Preserving order of the universe a bad idea?

[Arctura42]

Ok. Heroes preserving order, keeping the peace, epic ones keeping entire multiverse systems and parallel world structures from collapsing. While some evil is trying to harness energy from it all to fuel some mad schemes of revenge or something like that. However, answer me this.

If these multiverse/parallel world systems need to be maintained in order to stay in their current configurations, does that not mean that they are not stable? Does that not mean that the current state is a sort of false lowest energy state? That by the very laws of physics they should degrade down to their base form, and reach infinite stability there?

My question is this. Does the epic multiverse spanning god-like adventurer still struggle to keep his universe from falling apart when the very fabric of space-time, all of physics itself is naturally seeking the lowest, stablest energy state? And if stability is order - is not the most stable thing the lowest energy state? The collapse of the multiverse into nothingness would create order in the highest sense.

So why does the adventurer strive to protect his precious universe? There are people, beings, and himself that need the higher energy state to survive, for without that energy, they not only cannot thrive, they cannot exist.

Doesn't this switch the roles? The evil villain trying to collapse the multiverse is doing it to alleviate stress on the system. Whereas the adventurer is selfishly clinging to his own world because even though the laws of physics say otherwise, he doesn't want his false lowest energy state to go away. The adventurer is not promoting stability, he's simply hanging on to what's left of a fledgling world, attempting to steal time for himself, potentially harming the multiverse that would cause irreparable damage that could have consequences beyond mortal and immortal understanding.

What does the hero do in this situation? Where they, in an effort to protect what they hold dearest, makes them take actions that can be seen as harmful, and they suddenly realize this, what do they do?

I am true neutral in this story. A humble psion, knowledgeable of the end of all things, and simply awaiting for the natural order to take its course. The paladin of the group, however, fights against what he perceives to be the hordes of darkness, desperately trying to keep his people, his country, his home in one piece. And as a result he causes irreparable damage to the system, destabilizing the lowest energy state that was to come, and thereby putting the system into an extremely volatile state. Energy starts building up out of nowhere, the very laws holding the universe together degrade as he is struggling, and the possibility of the cycle repeating is drawn to a close as the entire system goes into a state worse that what the paladin tried to prevent - and when he notices, it is far too late.

By seeking to preserve order, we are instead merely protecting a false semblance of order. A forced order will simply collapse if that is the will of those that are underneath it. Tell me now - who is right? The one who seeks to preserve order that is falling apart? Or the one that knows that the people/universe is heading towards a chaotic state, and will do nothing to stop it so that it may happen peacefully? Entropy wins in the end. If the people are rebelling against a perfectly just and orderly king, the paladin cannot help either side with a clear conscience. Helping keep order will simply cause more violence, more deaths, and a worse outcome at the end. Helping the people causes him to go against what he believes in. There are situations that one with a strict moral code cannot handle - the ones where the lesser of the two evils requires you to sacrifice everything you hold dear, without exception.

This has been my story. Thought up from the very center of my being after meditation upon this plateau. Enacted upon the confines of my mind in brilliant detail, all the intricacies and possibilities so refined that I cannot but share them. And so I pass on this tale. Preserving the order in a kingdom is not always the right path. Preserving the very existence of the universe may not be right either. What would you choose? Remember, in this world, its not about the roll of the dice anymore.

EPILOGUE:

Hello everyone. I just wanted to pose the question of whether or not protecting the universe from destabilization was a good idea or not, because after some thought, it seems that we can only do more harm than good by messing with a system that seems to know what its doing. But rather than ask that way, I decided to write a bit. It seems I like writing. Gives me a bit of exercise, allows me to ramble. Anyway, what do you think? In a given campaign, if the system is heading towards a state of anarchy, do you try to preserve order which will put stress on the system and perhaps lead to bloodshed, or do you let a peaceful anarchy develop where everyone leaves each other alone for a while as they rejoice over their newfound freedom, and then later band together again when some threat has come along making them do so? And what side does the paladin take? Is anyone evil here? What's going on? Also - if anyone so much as understand what I'm talking about in the physics paragraphs, you have my utmost respect for understanding and reading it all. Clicking submit in 5...

[Jack_Simth]

I might point out that if you consider sending everything to lower, more stable energy states to be an inherently good thing, then killing all living critters becomes a good thing, as you are reducing them to a sustainable, stable energy state (death).

Only cartoonish villains and the truly mad consider themselves villains. Everyone else has *something* of a rationale for what they're doing if asked, even if it is ridiculously flimsy. This is one such thing to put on a villain.

[Coidzor]

^: What about demons and devils? They seem pretty up front about their motivations. Omnicidal maniacs or utter control freaks doing it for their own twisted kicks.
I might point out that if you consider sending everything to lower, more stable energy states to be an inherently good thing, then killing all living critters becomes a good thing, as you are reducing them to a sustainable, stable energy state (death).

