and evil in every story and also in reality.

Good is a Reactive force. Evil is an Active force.

In the status quo, good seeks to improve things for those most harmed in a society to try and bring up the worst-off. And they do this largely through altruism: Giving of themselves to help others. Sure that can mean fighting dragons and defeating liches, but it's also charity or working in a soup kitchen or building an orphans and lost puppies hospital and orphanage.

Good responds to the ills that exist and selflessly gives of it's own attention, emotion, energy, and resources to fix the problems that exist.

Evil, on the other hand, actively seeks to do harm. Evil bans books and makes discriminatory laws, evil attacks innocents and steals money or food or the candy from babies (not that babies should -have- candy, but you know what I mean). Evil is not a passive force, it is an active force that seeks to gain for itself regardless of whom it harms along the way.

Good doesn't "Make Gains" against evil. Good fights when evil rears it's head, and the rest of the time it just chills out and helps people live their lives.

The two can't maintain a peace between themselves because Good doesn't trust Evil (justifiably) and Evil doesn't trust Good.

They need a 3rd party guarantor--the muscular neutrals. Muscular neutrals have to fight both sides, or they wouldn't work as a guarantor. Generally they spend more time fighting Evil ...because obviously. But if they don't also fight good, Evil will just escalate the conflict as they would have when threatened by good.

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

Neutrals, even "Muscular" neutrals, favor the status quo. They'd rather keep the peace than seek justice. Even if that means allowing harm to continue or even explicitly taking part in harming others.

At best neutrals are willing to push back when evil goes "Too Far", but are happy to let innocents suffer so long as it's not "Too Many" innocents. And there's no universe where that isn't a messed up way to be.

It requires no special cosmological justifications, just the logic of escalation.

And a fundamental misunderstanding of active and reactive forces.

It also gets us to the jaded I-know-more-than-thou wizards from secret societies sadly or stoically doing what they see as their duty to destroy the forces of good (and druids, which the preceding sort-of describes)--which, I think, is what many of us imagine muscular neutrals to be.

Sidenote: I'm leery of the term "pragmatic", it's essentially consequentialism with a bunch of unstated goals and assumptions snuck in.

Yeah... There's very few versions of reality in which Neutrality is "Pragmatic". It's mostly just a bunch of fence-sitters allowing awful things to happen to "Someone Else". 'Cause as soon as the druid's grove is next on the chopping block -suddenly- evil has gone "Too Far" and must be fought against. Nevermind the villages and cities that have fallen to evil away from the grove...

I think that's, in the end, the core of neutrality. Being uninvolved until threatened, -then- choosing a side. And they only consider the "Balance" threatened when good is winning the fight.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

As a follow-up question, I'd really like to know what it means that evil is defeated, without violating the initial definition or turning evil. I posited a few ideas that the MN would oppose, but it's based on their views of how a victory of Good would become, which isn't necesarily true -- though the fear of it happening would be enough to morally support opposing the forces of Good.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Folks, I found the Chaotic Neutral!

Don't do that. If you have a problem with an argument, debate that problem. Personal attacks, dehumanising others, not cool.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Good fights when evil rears it's head, and the rest of the time it just chills out and helps people live their lives.

Okay, this sounds like a workable definition of Good winning. In a world where Good has won, all members of society chill out and help one another live their lives. The victory condition for Good is the establishment of this entirely altruistic society in perpetuity, without end.

Using that definition, Muscular Neutrals would absolutely oppose a Good victory. Good wins when society is entirely altruistic, with everyone willing to help each other out. This requires that no Neutrals exist, because Neutrals just want to live and let live, neither harming nor helping others. That philosophy has no place in an entirely altruistic society. Good is striving to create a society populated with only Good people, and Muscular Neutrals are fighting for their right to exist.

 

[Steampunkette]

Okay, this sounds like a workable definition of Good winning. In a world where Good has won, all members of society chill out and help one another live their lives. The victory condition for Good is the establishment of this entirely altruistic society in perpetuity, without end.

Using that definition, Muscular Neutrals would absolutely oppose a Good victory. Good wins when society is entirely altruistic, with everyone willing to help each other out. This requires that no Neutrals exist, because Neutrals just want to live and let live, neither harming nor helping others. That philosophy has no place in an entirely altruistic society. Good is striving to create a society populated with only Good people, and Muscular Neutrals are fighting for their right to exist.

Ehhhhh...

They're not fighting for their "Right to Exist"

They're fighting to not have to care about the people around them or be cared about by the people around them.

In an altruistic society, people who don't help others would just be helped and that's it. Altruism doesn't expect anything from others, just the self.

