D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[abirdcall]

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).

Yeah, this is essentially post-modernism as I understand it.

Once atomic bombs dropped people re-thought what they considered to be good, but now the genie can't be put back in the bottle so what do what we can.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, this is essentially post-modernism as I understand it.

That's definitely not post-modernism by any definition I know, but that's a discussion for another place. It is more of a real politik approach, or maybe a kind of enlightened pragmatism.

Though, again, I am now stuck on the idea that if real, verifiable afterlives exist, then all of these musings go out the window, and all you should be doing with your short mortal life is maximizing the odds of getting into the afterlife of your choice. If taking a side in some ideological struggle gets you into the place that you think is best, then you should do that, and do whatever it takes. Mortal life is completely negligible set beside eternity. Being neutral only makes sense if you really like the neutral afterlife.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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

Thanks for reposting that. I missed it the first time. I'll contemplate that premise and see if there's anything I can contribute to the thought experiment.

 

[NebulaMajor]

For such a discussion to take place, we have to define good, evil, and neutral by what we find in the text of the game and the discussion must be confined to a hypothetical world where those definitions are valid. i.e. I think we need to pick an edition and see what their defintion of LG, LE, N, etc., etc., are first and extrapolate what musclar neutrality means in that context.

I believe this could be a valid starting point.

 

[NebulaMajor]

Would it be against the premise of the thread to suggest that muscular neutrality be strictly an ideological stance held by mortal beings, and not have any metaphysical validity? That is to say, neutrality between the cosmic forces of good and evil is not really beneficial to the cosmos, but that doesn’t stop some people from thinking it is and acting on that belief?

Writing that out, I guess it does kinda seem against the premise.

interesting...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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

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.

So basically, they would tolerate Evil and fight it when he does harm. I am probably missing something, butu I dont see that as different from the period where both Evil and Good are fighting. The Good kingdoms would be at war with the Evil kingdoms, permitting them to exist and pursue their own ends, but miffed that they are doing harm so they are trying to remove them. Or they'd allow them to be on their own, since they'd only be doing harm to their owns, and they'd coexist, which isn't a victory for either side.

 

[Staffan]

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

I did not intend it as a personal attack. I find the philosophy the poster appears to promote, where you wish to live life entirely without obligations and consider any and all limits on your actions to be tantamount to slavery as pretty darn close to Chaotic Neutral.

 

[squibbles]

Thanks for reposting that. I missed it the first time. I'll contemplate that premise and see if there's anything I can contribute to the thought experiment.

You bet, I'll look for your response.

So basically, they would tolerate Evil and fight it when he does harm. I am probably missing something, butu I dont see that as different from the period where both Evil and Good are fighting. The Good kingdoms would be at war with the Evil kingdoms, permitting them to exist and pursue their own ends, but miffed that they are doing harm so they are trying to remove them. Or they'd allow them to be on their own, since they'd only be doing harm to their owns, and they'd coexist, which isn't a victory for either side.

The clarification is that in a world in which Good triumphs, there would still be selfish and cruel beings who arrived to their orientation by nature or nurture. They wouldn't be killed or 're-educated' by the Good, they would continue to live, pursue their own ends, and be treated with dignity, like everyone else, provided they didn't act on their selfishness or cruelty to harm others.

Evil folks setting up their own kingdom would fall into the harming others category pretty quickly, so Good would either prevent it or intervene post-hoc.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But then, what is the difference with a regular world, where it is not uncommon to have adventurer tasked to deal with necromancer building armies of undead because they are starting to unleash them to do harm, or there are good kingdoms at war with evil kingdoms (equivalent to Good intervening post-hoc)? I could say that your depiction of the triumph of Good is the starting point of many campaign worlds. The mostly Good kingdoms fight the Zhents agents but don't brainwash people into not joining the Zhents, and they are at war with Thay because Thay is oppressive and wishing to kill basically everyone else. How is it not the state of "triumph of Good" you're describing? I am not trying to criticize the premise, just to understand them.

Yet, in this state of thing (Faerun-like), the MN could still morally oppose the Good kingdom and prevent them from wiping Thay and Menzoberranzan, because they consider that the next step after conquest by the forces of Good would be asking the question "how can we prevent those kingdom to ever happen again, threatening the peace? A question to which they think there is only bad answers. Much like they oppose the Evil kingdoms when they are on the winning side, because they estimate they could determine that killing all Good people is a very valid way of preventing them for reigniting the war later, which is also against the worldview of a liberty-loving MN.

 

[Epic Meepo]

To recap, my current understaning of the thought experiment is this:

Premise 1: Evil is harming, killing, or oppressing others.
Premise 2: Good is selflessly helping others.
Premise 3: It's possible for Good to win with no harmful consequences.
Premise 4: If Good wins, Evil acts are prohibited, but everyone is otherwise free to pursue their personal goals in a manner of their own choosing.

Question: What reasonable motivation would Neutral have to prevent Good from winning?

Premise 4 essentially means a win for Good has no negative impact on Neutral. (Being non-Evil, Neutrals would have no interest in perpetrating Evil acts.) So we’re essentially being asked, “If a win for Good has no negative impact on Neutral, why would Neutral oppose total victory for Good?”

I suppose Neutral might oppose Good if Neutral wants Evil to destroy itself, or if Neutral wants to be the one to land the killing blow. If there’s some benefit to one of those circumstances, Neutral would need to prevent Good from defeating Evil in order to let some other faction land the killing blow.