Well, depending upon the nature of the positive energy plane. It sounds like it occasionally spontaneously generates new life.

Anyway, there's a reason the Yugoloths don't want either side to win in the Blood War and are trying to swing it so they're in charge of Team Evil at the end of the day.

The Multiverse is where we keep our stuff, we don't want it destroyed, and the devils just aren't very fun what with their ultimate stagnation in the worst possible state meaning there's no real fun to be had.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, depending upon the nature of the positive energy plane. It sounds like it occasionally spontaneously generates new life.
Which is highly campaign-specific, making it somewhat difficult to discuss.

[Coidzor]

Which is highly campaign-specific, making it somewhat difficult to discuss.

Oh yeah, point there. Eyes sorta glazed over when I skimmed it.

[ryzouken]

So, the OP is a Protean. A being of chaos devoted to entropy. Neat-o.

But yeah, just because the universe wants to do something, doesn't mean the hero lets it. In fact, one could argue that by definition a hero is someone who defies what the universe would have wrought.

Side note: if you've ever watched Gurren Lagann (do it, it's freaking awesome and it's on Hulu and free, right now!) really, the anti-spiral objective is pretty much that first post. Retard growth and promote entropy to ensure the universe's stability in the face of "the spiral menace" (unchecked evolution).

[Ravens_cry]

Ooh, I've dealt with Proteans. Nasty bit of business, they wanted to destroy an entire demi-plane with, among other inhabitants, a colony of gnolls, who were actually not half bad people.Admittedly the Proteans had been forced to help create the plane and they wanted to return it to it's natural state, but my paladin wasn't about to condone genocide.

[Math_Mage]

The hero's battle cry: "For the sake of increasing the organized complexity of the universe, I must defeat you!"

Point 1: Our impact on the physical state of the universe is negligible. We aren't straining the laws of the universe. We aren't determining whether the universe will end in heat death or the Big Crunch. We aren't stressing the system.
Point 2: Dynamic instability is the only reason anything happens in the universe. There is nothing positive about wanting entropy to take its course and leave behind a system in eternal, stable equilibrium. The only reason the argument is made is because of your psion's equivocation between different types of order. Social order is what enables organized complexity in human behavior. Desiring that order is not the same as desiring physical order, the reduction of information and the elimination of possible states. Nor is it the same as desiring entropy, the elimination of constraints that influence coordinated action.
Point 3: Your paladin is given a false dichotomy. If resisting the rebellion results in bloodshed and supporting the rebellion results in peace at the expense of the just king's position, the paladin and just king and rebels should work out a peaceful end to the king's reign that does not overthrow social order. Because really, 'peaceful anarchy'? Ha.

[Arctura42]

Ok, a bunch of varied answers. I don't normally think this way, just thought this up in the middle of the night (it's still the middle of the night, I should go to bed), and thought I'd post and see what happened. So, there are a few logical flaws. Alright.

However. Let's say that I'm the DM and I set the physical parameters of the universe such that it restarts every once in a while, collapsing in on itself and then expanding outwards again, killing everything, and allowing everything to be born anew.

Let us also say that the players ARE in fact capable of influencing things on a large scale. Because otherwise I'm telling them that they and everything that they cherish and hold dear will die in a fiery death, which is does not a good adventure make if you can't do anything about it. The whole point of any struggle is that whatever's at the end isn't completely inevitable (or you just don't want to go down without a fight - but fighting the heat death of the universe is a difficult thing to do normally).

So we have these ridiculously uber-powerful no-longer-mortals-but-something-more beings, perhaps even reaching the so-much-so-that-the-extrapolations-of-D&D-start-breaking-down phase. Anyway. The universe is in their hands and they can do what they like with it, and they've chosen to be their guardians, their knowledge keepers, their order-keepers and their pretty much whatever they want to be that'll benefit them (not very evil group). And then they find within the depths of knowledge that the universe will end soon. And THEN they find that should they use their enormous influence and power to stop it, that various problems will start arising that may just be beyond their control. Some decide to resist nevertheless. Others consider the task pointless, and, perhaps out of resignation or perhaps out of curiosity decide to wait patiently for the life in this universe to cease, and for the next to begin. Ending the universe in this stage is committing so much genocide on such a massive scale that there are not words to describe it. You kill the possibility of life in an infinite number of universes by attempting to keep this one active for as long as you can - which destroys the system.

I have never been called a Protean before. I'll have to add that to my list. Obviously, I don't want the universe to go and do its own thing whilst we all die - but given this choice - protecting what is here and killing everything that is to come, or resigning to our own mutual destruction for the continuation of the cycle - it is difficult to come up with something that must be done.

Although this sort of plot is rather outside the scope of D&D.

I guess I like it when the story gets really epic. And then more epic. And then it starts getting so epic that your characters never die, can control all space and time, and have to start making decisions like these. Yeah. What's a level limit again?

