Alignment and Insanity

[moritheil]

SPeaking of the insanity, I can't right now think of any OCD person who likes being OCD. Being a mild form of insanity, they have no say in the matter; this mental kink compells them to do these things whether they want to or not. I'm assuming here that you're not assuming that any truly insane person actually has any form of say-so or responsibility for the actions that their insanity makes them perform - that's why we have codes in our own laws for lessened competency or even 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.

I am not suggesting that they are responsible for their actions. But if they are not, can they be lawful? That is the crux of the matter.

If the issue still seems arbitrary to you, I must also ask if an insane person can be a paladin. (See this thread for a discussion of the finer points of law and paladinhood, which suggests that respect for laws - heavenly, if not local - is important.)

 

[Umbran]

By the book, a creature that is not capable of making moral judgements is not aligned (is effectively neutral). Alignment is about choices, and what one chooses to do. Generally speaking, people don't choose to be insane. It is behavior they cannot control. If they can't control it, it isn't subject to judgement, and thus alignment doesn't apply. An insane person is no more aligned than a rabid wolf is "evil".

By this view, we can have an insane person be netrual while the insanity is in control, and regains their normal alignment when sane. If insanity comes in bouts, a paladin might have his powers while lucid, but lose them when insanity strikes, and so on.

Of course, your world and cosmology may differ from the book.

 

[Zander]

...multiple personality disorders... would fall into the chaotic camp.

IMO that depends on the personalities and which is dominant at any given time. Thus, a character with multiple personalities could have many different alignments.

For the purposes of class, a multiple personality character could only use the abilities of the class of the dominant personality at the time. For example, a PC with two personalities, one of a LG paladin and one of a CE barbarian could only rage while the barbarian personality was dominant.

The same would apply for alignment-related magic. Protection from evil would only work against the character described above when the CE barbarian personality was dominant.

Because changing which is the dominant personality is not usually controllable by the insane person, I would say that it's the DM's choice, not the player's.

 

[moritheil]

By the book, a creature that is not capable of making moral judgements is not aligned (is effectively neutral). Alignment is about choices, and what one chooses to do. Generally speaking, people don't choose to be insane. It is behavior they cannot control. If they can't control it, it isn't subject to judgement, and thus alignment doesn't apply. An insane person is no more aligned than a rabid wolf is "evil".

By this view, we can have an insane person be netrual while the insanity is in control, and regains their normal alignment when sane. If insanity comes in bouts, a paladin might have his powers while lucid, but lose them when insanity strikes, and so on.

Of course, your world and cosmology may differ from the book.

Let me see if I understand your position: A paladin is subject to an insanity-causing magical effect. While insane, he goes on a rampage, slaying an entire school full of children, before the rest of his party beats him into unconsciousness. Upon regaining his senses, his defense is "I wasn't in control." He should, by your statement above, not be in any trouble for this, either with his patron, or with the local officials, provided that they accept insanity defenses. Is that correct? Furthermore, for the duration of the act, because he is not in control, he loses paladin powers?

Also, since you hold that the fundamental issue is control over oneself, while a paladin is subject to Dominate Person, he would lose his paladin abilities, because he isn't in control, and after slaying dozens of people in cold blood due to the commands of the evil mage dominating him, he would simply pick up his sword and go on his way without needing to atone. Is this correct?

 

[moritheil]

IMO that depends on the personalities and which is dominant at any given time. Thus, a character with multiple personalities could have many different alignments.

For the purposes of class, a multiple personality character could only use the abilities of the class of the dominant personality at the time. For example, a PC with two personalities, one of a LG paladin and one of a CE barbarian could only rage while the barbarian personality was dominant.

The same would apply for alignment-related magic. Protection from evil would only work against the character described above when the CE barbarian personality was dominant.

Because changing which is the dominant personality is not usually controllable by the insane person, I would say that it's the DM's choice, not the player's.

That's a bit wonky, but understandable. I would be amused by an LG paladin reverting to his CE barbarian state, and being slain instantly by his holy avenger sword due to a combination of lost hit points and negative levels.

 

[Zander]

That's a bit wonky, but understandable. I would be amused by an LG paladin reverting to his CE barbarian state, and being slain instantly by his holy avenger sword due to a combination of lost hit points and negative levels.

I would be amused by a sword with multiple personality disorder - but that's another story.

A sword that absorbed the personalities of characters & monsters to whom it had dealt the death blow would be pretty interesting.

