Alignment and Insanity

[DireWhelp]

I think a better argument might be, "I don't think Real World mental disorders should be linked to alignment."

In the real world, a mental disorder generally means that someone suffers from a medical condition caused by any of a number of physical causes: hormonal imbalances, physical damage to certain parts of the brain, etc.

In a fantasy world, that need not be the case.

Perhaps the fantasy version of OCD is someone who has, somehow, absorbed extra Law into their bodies (based on the theory that Primes are made up, at least in part, of all the alignment, elemental, and energy forces). Thus, while their soul might be Chaotic, their body actually requires them to perform certain Lawful rituals day in and day out. They don't like it, and they resist doing it, but in the end they need to, just like they need to eat.

Similarly, I don't think multiple personality disorder is really a mental disorder in fantasy worlds where it is actually possible for multiple personalities to actually exist inside one body (take, for instance, the Tribe of One series from Dark Sun). It's probably more a sign of possession, whether by friendly or unfriendly spirits, souls, beings, outsiders, etc.

I think those are good ideas and a good argument. I could have fun with supernatural mental disorders.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I could have fun with supernatural mental disorders.

Having them, or inflicting them?

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

Having them, or inflicting them?

Both?

 

[fusangite]

ThirdWizard,

I think you are missing my point here. I am not arguing that Chaotic Evil people are incapable of governing. I would never argue that the rules prohibit that which they explicitly permit.

What I am saying is that the PHB description of Chaotic Evil specifically states that a CE ruler would lack the impulse control necessary to do good in the short-term in order to achieve evil in the long term. As you yourself state, the Chaotic Evil ruler must

arbitrarily kill off those he deems as threats (whether through paranoia or not), put others in control of various aspects of governing that don't interst him (probably killing them off regularly so they don't gain too much power), and rule based on how he feels instead of any kind of existing laws. He will probably indulge himself in whatever activities he sees fit, taking full advantage of his position.

You see, that means he can't fool people into believing him to be a wise and benevolent ruler while he covertly works to kill them all. I was therefore frustrated that the RAW prohibited me from creating an NPC who worshipped a Chaotic Evil god with whom he was scheming to open a gate to the Abyss. (Yes, the game was an adaptation of season III of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.) In my view, that constitutes a serious problem with alignment.

Essentially, if I followed the RAW, the whole time he was preparing to open the gate to the Abyss and runing a nice orderly city, he would be Lawful Good and only at the moment of the fruition of his plans would he be Chaotic Evil. This, of course, is nonsense.

He will hold his position through power, fear, magic, or any other method likened to these.

Again, I'm not arguing that the rules prohibit that which they specifically permit. They tell you that Chaotic Evil peopel can be rulers of cities but then they unacceptably circumscribe what kind of rulers they can be. I am arguing that the RAW prohibit the Mayor of Sunnydale from existing.

The rules clearly state that a Chaotic Evil character cannot exercise impulse control in the short term even if it is in their interest to do so. Look at the phrasing:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. (emphasis mine)

 

[fusangite]

There is no correlation between alignment and sanity.

Correction: There should be no correlation between alignment and sanity. The fact that there is in this edition of the rules is an indication that alignment requires a rewrite.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You see, that means he can't fool people into believing him to be a wise and benevolent ruler while he covertly works to kill them all.

I disagree.

A smart CE ruler will set up those people he's about to arbitrarily kill as "Enemies of the People," working to undermine his just and benevolent rule. See, he'd be able to more fully complete his plans for the betterment of the city if only these damn bureaucrats and "counterrevolutionaries" wouldn't keep getting in his way ...

 

[fusangite]

I disagree.

A smart CE ruler will set up those people he's about to arbitrarily kill as "Enemies of the People," working to undermine his just and benevolent rule. See, he'd be able to more fully complete his plans for the betterment of the city if only these damn bureaucrats and "counterrevolutionaries" wouldn't keep getting in his way ...

Re-read the section of the rules I quoted. The character, himself, is arbitrary, vicious and hot-tempered. Furthermore, he is unable to resist his hateful impulses. What you are doing is suggesting that the NPC should be arbitrary in a systematic and organized fashion. Essentially, you are warping the definition of arbitrary and essentially turning it into its own opposite. Now, I have no problem with you changing the definition of CE so that it isn't a handicap; that's what I did. But I think you should acknowledge that this is actually a deviation from the RAW.