[PapaNachos]

I may have missed someone making this point, but here goes anyway:

If you count whatever evil causing the universe to decay as part of the universe you have to treat the heroes as the universe's opposing force. Only if you also treat your great evil as an outside source can you consider the heroes to be intervening.

My point is that either its heroes and villains are a natural part of the universe and they're meant to balance each other out, or they're both outside forces and the heroes are merely balancing the equation.

tl;dr The universe is a closed system.

[Math_Mage]

...Oh. Turns out a lot of the stuff I thought you meant to be symbolic...is literal. :smalleek:

All things die. Compared to the sin of breaking the cycle of rebirth, allowing the end of the universe seems comparatively negligible. YMMV. *shrug* The scope is too big.

[Coidzor]

Ooh, I've dealt with Proteans. Nasty bit of business, they wanted to destroy an entire demi-plane with, among other inhabitants, a colony of gnolls, who were actually not half bad people.Admittedly the Proteans had been forced to help create the plane and they wanted to return it to it's natural state, but my paladin wasn't about to condone genocide.

Meh, simpler to diplomance them into giving up their consciousness and returning into oneness with the universe if they love that so much anyway.

[BLiZme.2]

Kick it to the curb choose option 3 ark store/save/move life repopulate after.

row row fight the power

[Fortuna]

I may have missed someone making this point, but here goes anyway:

If you count whatever evil causing the universe to decay as part of the universe you have to treat the heroes as the universe's opposing force. Only if you also treat your great evil as an outside source can you consider the heroes to be intervening.

My point is that either its heroes and villains are a natural part of the universe and they're meant to balance each other out, or they're both outside forces and the heroes are merely balancing the equation.

tl;dr The universe is a closed system.

This. But, I might add, if both heroes and villains are for some reason alien to the universe then the outcome, while alien and obviously against the natural order, need not have a bad outcome. Sometimes you need another perspective on life, even if the nearest other perspective is the Far Realms.

Ia! Rolandulhu ftagn!

[FatR]

If the universe demands you and everything you care about to perish - and you actually have power to do something about that - then screw the universe. Also in DnD universe you can learn to rape the conservation of energy by training hard enough, so screw entropy as well. And screw the stupid defeatist stance that says we shouldn't struggle to support the order that benefits us. If humanity followed it, it wouldn't have ever crawled out of prehistoric caves.

[Math_Mage]

Kick it to the curb choose option 3 ark store/save/move life repopulate after.

row row fight the power

This, I guess. It's going to be tough to give the heroes universe-warping powers and then prevent them from saving just as much of the old universe as they want to save in the transition to the new universe.

[Radar]

I may have missed someone making this point, but here goes anyway:

If you count whatever evil causing the universe to decay as part of the universe you have to treat the heroes as the universe's opposing force. Only if you also treat your great evil as an outside source can you consider the heroes to be intervening.

My point is that either its heroes and villains are a natural part of the universe and they're meant to balance each other out, or they're both outside forces and the heroes are merely balancing the equation.

tl;dr The universe is a closed system.
Good point, that I might support with this comics: 1 (http://comics.shipsinker.com/2009/04/04/the-10-doctors-page-221/), 2 (http://comics.shipsinker.com/2009/04/05/the-10-doctors-room-222/). Warning: the linked pages contain major spoilers. If you didn't read it before and want to fully enjoy it (It's worth it), start here (http://comics.shipsinker.com/2007/03/10/a-doctor-who-comic-the-10-doctors/).

Apart from that: entropy can't be a part of good vs. evil debate. Physics just is and if thermodynamic laws are true, then thermal deth is inevitable and therefore no action on anyone's part changes a thing. If they aren't true, preventing the entropy increase isn't breaking any natural order, since it's not an elementary law and just a specific case for a more general rule.
Otherwise life itself would be breaking the natural order, since it's about self-organising objects actively keeping themselves at low entropy.

[ericgrau]

Sounds like a job assigned to inevitables.

[Jack_Simth]

^: What about demons and devils? They seem pretty up front about their motivations. Omnicidal maniacs or utter control freaks doing it for their own twisted kicks.
They're cartoonish or truly mad, at least by human standards. Alternately, they have such flimsy justifications as "because I can", "I have the right by might" or similar.

[Coidzor]

They're cartoonish or truly mad, at least by human standards. Alternately, they have such flimsy justifications as "because I can", "I have the right by might" or similar.

Lousy cartoonish clause, I always forget that one.

then again, I think that might be part of why I dislike them as villainous types.

[Jack_Simth]

Lousy cartoonish clause, I always forget that one.

then again, I think that might be part of why I dislike them as villainous types.

Yeah. That's pretty much why I included it. Villians with no particular purpose or justification (however flimsy) simply don't seem real unless they're also clearly mad. The guy who's out to conquer the world... because his family got burned badly by an incompetent government and he thinks he can do a better job of running it? Potentially believable villain. The guy who wants to blow up the earth because it obstructs his view of Venus? Not so much.