"Neutrals" could live in a good society without being harmed or forced to do anything. Though they'd probably feel pretty crappy when they look out at neighbors suffering, do nothing about it, and others go help the people in need.

They'd be a bunch of Eleanor Shellstrops in a world of Chidi Anagonyes (without the bizarre indecisiveness)

 

[squibbles]

I'd be interested in engaging with the premise of the thread, so I have a follow-up question. Since we're assuming Good (altruism and respect for others) can win and defeat Evil (harm and oppression) forever, what does a world where Evil has been defeated look like?

I would need a concrete answer to that question in order to engage in the thought experiment in the OP. As soon as I have to take the possibility of Good or Evil winning absolutely and forever into account when explaining the actions of Muscular Neutrals, I don't think the definitions of Good and Evil provided in the OP are sufficient. Before I can posit why someone would oppose a 100% Good world, I would need to know what that world actually is for the purpose of this discussion. [...]

As a follow-up question, I'd really like to know what it means that evil is defeated, without violating the initial definition or turning evil. I posited a few ideas that the MN would oppose, but it's based on their views of how a victory of Good would become, which isn't necesarily true -- though the fear of it happening would be enough to morally support opposing the forces of Good.

I gave my answer to this in general terms on page 4.

To clarify the initial premise a bit:

A world where Good has won and the multiverse is under its rule doesn't mean that there can no longer exist people and creatures who are non-altruistic or even selfish and inclined to cruelty. Presumably, the Good rulers would permit those beings to exist and pursue their own ends too, provided they do no harm.

This all starts to feel uncomfortably utopian and implausible to me pretty quickly, but that's the premise of the thought experiment about what Good is.

(with apologies to @Steampunkette I guess I did explicitly state it)

Foolishness, selfishness, or ignorance.

You could delude yourself into sitting on a fence, convinced that being "In the Middle" is superior, but it's ultimately a foolish position. You allow evil to exist, or even assist evil, because you think good is "Just as Bad" as evil and vice-versa.

It's the horseshoe theory of morality where good and evil are fundamentally the same thing and the only solution is to stick your fingers in your ears to the screams of the innocent harmed along the way because at least you're not the one harming them.

I'm guessing you don't consider this a reasonable position, no?

Charlaquin's phrasing in the other thread frames muscular neutrals as something like this. Can you think of a muscular neutral who has plausible reason to actively oppose Good?

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm guessing you don't consider this a reasonable position, no?

Charlaquin's phrasing in the other thread frames muscular neutrals as something like this. Can you think of a muscular neutral who has plausible reason to actively oppose Good?

No, not remotely. I think people who choose to stand by while others are harmed are at best fools, and often quietly malicious themselves. Typically it's out of ignorance or laziness, but for muscular neutrals it's an active -choice-. A considered moral position to allow evil to exist is unreasonable.

As far as the plausible reason, I answered it: Force external to the conflict, or a redefinition of "Good" which includes evil.

Obviously redefining good is "Cheating". So the external force is the only reasonable conclusion, for me.

Good cannot win because once good wins, some separate apocalyptic event destroys everything so there is no good, no neutral, no evil. It's the only logical way to resolve muscular neutrals supporting or defending evil from defeat by the forces of good.

 

[Clint_L]

Good cannot win because once good wins, some separate apocalyptic event destroys everything so there is no good, no neutral, no evil. It's the only logical way to resolve muscular neutrals supporting or defending evil from defeat by the forces of good.

I disagree. For me, muscular neutrals might be those who believe that ideologies are inherently subjective and dangerous to non-believers, and so oppose all of them. Or they might be those who believe that basically all so-called civilizations are ultimately harmful and thus, like classic druids, oppose any force that challenges the primacy of nature.

For example, in this thread someone has argued that if we had opposed the Industrial Revolution out of empathy for displaced works, we would have missed out on all the subsequent goods the Industrial Revolution created. You could make the same claim for the development of modern sciences and medicine. But that is potentially short term thinking, because there is a very real possibility that the long term consequences of those things will be absolutely disastrous for humanity.

Similarly, a neutral person could believe that any ideology, despite its best intentions, will, in the long run, become a problem (c.f. innumerable real world examples).

 

[Clint_L]

I come at this issue from the point of view that good and evil are perspectives, not "forces" (I don't think the latter is even a definable position; everyone who tries just keeps coming back to a circular argument). So to be muscularly neutral is to recognize that, and try to navigate the best outcome for each particular situation. If that means working with the Bad Guy, then so be it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i brought this up earlier but i'm kind of surprised that it gained no traction as an idea in this discussion: that 'unchecked Good' can become something to be considered a negative by the fact it could become detrimentally self-sacrificial, that it may willingly impose hardship upon itself in the service of certain ideals.