D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Steampunkette]

"At extremes good loses sight"

No.

At extremes, good is still good. If you make good into evil "At Extremes" you're just doing Horseshoe theory, which essentially ascribes the worst aspects of Law or Chaos to the "Extremes" of good in order to frame good as a bad thing.



Good is all the way on the left, Evil is all the way on the right. "Extreme Good" runs the gamut from Lawful Good (Which is what most people ascribe as the 'Evil' form of Good with rules and demands on everyone) down to Chaotic Good. Think of it as a single pixel width column right on the left end of the bar running from the top corner of the image to the bottom corner of the image. ALL OF THAT is extreme good, running the gamut from Lawful's extreme to Chaos' extreme.

But pure Good, Neutral Good, right on the line between law and chaos, at the extreme left... Doesn't loop around and become evil. Neither does Lawful Good or Chaotic Good, if we wanna be sticklers about it, though the extremes of Law and Chaos cause their own problems.

But there is no wraparound effect where Good becomes Evil.

The whole "Enabling" thing you applied to love? Is not a question of too much love. Someone who loves someone else can take care of them, or let them choose their own path, or create a hybrid between the two based on their own experiences and understanding.

But I'd like to point out, that's a matter of Law and Chaos. Imposing "What's best for them" despite their wishes is on the Law side. Letting them choose to do drugs or whatever is on the Chaos side of allowing them the freedom to make their own choices. Neither of those things is "Love". It's a structure of authority over their autonomy to 'protect' or 'free' them. Both assume you have the right to control another person's autonomy, but one chooses not to exercise that control.

The love remains the same, in either case. And it's not "Loving them too much" to enable them or try to impose limits. That's a whole other separate decision making process that uses Love as the motivation to make a decision.

 

[Mind of tempest]

would the only downside to good be that in a universe of pure good there is nothing to have a game about thus reality effectively stop or is that too meta

 

[lall]

No it can't. It has been possible to enter into it voluntarily, but once in you no longer any choice in the matter. By definition slavery is forced.

Hogwash! Try reading a dictionary.

Per Google search: Slavery is “the state of being a slave.” Per MW, a slave is “someone or something that is completely subservient to a dominating person or influence.” I can choose to be subservient. I can then choose not to be.

Slavery is involuntary. Expecting certain kinds of labor before one is willing to provide certain kinds of credit--be it purely pecuniary credit, or the intangible credit of reputation--is simply the nature of exchange. If another person refuses to credit you with the reputation of being the best of neighbors because they do not believe your behavior has merited such credit, that is not, in any way, a reflection of that person somehow "enslaving" you to their will.

The fact that you want something specific from them--being credited with a particular kind of reputation--in no way whatsoever impinges upon them to grant it to you. Per any form of libertarian philosophy I can find (which is pretty obviously what you're applying here, whether you intend it or not), at least libertarian philosophy that actually takes its premises seriously, you would be the one in the wrong for demanding that others give you a reputation they did not freely and willingly assign to you themselves. All association must be voluntary. If you are not willing to partner with others in the way those others expect, that just means you don't get any benefits arising from associating with them. They don't owe you anything, not least a reputation as the best of neighbors.

If a society thinks the most highly of slaves, one might enter into slavery to obtain a good reputation. Or one can be thought of less highly. I understand no one owes me a positive. Although, I don’t expect my moronic neighbors to think reasonably and I don’t expect my MN (non-moronic) friends to help me out, I hold out hope. In the meantime, I have two bad choices. I guess there is a third. Rather than entering into slavery, temporarily relocate and conduct business with non-morons. Earn wealth. Come back to Moronville, buy lots of land and establish Saneville, where being good doesn’t include signing up for slavery. Give MN friends a really good deal on Saneville property. Defend Saneville with friends as needed from Moronville intrusion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

would the only downside to good be that in a universe of pure good there is nothing to have a game about thus reality effectively stop or is that too meta

Definitely too meta for me. Especially because it presumes that PCs are capable of clearing out literally all evil, which is not even remotely feasible.

 

[Maxperson]

I can choose to be subservient. I can then choose not to be.

Then you are a slave to yourself, and nobody else. Have fun with that.

 

[Starfox]

Not read all the 45 pages of this thread.

I generally see Neutral as the inert force in a society, all the people that would rather be left alone and decide for themselves who they want to care for and how. This makes Muscular Neutrality rather silly, in that it has Neutrality actually going out of its way to change how others act - which is against my definition of Neutrality.

The next form of Neutrality is the expert. You are a smith. You do metalwork you are paid to do. Someone pays you well for making arms. You do it without regard for what these arms are to be used for. This can be borderline good or evil depending on how you work for.

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department, says Werner von Braun.

Tom Lehrer, 1965.
​

Another form of Neutrality is the special interest. I worship the god of the sea, I care about the sea, its creatures, and currents. I don't give a fig about what humanoids do to each other, but if you sail across the equator without honoring the God of the Sea and baptizing those who never did it before, I go ballistic.

A third type is the conformist. I once played a lawful neutral dwarf rogue who decidedly wasn't Good, but decided that he was on "team good". That is he used dubious methods to make his team win and he choose to work with a generally good-aligned party because that's how he grew up, he felt it was beneficial for himself to not be oppressed by evil, and it allowed his roguish ways without becoming a criminal. What would he do if Evil was defeated? He would shut himself up in a workshop and make traps and locks, which was his passion. I can see this kind of Neutral joining team evil instead.