[Axolotl]

Is the OP a doomguard? Because I rememberthem having a very similar philosophy to the one presented in the OP.

[Ormur]

I don't quite know how to interpret this but morality springs from conciousness. There is no inherent morality, only that proscribed by concious beings. Thus entropy or the maintenance of the universe can't be inherently good. A universe dying in a crunch or a heat death would be a completely amoral occurrence with every conciousness being extinguished. Fighting for organized complexity and seeking to defy the fall of the universe to a lower energy state can't be wrong unless concious beings decide it is. Most concious beings will decide in favour of the conditions that allow themselves to continue to exist and will therefore conclude that maintaining them is good. Even if the majority didn't the rest would still not recognise their right to end everybody's life.

Also as there is no morality to physical laws just at there is no possibility of actually breaking them. In reality they just are and if you find a way to bypass entropy it obviously wasn't a universal constant and that's just good news for you, not any sort of a violation of nature.

The actual preference for a lower energy state over, well life, would be a particularly twisted confusion of aesthetics and morality.

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I'd go find the fracker that started that cycle in the first process (especially if it required me going outside of Reality) and kick his ass until he made it Not Work That Way. Is no such guy exists, I'd find a way to Make There Be A Guy and then kick his ass.

Or failing that, permenantly destroy the entire of Reality up to and including whatever causes it to reboot and start from scratch.

In either case, I'd stick two fingers in the eyesockets of both order and chaos and Reality and whatever rules it runs on and bend and twist it and stab and break until it screams in infinite pain and blasts apart in bloody shower of metagore. I'd brutlly murder the laws of physics given half a chance.


But, y'know, I have Reality-issues.


And, for once, it's not even due to being a Lich...becoming a Lich was because of my "up-yours-Reality" thing...

[Arctura42]

Most concious beings will decide in favour of the conditions that allow themselves to continue to exist and will therefore conclude that maintaining them is good.

I . . . I'm sorry for pulling out this phrase from an otherwise wonderfully structured and thought-out paragraph that is very logical and concise, and using the intricacies of the english language in a way that you did not mean to in order to point something out that may or may not actually be wrong. But here I go.

Doesn't that phrase sound a little selfish on the part of those beings? Or is being evil consist of being more than just selfish, but being selfish enough to not care about anyone else?

[Radar]

(...)

Doesn't that phrase sound a little selfish on the part of those beings? Or is being evil consist of being more than just selfish, but being selfish enough to not care about anyone else?
Who would be "anyone else", when the group "concious beings" encompasses everyone (every being, that is able to sense anything and therefore counts as a being)? For clarity I state, that the term "concious being" includes every creature with an INT score - even if it's below 3.

[Xefas]

At the end of the day, I can't see why this is even an issue. The people who think that breaking down all life into nothing is somehow 'good' are just boring angsty buffoons who believe in some manner of law that my epic level sorcerer/starting level Exalt/etc can't just dropkick into working the way it should. And by 'should', I mean in the most awesome way possible. Which is how all game worlds should work.

Entropy breaking down things into a stable state? How about entropy breaking down things into mecha-piloting dinosaur martial artists?

Sounds like an epic level spell to me (or maybe terrestrial circle sorcery).

If those dinosaurs happen to be evil, then now you have a perfectly good reason to prevent entropy.

[Ormur]

I . . . I'm sorry for pulling out this phrase from an otherwise wonderfully structured and thought-out paragraph that is very logical and concise, and using the intricacies of the english language in a way that you did not mean to in order to point something out that may or may not actually be wrong. But here I go.

Doesn't that phrase sound a little selfish on the part of those beings? Or is being evil consist of being more than just selfish, but being selfish enough to not care about anyone else?

This interpretation might spring from my treatment of concious beings as a group. But when you apply the phrase "selfish" to them as a whole regarding the conditions that allow all of them to live that hardly applies any more. "Every concious being" encompasses almost everything anyone might care about, even apart from themselves. Selfish is usually reserved for people thinking only about themselves. Can groups be selfish, even when that group is effectively everyone?

Most people are probably selfish and would rather preserve their life than some stranger's but according to you even a humanist wishing for all people to live happy fulfilling lives would be selfish. I'd even say my initial inclusion of every concious being might have been to broad and thus even the naive animal lover that wants all the animals in the forest to live in harmony could be said to be selfish.

I'd much rather describe the people that decide that life, the universe and everything are not worth preserving as being selfish, sacrificing everyone else for their aesthetic appreciation of a lower energy state. As I said without conciousness or perhaps sapience there can be no morality. The end result would be a completely amoral universe but if concious beings were involved in bringing that state about in defiance of some other concious beings that would make them amoral.

[Arctura42]

I . . . I just don't know what's right anymore . . .

