D&D and associated games have a famous alignment system that defines the morality of creature in terms of good, evil, neutral, lawful and chaotic. In Pathfinder version of the game, neutral good is characterized as follows:
A neutral good character is good, but not shackled by order. He sees good where he can, but knows evil can exist even in the most ordered place.
A neutral good character does anything he can, and works with anyone he can, for the greater good. Such a character is devoted to being good, and works in any way he can to achieve it. He may forgive an evil person if he thinks that person has reformed, and he believes that in everyone there is a little bit of good.
In a fantasy campaign, the player characters usually encounter neutral good beings as allies who render aid and assistance. Even evil player characters are willing to accept the assistance of the neutral good, knowing that they are more likely to try to persuade them to the side of good than smite them with righteous fury. Neutral good creatures are rare in most fantasy worlds as good types tend to polarize towards law and chaos.
Not surprisingly, neutral good types are rare in the real world. A neutral good person has no special commitment to order or lack thereof—what matters is the extent to which order or lack of it contributes to the greater good. For those devoted to the preservation of order, or its destruction, this can be frustrating.
While the neutral evil person embraces the moral theory of ethical egoism (that each person should act solely in her self-interest), the neutral good person embraces altruism—the moral view that each person should act, at least sometimes, in the interest of others. In informal terms, the neutral good person is generous rather than selfish. The neutral good position is sometimes portrayed as stupidly altruistic. Stupid altruism presents the altruist as sacrificing everything for the sake of others or being willing to help anyone, regardless of who they are or what they might be doing. While a neutral good person is willing to sacrifice for others and willing to help people, being neutral good does not require being unwise or stupid. So, a person can be neutral good and still consider her own needs. After all, the neutral good person considers the interests of everyone, and she is included among everyone. A person can also be selective in her assistance and still be neutral good. For example, helping an evil person do evil things would not be a good thing and hence a neutral good person would not be obligated to help—and would probably oppose the evil person.
Since a neutral good person works for the greater good, the moral theory of utilitarianism tends to fit this alignment. For the utilitarian, actions are good to the degree that they promote utility (what is of value) and bad to the degree that they do the opposite. Classic utilitarianism (that of J.S. Mill) takes happiness to be good and actions are assessed in terms of the extent to which they create happiness for humans and, as far as the nature of things permit, sentient beings. Put in bumper sticker terms, both the utilitarian and the neutral good advocate the greatest good for the greatest number.
This commitment to the greater good can present some potential problems. For the utilitarian, one classic problem is that what seems rather bad can have great utility. For example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s classic short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” puts into literary form the question raised by William James:
Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messrs. Fourier’s and Bellamy’s and Morris’s utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?
In Guin’s tale, the splendor, health and happiness that is the land of Omelas depends on the suffering of a person locked away from all kindness in a dungeon (with not even a single dragon). The inhabitants of Omelas know the price they pay and some, upon learning about the dungeon dweller, walk away. Hence the title. For the utilitarian, this scenario would seem to be morally correct: a small disutility leads to a vast amount of utility. Or, in terms of goodness, the greater good seems well served.
Because the suffering of one person creates such an overabundance of goodness for others, a neutral good character might tolerate the situation. After all, benefiting some almost always comes at a cost to others. It is, however, reasonable to consider a neutral good person would find the situation morally unacceptable. Such a person might not free the sufferer because doing so would harm so many other people, but she might elect to walk away.
A chaotic good type, who is committed to liberty and freedom, would certainly oppose the imprisonment of the innocent person—even for the greater good. A lawful good type might face the same challenge as the neutral good type: the order and well-being of Omelas rests on the suffering of one person and this could be seen as a heroic sacrifice on the part of the sufferer. Albeit one they did not choose, which might not sit well with some lawful good creatures. Lawful evil types would probably be fine with the scenario, although they would have issues with the otherwise benevolent nature of Omelas. Truly subtle lawful evil types might delight in the situation and regard it as a magnificent case of self-delusion in which people think they are selecting the greater good but are merely choosing evil.
Neutral evil types would also be fine with it—if it was someone else in the dungeon. Chaotic evil types would not care about the sufferer but would certainly seek to destroy Omelas. They might, ironically, try to do so by rescuing the sufferer and seeing to it that he is treated with kindness and compassion (thus breaking what is supposed to be a necessary condition for Omelas’ exalted state).
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.
Thank you.
”A neutral good character is good, but not shackled by order..”. Personally I do not believe that there can be any good without some form of order and restraint: that’s why order is there. As I think Schopenhauer explained (memory is fuzzy) the role of the State is merely that of making people follow the law, for without a State society would reveal itself in its real, and ugly nature.
I mean, even with the State in place, this of course already happens. Therefore a neutrally good character cannot dismiss order, and order cannot possibly shackle anyone, for this would be fascism. Order is there so that the law is followed, no more and no less. And someone who feels ‘shackled’ by the law, and therefore either follows it with a grudge, or tries to free himself from it, cannot ever be neutrally good.