Alignment and Insanity

[Umbran]

. 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 think that is, in large part, due to the descriptions of alignments from previous editions.

By the modern definition a "Chaotic" is a person who supports personal freedom. It isn't that their actions are random, it's that they prefer personal choices over following rules set by others.

 

[Tonguez]

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

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.

Again I disagree whilst a fantasy character may be possessed/inhabited by multiple souls/demons/whateever and work as a character. That is not and should not be a mental illness - it is a multi-spirit possession that needs the intervention of clerics with the exorcism spell treat it as such.

Similarily if a character has absorbed an overabundance of lawful energy then apply a template which might require a compulsive behaviour because they are an extra-normal creature not because they are 'crazy'

and of course neither of these cases have anything to do with Alignment

conversely if a character is a CE sadistic cannibal serial killer then they are like that because they are EVIL beyond redemption not because of some personality disorder

 

[Mercule]

I think that is, in large part, due to the descriptions of alignments from previous editions.

By the modern definition a "Chaotic" is a person who supports personal freedom. It isn't that their actions are random, it's that they prefer personal choices over following rules set by others.

You are probably correct. Sometime in the late 1980s, I worked out that "law-abiding" was not the opposite of "random" (reading lists of odd laws, they seem to occasionally be synonymous). For the law/chaos axis to make sense the two need to be opposites. The only thing that made sense to me was to have Law refer to those who tended to think/act in terms of groups and for Chaotics to think/act in terms of individuals.

If I had to define the alignments, I'd do it this way:

Lawful Good -- believes the most good can be obtained by maximizing structure/order and that the good of the whole will always outweight the good of, or cost to, the individual.

Chaotic Good -- believes the most good comes from maximizing the freedom for each individual to act of their own will. Good cannot be measured in a group, but only to each individual.

Neutral Good -- Seeks good through a blending of both methods, unwilling to move too far in either direction.

Lawful Evil -- believes that the greatest personal benefit can be obtained by enforcing order, of a sort, upon his surroundings. The sufferings of others, as a group or individual, are irrelivant, so long as he personally profits.

Chaotic Evil -- believes that the greatest personal benefit can be obtained by using personal means and reacting to each person or situation independantly of other encounters. The sufferings of others, as a group or individual, are irrelivant, so long as he personally profits.

Neutral Evil -- Seeks personal gain through a middle ground of the two methods, using some basic order, while dealing with some circumstances separately. The sufferings of others, as a group or individual, are irrelivant, so long as he personally profits.

Lawful Neutral -- Finds confort in order and group cohesion. The impact of that order is not measured against woe or weal.

Chaotic Neutral -- Enjoys personal freedom with neither concern for, nor malice toward others.

Neutral -- Seeks benefit for self and friends, without overmuch concern for others, but with desire to harm others. Finds order comforting, but does not want to be overly regulated.

 

[fusangite]

I think that is, in large part, due to the descriptions of alignments from previous editions.

By the modern definition a "Chaotic" is a person who supports personal freedom. It isn't that their actions are random, it's that they prefer personal choices over following rules set by others.

There is a real problem here, though. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst political philosophers going back centuries that the only way to preserve personal liberty is in the context of the rule of law. Because this is both a popular ideological position and a self-evident truth, the D&D alignment system comes off as awfully silly when it suggests that support for the rule of law and belief in individual liberty are polar opposites. This contradiction isn't some knid of holdover from editions of the game produced by the less wise; it is a clearly articulated feature of the present edition.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

To me, The Mayor seems Lawful Evil: methodical, plotting, and manipulating. You use the tools that work. The problem here is more that to be demon worshipping, he shouldn't be lawful, so if you're intent on using demons instead of devils, you run into a problem.

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. 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.

Ahh. A classic problem. If alignment is based on purely actions, then an character doing good will have a good alignment, even if it is toward an evil end. If alignment is based only upon intentions, then a character who is doing evil, if working toward some greater good, will have a good alignment. I think this goes out of the current discussion, however, but I do appreciate the problem.

The way I solve it, by the way, is to just say that the alignment rules don't apply to NPCs, only to PCs, and use the first option. Of course, this isn't RAW, I know.

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:

I don't think that is the case. The RAW states

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

So, even by RAW you can't hold a character of a particular alignment to the alignment all the time, nor can you hold a character of a particular alignment to all aspects of said alignment. Either way you interpriet alignment above, the personality leads to the alignment, the alignment doesn't lead to the personality.

Chaotic characters just tend toward what I said above. There's a line between Neutral and Chaotic that they could be skirting, but still remain Chaotic. You don't have to be extremely Chaotic to be considered of the Chaotic alignment. Just generally.

 

[moritheil]

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.

I was intending to create a lawful NPC, and stumbled across the question, so I phrased it that way. Should I apologize? Are you offended by this apparently horrible crime I have committed of inadvertently suggesting that erratic behavior, which in the RAW is a hallmark of chaotic alignment, is somehow suggestive of chaos and not order?

With whom do you have your argument, anyhow? Me? WOTC? Society? All the ENWorld posters? I can't tell from your statement, and I can't tell if you yourself can tell.

 

[moritheil]

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.

That is more or less what I was aiming at, yes.

 

[moritheil]

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.

I'm not going to get into whether or not the alignment system is itself flawed, but it's entirely easy to have an NE NPC worshipping a CE power.

 

[Umbran]

So, even by RAW you can't hold a character of a particular alignment to the alignment all the time, nor can you hold a character of a particular alignment to all aspects of said alignment. Either way you interpriet alignment above, the personality leads to the alignment, the alignment doesn't lead to the personality.

Agreed. Personality leads to motivations and decisions and actions. Over the long haul, motivations and actions determine alignment. Alignment is a result, not a cause. You cannot "hold a person to" an alignment, because the person is in a constant state of creating their alignment.

 

[fusangite]

Agreed. Personality leads to motivations and decisions and actions. Over the long haul, motivations and actions determine alignment. Alignment is a result, not a cause. You cannot "hold a person to" an alignment, because the person is in a constant state of creating their alignment.

This is a bit of a different matter with people playing classes with alignment requirements or creatures with always in the alignment descriptor.