[Weezer]

Nothing is...


Right and wrong are just subjective constructs of humans that allow us to form functional societies. There is nothing 'good' or 'bad' about entropy. If maximizing entropy (or lowering energy as you termed it) was 'good' then making anything is 'bad' because taking raw materials and making them into something more organized is increasing energy. That just makes no sense...

[Umael]

On looking at this thread, I have only one conclusion:

The universe hates me.

This kind of discussion is just my kind of thing... and here I am, operating on three? four? hours of sleep. I'm not up to it.

*sigh*

I'll be back.

[Randel]

Spoilered for length

Villain: The natural state of the universe is entropy, thus the destruction of the universe is the ideal path to a reality of pure order!

Hero: But the universe is where we keep all our possessions and vital organs! We need our vital organs to live and our possessions to enjoy life!

Villain: Organs and possessions are fleeting things, but entropy is eternal. Therefore, tough cookies!

Hero: True, entropy is a constant and more or less irreversible force on the universe. And the universe will inevitably end regardless of whatever we do.

Villain: Exactly!

Hero: But if entropy is irreversible then why are you bothering to accelerate it? The heat death of the universe will inevitably come about in a billion years, your actions will simply bring it about sooner. If you stop now, then the universe will simply end at a later date and you spend the intervening time doing something else... like eat pie, or get a girlfriend, or kill yourself.

Villain: Kill myself? Why would I do that?

Hero: Because it is the nature of all life to get older and eventually die. Entropy functions on the organism level as well as the cosmic. All living things will inevitably die of old age, injury, or starvation. In the end they all attain the perfectly stable state of death.

Villain: By all that is Emo, you're right! My master plan to destroy all life in the universe will come about no matter what you do! HaHAHAHA! You fools, you all already lost. Now I'll have more time to cut myself, deeper and deeper.

*Villain pulls out a razor blade and starts cutting his wrists.*

Villain: Ooh the pain. The Paain.

*Villain pulls out a polished skull and starts contemplating it.*

Villain: Oh death, the Ultimate and inevitable state of perfection and stability. Only the dark, nihilistic state of oblivion can ease the pain of my tortured mind and bloody wrists.

*Villain cuts himself some more before dropping everything and picking up a gun and shooting himself*

*The Heroes look at the dead body of the Villain*

Hero: At last... his soul is at piece.

Villains Soul: No it isn't.

Hero: Quiet you! Now then, I think we've all learned that entropy will inevitably destroy the universe and in a similar tangent that we're all going to die eventually. So, as long as the universe isn't in imminent danger anymore... lets go to a tavern and get wasted!

All the heroes together: Yaay!

Wizard: I cast Summon Girlfriend!

[Math_Mage]

Spoilered for length

Villain: The natural state of the universe is entropy, thus the destruction of the universe is the ideal path to a reality of pure order!

Hero: But the universe is where we keep all our possessions and vital organs! We need our vital organs to live and our possessions to enjoy life!

Villain: Organs and possessions are fleeting things, but entropy is eternal. Therefore, tough cookies!

Hero: True, entropy is a constant and more or less irreversible force on the universe. And the universe will inevitably end regardless of whatever we do.

Villain: Exactly!

Hero: But if entropy is irreversible then why are you bothering to accelerate it? The heat death of the universe will inevitably come about in a billion years, your actions will simply bring it about sooner. If you stop now, then the universe will simply end at a later date and you spend the intervening time doing something else... like eat pie, or get a girlfriend, or kill yourself.

Villain: Kill myself? Why would I do that?

Hero: Because it is the nature of all life to get older and eventually die. Entropy functions on the organism level as well as the cosmic. All living things will inevitably die of old age, injury, or starvation. In the end they all attain the perfectly stable state of death.

Villain: By all that is Emo, you're right! My master plan to destroy all life in the universe will come about no matter what you do! HaHAHAHA! You fools, you all already lost. Now I'll have more time to cut myself, deeper and deeper.

*Villain pulls out a razor blade and starts cutting his wrists.*

Villain: Ooh the pain. The Paain.

*Villain pulls out a polished skull and starts contemplating it.*

Villain: Oh death, the Ultimate and inevitable state of perfection and stability. Only the dark, nihilistic state of oblivion can ease the pain of my tortured mind and bloody wrists.

*Villain cuts himself some more before dropping everything and picking up a gun and shooting himself*

*The Heroes look at the dead body of the Villain*

Hero: At last... his soul is at piece.

Villains Soul: No it isn't.

Hero: Quiet you! Now then, I think we've all learned that entropy will inevitably destroy the universe and in a similar tangent that we're all going to die eventually. So, as long as the universe isn't in imminent danger anymore... lets go to a tavern and get wasted!

All the heroes together: Yaay!

Wizard: I cast Summon Girlfriend!

Randel wins the thread.