 

[WayneLigon]

...While insane, he goes on a rampage, slaying an entire school full of children, before the rest of his party beats him into unconsciousness. Upon regaining his senses, his defense is "I wasn't in control." He should, by your statement above, not be in any trouble ... Also, since you hold that the fundamental issue is control over oneself, while a paladin is subject to Dominate Person, he would lose his paladin abilities, because he isn't in control, and after slaying dozens of people in cold blood due to the commands of the evil mage dominating him, he would simply pick up his sword and go on his way without needing to atone. Is this correct?

I don't know what Umbra's take on it would be but I would say 'yes' for both of those things as far as having to Atone. The paladin has no choice in doing those things, either when under the command of Dominate or insanity, so there should be no reason to atone.

Unless your world is built around the more traditional view that insanity or succumbing to influence (ie, failing that Will save) is a failure of morals or character. In which case, go to town with the scourges and penance. Also, this doesn't cover a world where all insanity is caused by demonic possession or by divine curses for failings.

I had forgotten the 'without choice there is no alignment' idea, and that makes for some very intruguing ideas indeed.

 

[Umbran]

He should, by your statement above, not be in any trouble for this, either with his patron, or with the local officials, provided that they accept insanity defenses. Is that correct? Furthermore, for the duration of the act, because he is not in control, he loses paladin powers?

The SRD states that "creatures incapable of moral action are neutral". I submit that a creature not capable of choosing what actions they take are not capable of moral action, any more than a wagon can be morally responsible for rolling downhill.

We can layer on this a level of responsibility for actions that led to his state. In the modern world, if your own actions impare your judgement (say, by drinking alcohol), you are considered guilty of the crimes you commit while impaired. But, if your impairment is not your fault (like clinical insanity) we don't usually hold you responsible for the crime. I would think the same basic logic would apply.

Also, since you hold that the fundamental issue is control over oneself, while a paladin is subject to Dominate Person, he would lose his paladin abilities, because he isn't in control, and after slaying dozens of people in cold blood due to the commands of the evil mage dominating him, he would simply pick up his sword and go on his way without needing to atone. Is this correct?

See above - if he were particularly stupid about confronting this mage, and knew that this might be a result, then he'd still be responsible. If he's never experienced the spell, by the core rules I wouldn't penalize him.

If, having had that experience, he didn't immediately seek a way to protect himself (and his party) from Domination, and then set out to rid the world of that mage, I would penalize him. Ignoring evil because it is inconvenient is definitely un-paladinlike.

 

[moritheil]

I don't know what Umbra's take on it would be but I would say 'yes' for both of those things as far as having to Atone. The paladin has no choice in doing those things, either when under the command of Dominate or insanity, so there should be no reason to atone.

Unless your world is built around the more traditional view that insanity or succumbing to influence (ie, failing that Will save) is a failure of morals or character. In which case, go to town with the scourges and penance. Also, this doesn't cover a world where all insanity is caused by demonic possession or by divine curses for failings.

I had forgotten the 'without choice there is no alignment' idea, and that makes for some very intruguing ideas indeed.

Let me point out that the issue is not so simple that there are only two different stances on it, one being "totally responsible" and the other being "totally not responsible."

For example, I can use the very practical viewpoint that the paladin did not advance the cause of righteousness and good, and set a bad example, whether or not he was in control of his actions. His actions caused hundreds, or thousands, to lose faith in the morals and ideals that he supposedly stands for and represents. While he was not, in a sense, totally culpable since he never desired to do these actions, the fact that he did them still cannot be ignored. As such, according to this viewpoint, he might be censured because he caused a lot of trouble for paladins in general, and for his patron.

There is an entire spectrum of possibilities. At one end, we have "only intent matters, and not action," in which case it doesn't matter if a paladin fails to vanquish evil, cowardice overtakes him, and he flees the field, because he originally intended to go in and fight to the death. At the other end, we have "only actions matter, and not intent," in which case domination and the like are irrelevant and the only question is whether or not he did in fact do something against his code.

What I am interested in asking is where exactly everyone falls on this spectrum.

 

[moritheil]

See above - if he were particularly stupid about confronting this mage, and knew that this might be a result, then he'd still be responsible. If he's never experienced the spell, by the core rules I wouldn't penalize him.

So, lack of willpower is not a moral failing, but stupidity is a moral failing? Interesting.