Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9530065" data-attributes="member: 2067">Well, not really necessary for this thought experiment. It's Nirvana-esque, but not literally the same thing. The real world that Buddhism developed to address is not a fantasy world of provably true Muscular Neutrality - it's definitely NOT the same thing. Nothing falls apart if there's not a 1:1 analogy. That said, I'm not against pushing this thought experiment 'till it breaks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It's not a contradiction, as far as I can see. The path to the cessation of suffering requires the end of existence (ie, biological existence and individual consciousness). This naturally follows from the premise: existence is suffering. Good and Evil would differ in the how, but in the overall goal? Shared. The end of existence.I think this would be a proposition that both Good and Evil agree with in this setting. Evil would be kind of nihilistic. "Caring about stuff is what makes you weak, and what makes you able to suffer. I'm going to make you suffer, because I want it all to go away. I will exploit your foolish attachments. I will torment you. It will be awful, and then it will be over."Good, more compassionate, but not exactly disagreeing. "You hurt because you care about this thing that hurts you, whose nature is to hurt you. It makes sense that you would care about it, but it can't care about you back. Care about yourself. The rest of us care about you, that's why we're having this conversation, friend. Remove yourself from this abusive dynamic. Remove your attachment to this world. Be free, free others, and eventually, we'll all be free. The world can end. You needn't be attached to it."I think this is all pretty compatible with the setting's conceit. Good is still compassionate, and still wants to build community. Dying forever isn't inherently evil, especially with a life well-lived among friends. Good just acknowledges that a life well-lived among friends, for everyone, means that the end is near. And that's nothing to fear.The Bodhisattva concept is VERY related to this setting's conceit, as it gives you a reason to have Good heroes, evangelists who work to convince the Neutrals to give up existence for the sake of compassion. Who say "I see how much pain you're in, and I know how to fix it, how to fix everyone's pain, how to cease the suffering of all people. You just have to accept that it's going to mean losing everything. I know that's scary, but it's also the only way we're going to permanently heal your pain. Some folks (the neutrals) say that you have to accept pain to accept life, but you can also just...stop. If you want. If you're ready." That's building community and acting with compassion, and it's STILL going to end the world forever. Like, it's definitely not 1:1, but Buddhism is dealing with reality at the end of the day, and this setting isn't reality. But it's also not "evil in disguise" just because it's apocalyptical. That's my main thrust here - that "Good" can mean an end to existence. That it's OK for a life well-lived to have an end to it. That, in aggregate this means that all life can end forever, and it can be a Good thing (in the context of this fantastical reality). Hahaha, yeah. Curious to imagine how this setting would treat plants and animals since there's no explicit samsara baked into it. D&D tends to treat such creatures as not having the capacity to MAKE a moral choice. The conceit does "end the world" if everyone is Good, though, so animals and plants would be impacted, despite not being able to make a choice themselves. Maybe Good in this setting views animals and plants as kind of like a version of rocks and rivers - biological machines. Part of "turning the lights out when you leave" is making sure each blade of grass lives out its life as content as you can make a blade of grass, but preventing it from making more. For it's own good. Right, that crusading angel isn't Good, so it doesn't actually reflect on what Good needs to be. Good doesn't need to be "secretly evil." It can still be Good, and wish for the end of all things. That angel can just be fallen, be wrong. It's an individual with an incorrect view of what Good is, which is why it's on the heroes to stop it, and thereby explore why Good in this setting is NOT that. This isn't paying attention to the set-up. An over-zealous paladin, an over-acetic monk, a priest who converts through coercion - these are just regular villains. They're not Good. They clarify what Good is by counter-example, by showing how individuals can get it wrongThat doesn't fail the experiment. Good can still desire the end of all things. It just shows that in this setting, method matters. You don't scour the countryside in a crusade. You instead persuade people to not have children. You encourage people to live lives of asceticism. You reduce suffering by accepting the soft, subtle end of existence.And if you want to maximize Good, it means the end of life, since to allow life means to also allow all of those forces. The conceit of gym bro neutrality is that the world ends if any one force dominates, so if Good eliminates the other forces, the world ends, no?</blockquote>

Verification