[chiasaur11]

First post sounds suspiciously Auditor-ish.

Never liked them at the best of times. Always stopping time, kicking hard working grandfathers into the streets, and stealing Hogswatch.

Needless to say, I'm opposed to that sort of thing.

And two out of three leading anthropomorphic personifications of death agree on the matter.

[PapaNachos]

The entire discussion about entropy hinges on two simple assumptions 1) Entropy exists in D&D land and B) Magic is not capable of reversing its effects (it being entropy.)

Entropy exists in our universe and, as far as we know, we can't do anything about it. In a land of fantasy and magic its perfectly reasonable for universal constants to be turned on their head. Gravity? No thanks, I'd rather reverse it. Time travel? Sure, why not? Death? I'll just buy my way out of it. Entropy? I cast magic circle against chaos.

Nothing in D&D is absolute.

Also in D&Dland right and wrong exist as more than simply human constructs. A character devoted to the power of good can actually draw world-bending power from it.

[Weezer]

Also in D&Dland right and wrong exist as more than simply human constructs. A character devoted to the power of good can actually draw world-bending power from it.

Well this whole discussion steps outside of the D&D morality, entropy and speeding up/preventing it doesn't fit into the good or evil paradigm of D&D. We're kind of making up a morality that doesn't fit into the D&D world.

[Another_Poet]

You are equating the stability and order of physics and energy with the stability and order of society. I would suggest this is erroneous.

Heroes are concerned with keeping society stable and ordered, because that is is how peace is maintained and how we can attempt to make things fair. In an ordered, stable society the wicked are punished and the virtuous have a chance to get ahead by building legitimate businesses, raising families, etc.

Reducing everything to its lowest energy state might allow the universe to reach a point of physical stability and relative order, but it would by definition spell the destruction of every society and all living beings. Or at least most living beings, when you allow energy constructs in a fantasy world.

Order of physical energy =/= order of law and society.

[Math_Mage]

I think a lot of later posters are missing this second post by the OP:


Ok, a bunch of varied answers. I don't normally think this way, just thought this up in the middle of the night (it's still the middle of the night, I should go to bed), and thought I'd post and see what happened. So, there are a few logical flaws. Alright.

However. Let's say that I'm the DM and I set the physical parameters of the universe such that it restarts every once in a while, collapsing in on itself and then expanding outwards again, killing everything, and allowing everything to be born anew.

Let us also say that the players ARE in fact capable of influencing things on a large scale. Because otherwise I'm telling them that they and everything that they cherish and hold dear will die in a fiery death, which is does not a good adventure make if you can't do anything about it. The whole point of any struggle is that whatever's at the end isn't completely inevitable (or you just don't want to go down without a fight - but fighting the heat death of the universe is a difficult thing to do normally).

So we have these ridiculously uber-powerful no-longer-mortals-but-something-more beings, perhaps even reaching the so-much-so-that-the-extrapolations-of-D&D-start-breaking-down phase. Anyway. The universe is in their hands and they can do what they like with it, and they've chosen to be their guardians, their knowledge keepers, their order-keepers and their pretty much whatever they want to be that'll benefit them (not very evil group). And then they find within the depths of knowledge that the universe will end soon. And THEN they find that should they use their enormous influence and power to stop it, that various problems will start arising that may just be beyond their control. Some decide to resist nevertheless. Others consider the task pointless, and, perhaps out of resignation or perhaps out of curiosity decide to wait patiently for the life in this universe to cease, and for the next to begin. Ending the universe in this stage is committing so much genocide on such a massive scale that there are not words to describe it. You kill the possibility of life in an infinite number of universes by attempting to keep this one active for as long as you can - which destroys the system.

I have never been called a Protean before. I'll have to add that to my list. Obviously, I don't want the universe to go and do its own thing whilst we all die - but given this choice - protecting what is here and killing everything that is to come, or resigning to our own mutual destruction for the continuation of the cycle - it is difficult to come up with something that must be done.

Although this sort of plot is rather outside the scope of D&D.

I guess I like it when the story gets really epic. And then more epic. And then it starts getting so epic that your characters never die, can control all space and time, and have to start making decisions like these. Yeah. What's a level limit again?

So, it's not really about the stability of physics vs. the stability of society anymore. Now it's more like 'my universe vs. all your universes.'

[Endarire]

"I would rather exist than not exist."

[Another_Poet]

I think a lot of later posters are missing this second post by the OP:

Thanks for posting that.

In that case i would suggest that periodically ending the universe and starting a new one is not somethign the PC's should fight against. It sounds like the Big Crush followed by a new Big Bang, which is just the way the natural universe works. It won't happen for a billion years and by then all the heroes' loved ones will already be dead anyway. (For about a billion years before it happens there is no way life could survive so the heroes are not living 10 years before it happens or anything).