 

[Umbran]

So a psychopath killer is Neutral because he isn't capable of making moral decisions?

Well, it depends on what you call "psychopath".

If a true psychopath lacks the ability to choose, and thus does not really have free will, then yes, I'd say that he or she is sits in the "neutral" category. Such a person is essentially a beast. Is a rabid bear or wolf evil?

I submit that this psychopath isn't the sort of person that CE is designed to describe. The alignement system is more designed to deal with people who fully understand the implications of their actions, and could choose to do otherwise if they desired. No compulsion, no exertion of will to avoid evil. But they choose evil.

Whether such people exist in the real world is unimportant, because D&D includes moral conflicts that don't exist in the real world.

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

Lack of superhuman willpower to resist supernatural effects is not a moral failing, no. The inability to be far above average is not a moral failing. Lack of the native intelligence to make an informed choice is also not a moral failing.

Consider - the first is the inability to resist an unexpected supernatural effect. The second is the inability to understand the consequences of actions. Compare this to willfully ignoring known possible consequences.

The first two don't show lack of respect for the wellfare of others. The third, however, is a choice. Hurt caused by choice is always nastier than the same hurt caused inadvertantly.

 

[Mercule]

I'm sorry, could you explain how my posting an open question as to whether or not insane people can be of all alignments is blatantly biased and dogmatic?

Your question was "can lawful people be insane". The implication was that, of course chaotic people can be insane, but it's debatable for lawfuls. That shows a presupposition that lawful people are more rational.

Let me turn the question around, and see if that makes things more clear. If I asked, "Can chaotic people be insane?" how would you react? Is that question just as reasonable as asking about lawfuls? Or does it sound like something silly?

The entire debate over alignments and insanity alternately amuses, facinates, and annoys me. Most of Western culture pays great lip-service to honoring free-thinking, individualism, and the right to step out of line to confront authority. Those are, clearly, chaotic values, in D&D terms. Yet, in every discussion of alignment, it always comes up that Chaotic characters are a bit off, when compared to Lawfuls. Either they are assumed to be inherently less sane, less virtuous, or just plain more troublesome than Lawful characters.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yet, in every discussion of alignment, it always comes up that Chaotic characters are a bit off, when compared to Lawfuls. Either they are assumed to be inherently less sane, less virtuous, or just plain more troublesome than Lawful characters.

I'd say they are all those things, depending on your definitions of sanity, virtue and troublesome Most societies, themselves being Lawful constructs, value Lawful tenets over the long run: stability, order, peace, security, etc.

The young musician who struggles at a series of dead-end part-time jobs because otherwise there's no time to practice, to sit and think and write, to work out that sound that keeps evading him and find a way to express it... yeah, he's less 'sane' than if he'd gone to business school, worked hard and impressed the right employer and wound up with a corner office at 25 is 'sanity' is seen as maximizing your opportunities. Even if he is successful at a music career, he'll probably always live hand to mouth unless he's one of the extremely lucky. He's not secure; if he's moderately successful he encourages others not to be secure and stable. There's a reason that until just recently actors and musicians were seen as barely respectable bums who were best kept away from decent folk.

Virtue is a construct of a lawful society, part of set of artificially exalted do's and don't's. The handsome dandy who has a series of male and female liasons, doesn't keep regular hours, flaunts the conventions of a community and gets away with it all certainly doesn't conform to most views of 'virtue'. The lawful person will usually conform to the conventions of his community provided they don't conflict with other things (the lawful good person will not conform to the hobgoblin community practice of killing someone who looks at the king without bowing, for instance).

The gadfly who plays the Devil's Advocate just to point out foolishness, sweetheart deals, inordinately complex and Byzantine laws - not to root out corruption or wrongdoing, but simply to point out that things don't have to be done in a rigid staid manner is certainly a troublemaker. The Lawful person would welcome almost any increase in order, even order for order's sake.

I guess one reason that the 'CE unable to pull off this huge plot' thing rackles is that people who pull off huge plots to cause massive evil all at once have generally been characterized as Chaotic Evil, which for so many years has been seen as 'the worst evil'. Got a bad guy who is going for the over-the-top massive death raise-everyone-in-the-city-as-a-zombie-slave plot? 'Wow, that's just beyond Evil, so make him CE 'cause that's the worst evil there is!'

It's not. Neutral Evil is.

Lazy writers who possibly didn't even really look at the alignment system have made a lot of people think that CE is something it's not.