Often what matters to people is less if their neighbor is Good or Evil, what matters is if they are a bad neighbor. A Good person that is preachy and goes door to door demanding good works is a bad neighbor. An Evil person who oppresses their family and pushes drugs but never intrudes into your life unless you ask them to is not a bad neighbor. I see this as a Neutral attitude.

None of these kinds of Neutrality is inherently interventionistic, tough they may join in a crusade for their own reason.

On to the question if Good can be authoritarian and repressive, and I'd say yes. It makes sense for Good to demand high taxes and time investment in charity. Those who do not step up are censored, potentially even punished. Combine Good with a society with D&D classes, and you have a hierarchy of goodness with Good clerics and paladins at the top and everyone else in a layered society beneath. Neutrals can rebel against such a social order. I'd expect this would only happen once the overt threat of Evil is gone. Then again, a political philosopher of Neutrality could create a structure of thought warning Neutrals against the potential dangers of Goodness, creating a Neutral policy of preventing Good from coming to power. With this line of reasoning Muscular Neutrality kind of makes sense, but it would take a history of Good domination to get to this point.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I can see advocates for Neutrality arguing that Extreme Good is a straitjacket, that the Good have no freedom of choice as they will always do the Right Thing, as long as they know what it is. This leaves them effectively with no free will, just puppets to their own alignment.

 

[Starfox]

I can see advocates for Neutrality arguing that Extreme Good is a straitjacket, that the Good have no freedom of choice as they will always do the Right Thing, as long as they know what it is. This leaves them effectively with no free will, just puppets to their own alignment.

Read some medieval religious philosophy and you will see this argument applied to God. An infallible being cannot change because that would mean they at one time was less infallible, which creates a contradiction as divine infallibility is an absolute. God has no free will, as there is always one option that is the best one and he will always pick this option.

And they thought this was a good thing.

* Sigh *

 

[Starfox]

Besides, good, evil, law and chaos are defined by their opposites. You can't be good, if there's not evil and/or neutrality for it to be balanced against. Imagine a world where everyone in it was 100% altruistic, respectful of life, etc. That's no longer good, but the average status quo. It's that world's neutral state of being. For something to register as good, it has to stand out from the rest of the background noise.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I don't have an example about Good vs. Evil here, but I do have an example about Law vs. Chaos.

Law and Chaos as defined by Gygax & Co seems to me to be to be the old east coast of the US vs. the old west, ca 1890. Law is state, organization, banks, the army, Pinkertons and so on. Chaos is the frontier spirit, pioneers, posses, outlaws, and trappers. This is relatively clear and simple.

But compare the 1890s US east to Europe at the same time, and it seems chaotic, with robber barons, bribery, and rampant labor conflict. Then you compare Europe at the time to China in 1800, and Europe is a fountain of chaotic initiative vs. China's striving for stability and harmony.

My point is that Law & Chaos is always relative. Its a scale from minus infinity to plus infinity. Whether someone is lawful or chaotic depends mainly on where you put your point of reference, where you put zero on the scale from infinite chaos to infinite law.

I would argue that the Good - Evil scale is much the same. In general, the tolerance for evil has shrunk over time. If you read ancient history, they did many morally reprehensible things that were acceptable back then. As an example The Melian Dialogue, from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, recounts the tense confrontation between Athens and the neutral island of Melos. Athens demands Melos surrender and submit to its empire, dismissing Melos’ appeals to justice and independence with the stark declaration that "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." Melos refuses, standing on principle, but Athens besieges the city, conquers it, and brutally executes the men while enslaving the women and children. This was debatable back then, thus Thucydides records it, but today it would be seen as absolute Evil and a serious war crime.

My important point is not whether ethics has improved over time (though I believe it has), the important point is that both ethics and morals must always be compared to an arbitrary norm, and we choose this norm so that it showcases the differences we want to point out. Going back to the quote from Maxperson above, I'd say that if what we defeated what we call Evil in a fictional setting, this would establish a new standard for what is Evil out of what was formerly considered Neutral, and likewise the requirements for being called Good would rise, some of what was formerly Good now considered Neutral. To people living under the paradigm of the old "Evil", this would look like everyone is good, but to its contemporaries there would still be perceptible differences separating the new Good from the new Neutral and Evil.

Is there an absolute Good "100% altruistic, respectful of life, etc"? I doubt it, but there might be, it is impossible for us to say.

 

[Starfox]

I'm reading this thread from back to end, making the order of comments confusing. I beg your indulgence with this.

Neutral wizards could be just observers and maybe even advisors for both, as long as there's no extremes. They're ok with using dark magic as a tool, or appealing to the divine as need be. There's an understanding and acceptance of certain kind of cosmic justice - reaping what you have sown - and no need to interfere with that.

I just wanted to quote from the 5E2014 monster description of archmage.. I like this descriotion, and it very much agrees with you edhel.

5E2014 monster description of archmage:
Archmages are powerful (and usually quite old) spellcasters dedicated to the study of the arcane arts. Benevolent ones counsel kings and queens, while evil ones rule as tyrants and pursue lichdom. Those who are neither good nor evil sequester themselves in remote towers to practice their magic without interruption