Trying to stop the eventual end of the universe is kind of like trying to make every being in the universe immortal. You are trying to stop a fundamental law of the universe. Sure it may be possible with epic fantasy powers but it is about as much of an abomination as creating undead. Things end, people die, our time passes. These are fundamental facts that shape life, existence and morality. Even elves must face mortality long before the universe does.

I don't believe it is heroic to stop the Big Crush. But then, maybe I have too many class levels in Druid and not enough in Paladin.

ap

[Arctura42]

Thanks for posting that.

In that case i would suggest that periodically ending the universe and starting a new one is not somethign the PC's should fight against. It sounds like the Big Crush followed by a new Big Bang, which is just the way the natural universe works. It won't happen for a billion years and by then all the heroes' loved ones will already be dead anyway. (For about a billion years before it happens there is no way life could survive so the heroes are not living 10 years before it happens or anything).

Trying to stop the eventual end of the universe is kind of like trying to make every being in the universe immortal. You are trying to stop a fundamental law of the universe. Sure it may be possible with epic fantasy powers but it is about as much of an abomination as creating undead. Things end, people die, our time passes. These are fundamental facts that shape life, existence and morality. Even elves must face mortality long before the universe does.

I don't believe it is heroic to stop the Big Crush. But then, maybe I have too many class levels in Druid and not enough in Paladin.

ap

And it is with this argument that we now have real reasons for both possible courses of action. I like the link to undead. That works well. However, on the other hand, I doubt that the townspeople will think well of our heroes as they stand back and tell them that they must die. Normal people don't work like that. While they don't know any better, they still want to live, and this can be troublesome in the final days of the universe. And so they abandon their heroes, abandon their gods, abandon their senses - and perhaps end up bringing about the end of the universe through their own means like some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. (Throwing around ideas - I want to turn this into something possible, but fear that I may not be able to if there isn't a course of action our heroes can take that they can be happy with.)

[Galileo]

If the Big Crush happens naturally, and it will be followed by a Big Bang, I wouldn't fight against that. However, if it were actually being accelerated/ caused by an Auditor-style villain, then it's time to punch out Cthulhu.

And by the way, chiasaur, mind if I sig the white text?

[chiasaur11]

If the Big Crush happens naturally, and it will be followed by a Big Bang, I wouldn't fight against that. However, if it were actually being accelerated/ caused by an Auditor-style villain, then it's time to punch out Cthulhu.

And by the way, chiasaur, mind if I sig the white text?

Not at all.

Siggedness is an honor and a privilege.

[aje8]

Given the choice you just described our Universe vs. all other universes, I'd fight for ours I think. You may say genocide of all future people is an unimaginable atrocity, but then again, not stopping the unimaginable genocide of every currently concious being is also a genocide of enourmous porportions. The difference is, one way I'm capable of thought. The other I'm not. But it's not just me, it's everyone I know and love, everything I know and love, every fiber of every being I've ever interacted with. Now, you can call this selfish, but honestly, I'm not sure I care about the fututre "lives" (as life is no guarentee in a universe) of beings I've never met, who are nothing like me, who have no connection to me and who are inherently incomprihensible to me. I don't see it as all currently existing life vs. all future life. I see it as all currently existing life vs. the potential for life in a form we don't automatically understand or reconize. The beings in the this universe might be literally incapable of thought. Or they might not exist at all. It's kinda like the evil we know vs. the evil we don't.... only replace evil with life.

Plus, as a hero in this spot, imagine that your calculations were WRONG. I'm not arrogant enough to think that even as a god-being, I couldn't have made a mistake. Somewhere in the unfathomably difficult experiments and incompriehnsible calculations you forgot a decimal point. And that decimal point meas that there is no subsequent big bang. There's just us and not us. A single mis-calculation and you're weighing the lives of everything concious now against the infinite unending void. Failure to act means that void consumes all life. Forever.

[Devils_Advocate]

At the end of the day, I think that preserving anything about the universe has to be compared to the alternatives in order to reach a sensible judgment. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

aje8 makes a valid point. Often, moral dilemmas will be given with the stipulation, either explicit or implied, "Assume that you are acting with perfect knowledge of the situation and are justifiably certain of everything that I'm about to say. Even though there's no conceivable way that that could be true". Maybe, just for fun, we should try not doing that this time.

OK, the Auditors and the Doomguard I know, but where are Proteans from?


Ending the universe in this stage is committing so much genocide on such a massive scale that there are not words to describe it. You kill the possibility of life in an infinite number of universes by attempting to keep this one active for as long as you can - which destroys the system.
Contraception isn't murder. There are important similarities; for example, in each case someone would have been alive but instead isn't. But there are also important differences; for example, killing someone without his permission is coercive, but bringing a new mind into existence is also coercive, as consciousness is forced onto the created individual without its consent. (One could perhaps get around this by designing a mind to be consenting to its existence at the moment that it began operation.) Both the similarities and the differences should be given proper ethical consideration.


