Alignment and Insanity

[ThirdWizard]

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

 

[Rostek]

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

When confronted with mindcontrol, lack of physiological toughness isn't a moral failing, as he doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Making a conscious decision to do something stupid? Absolutely.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If they don't have the mental facility to act in such a way as to proactively counteract the possibility of being dominated, then how is that different than one who doesn't have the mental facility to keep from going on a killing spree?

 

[moritheil]

Making a conscious decision to do something stupid? Absolutely.

I don't see how being stupid is a conscious decision, if we accept that being insane is not a conscious decision. Both states involve deficiencies in mental acuity.

If the player says, "The character knows better than this, but won't do the better thing because he's lazy," then yes, he is acting stupid despite the fact that he knows better. But if the player says, "My character's int is 5, and he doesn't realize how dumb it is to announce yourself formally to an evil mage and demand surrender," then I don't see how you distinguish it from someone who lacks the willpower to avoid being charmed, or someone who lacks the strength to pull a sword out of a stone.

 

[Tonguez]

Personally I don't think mental illness should ever be linked to alignment

the nature of insanity is that it is a dysfunction and so to say that a person is chaotic or lawful based on dysfunction is misguided.

This is different of course to the evil pyschopath who kills for pleasure or the BBEG who is played as a Megalomaniac. They might well be Chaotic evil or lawful or whatever but imho real world definitions of 'schizophrenic or bi-polar etc' shouldn't apply.

 

[Tonguez]

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

yes - in the real world

and no - in DnD

in DnD he is a psycho killer because he is CE (nothing to do with insanity)

 

[moritheil]

This is different of course to the evil pyschopath who kills for pleasure or the BBEG who is played as a Megalomaniac. They might well be Chaotic evil or lawful or whatever but imho real world definitions of 'schizophrenic or bi-polar etc' shouldn't apply.

So what definitions should apply? Or do you simply leave the issue unresolved, and hope that it never comes up?

Incidentally, understand that the classifications of mental illness are not first principles. They are descriptive categories.

 

[ThirdWizard]

and no - in DnD

in DnD he is a psycho killer because he is CE (nothing to do with insanity)

So I am going to assume you disagree with Umbran's

By the book, a creature that is not capable of making moral judgements is not aligned (is effectively neutral).

 

[Mercule]

There is no correlation between alignment and sanity.

If I were to put objectivity aside, and put aside the fact that this is just a silly game of pretend, and base my answer solely upon my own values, experiences, and worldview, I'd have to say that Lawful characters are less sane than Chaotic characters. They also are less likely to be truly Good, too.

That's blatant bias and dogmatism, though. No more, however, than the original question.

 

[fusangite]

Can insane people be lawful? By this, I mean to ask about all manner of insanity, from the "generally erratic schizophrenic" type to the "megalomaniac who thinks he is a deity" insanity.

If you think it varies by the type of insanity, what exact types can and cannot be? What level of detail should DMs and players be prepared to go into to determine the alignment of an insane individual?

You're hitting upon one of the serious flaws in the alignment system as it is laid-out. Essentially, the more neutral a person's alignment, the more powerful they are: holy and unholy weapons do less damage to them as do a number of high-level clerical evocations. But more importantly, they are free to act rationally in their own interests. One of the standard things I trot out from my GMing past is the Chaotic Evil NPC who needs to keep control of a city he is governing so he can do the excavation and magical rituals necessary to open a gateway to The Abyss. According to the RAW, his alignment would deprive him of the impulse control necessary to pull off his plan. Legalism, lack of impulse control, unnecessary cruelty are all essentially disabilities that can get in the way of an evil NPC of whatever stripe (lawful, neutral or chaotic) successfully destroying the world. In my view, this is a mistake; there is something wrong when all alignments are allegedly mechanically identical on one hand but on the other constitute serious disabilities that prevent an individual carrying out a long-range plan.