Personally, I'd go find the fracker that started that cycle in the first process (especially if it required me going outside of Reality) and kick his ass until he made it Not Work That Way. Is no such guy exists, I'd find a way to Make There Be A Guy and then kick his ass.

Or failing that, permenantly destroy the entire of Reality up to and including whatever causes it to reboot and start from scratch.
I like the way you think, my good sir.

If there's a Creator, It has a heck of a lot to answer for.


Or is being evil consist of being more than just selfish, but being selfish enough to not care about anyone else?
Selfishness is not caring about anyone else. And it's Neutral, not Evil. (Evil means trying or at least wanting to harm others.)


Trying to stop the eventual end of the universe is kind of like trying to make every being in the universe immortal. You are trying to stop a fundamental law of the universe. Sure it may be possible with epic fantasy powers but it is about as much of an abomination as creating undead. Things end, people die, our time passes. These are fundamental facts that shape life, existence and morality. Even elves must face mortality long before the universe does.

I don't believe it is heroic to stop the Big Crush. But then, maybe I have too many class levels in Druid and not enough in Paladin.
"If God had not meant for there to be a smallpox, Dr. Jenner, he would not have placed it upon the Earth."

Natural laws do not need to be enforced. They are not the sort of rules that can be violated. They describe how things do happen. Were a violation of the conservation of momentum to be discovered, that would simply demonstrate that conservation of momentum is not an absolute, universal law. By definition. A working perpetual motion machine would not be immoral simply because it would violate well-established scientific consensus. The notion is absurd.

So I think that the proper response to that criticism -- one that E.J. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner) actually faced, if I'm recalling a biography of him correctly -- is that if God doesn't want smallpox to be eliminated, then it won't be. And that if God didn't want anyone to try to get rid of it, then he wouldn't be doing that. Indeed, there rather seems to be an inherent problem with the notion of defying the will of an omnipotent being. Or a fundamental law of the cosmos, if you prefer. We are part of the universe; we do not interfere in it from outside of it.

Human beings are sort of distinguished by a tendency to not idly allow things to take their course. We build, we rule, we control, we alter. We attempt to reshape the world according to our will. Sometimes these efforts are misguided. But not to the extent that civilization is inherently bad.

"If you take common sense and rigorously apply it, through multiple inferential steps, to areas outside everyday experience, successfully avoiding many possible distractions and tempting mistakes along the way, then it often ends up as a minority position and people give it a special name."
– Eliezer Yudkowsky (http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/16/transhumanism-as-simplified-humanism/)

[hamishspence]

Selfishness is not caring about anyone else. And it's Neutral, not Evil. (Evil means trying or at least wanting to harm others.)

Selfishness in itself might be neutral- but the mindset, combined with lots of other people around- can lead to evil acts. Which, done enough, imply that the character has an evil alignment.

Depending on the DM, a character who "never helps others" and works for the Big Bad, may count as being in collusion with evil- aiding and abetting it, furthering its goals.

Even if the character never personally directly harms another, if their money and labour is making the villain better able to do evil things, and they know in general what the villain does but don't quit the villain's service, they are evil- for knowingly helping the villain in that way.

"Lack of concern for others" is more commonly associated with Evil alignment than Neutral alignment. A neutral person has concern for others- but generally won't help them if it costs them an unacceptable amount, or puts them at unacceptable risk, from their point of view.

From easydamus:

http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html


The Philosophy of True Neutral

True neutral is the philosophy that harmony and freedom are both important in society and that altruism and egoism are both legitimate ends. It is a philosophy of pure equitistic consequentialism. This philosophy holds that people should pursue a rational self-interest while balancing the needs of the state or social order with the freedom of individuals to pursue their own agenda. True neutral can also be associated with ethical equitism and skepticism. As the philosophical "average" of altruism and egoism, equitism holds that harm to others should be minimized when advancing the self and that harm to the self should be minimized when advancing others.

A neutral person tends to have enough concern for others to not want them harmed when they are advancing themselves.

[Ormur]

The problem with moral problems on the scale of universe ending is that presuming to know the right answer is probably hubris. Any such question would need a lot of dedicated study to make sure it's properly resolved. The BBEG's speech isn't enough.

Even so you can't know exactly how things will turn out in the future so it's probably best to deal with saving the here and now. All those future universes don't exist yet so even by preventing them from ever forming you wouldn't actually be killing anyone. Otherwise just think of all the babies that were never born because their parents didn't meet.

[Math_Mage]

The problem with moral problems on the scale of universe ending is that presuming to know the right answer is probably hubris. Any such question would need a lot of dedicated study to make sure it's properly resolved. The BBEG's speech isn't enough.

Never tell this to a DM, of course. Otherwise, the next BBEG's speech on a cosmic moral dilemma will be sure to include all the 'necessary research', including a five-page bibliography at the end, and will take three sessions to complete.