Alignment and Insanity

[Aaron L]

on the flip side, a person with a "chaotic" disorder might take on a very lawful mental life in order to manage it. Then theres the question of in a system with a mind/body dicotomy, is your allignment how your defective brain chemistry makes you act or your "true" personality when freed of that chemistry? (what happens when a sane person Magic Jars a schitzophrenic or vise versa?)

Thats a very interesting idea, what would happen when a normal person takes possesion of someone wth a damaged brain ? A very interesting question. I have Tourette Syndrome (not very severe) but it intrigues me nonetheless.

 

[WayneLigon]

Edited: not going to derail things into an alignment discussion.

I think if you possessed someone with a physical-based mental problem, you'd acquire that problem as your mind adjusts to it's new surroundings. If the body were missing a leg you would be down movement from your old form, and I see the mental influence the same way. Your mind would gradually conform to ... whatever it is that happens in physical-based mental abberation.

It's an absolutely fascinating idea.

 

[DireWhelp]

Having them, or inflicting them?

Both! But I could really have fun with the idea. I could turn it into a satire of sterotypes etc.

Right now I am thinking of a system that combines the sanity rules from Unearthed Arcana with some of the mechanics from poisons and disease. Had to much contact with the positive energy plane lately? That's a good way to contract hypomania! ( http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=30745 ). And as for negative energy...well that would explain why necromancers are often so grim. I am also thinking of some sort of lovecraftian horror that inflicts insanty like some monster inflict disease or poison. I would call it Stes're. Or maybe the howling spectre of a person who died in the throes of insanity who wants you to feel it's pain, and by pain I mean insanity. A monster that can give you devil chills is kind of creepy, but a monster that can alter your brain chemistry etc is WAY creepier. The idea could be expanded to include poisons or potions that inflict insanity. Imagine someone trying to slip a vile of paranoia into the king's goblet.

IMO having supernatural causes would be a much more lighthearted way to approach the issue. The things about mental illness is the exact symptons and severity if the symptons differs from person to person etc etc etc. I think D&D you would have to take a black&white approach to mental illness, because the rules just can't handle something so vastly complex. Having a supernatural cause help justify a black&white approach.

 

[Slife]

I think that all in the naming scheme, the neutral title should be replaced with true. True Lawful, True Chaotic, True Good, True Evil, True Neutral. It seems to describe the class better - Neutral Evil sounds watered down.

 

[Umbran]

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

Perhaps we have a definition problem. Where I come from, "hold them to" means, in essence, "restrict them to". If I hold you to an agreement, I don't allow you to break that agreement. Holding them to an alignment means saying, "You cannot do that, you are X-aligned". I will never, ever do that to a full PC. If that's not what you meant, then ignore me on that point back there

PCs have free will. They will act as they will. Those actions may have consequences they don't expect or don't like. Possibly losing class abilities is a consequence, rather like cheesing off the town guards.

I feel the race alignment descriptors are for the DM, and NPCs. If I allow a PC to be of such a race, I will either treat that character to have levels in a racial class that has alignment restrictions, or ignore the limitation altogether.

 

[The Druid Merlin]

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.

I definitely agree with you on this.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Can insane people be lawful?

Sanity does not alter or determine alignment. If anything you can only say that an insane person might not be able to behave according to an alignment since alignment is an amalgamation of philosphical beliefs, morals, ethics, and even a little sociology and culture. Alignment is determined by what you do and WHY you do it. Insane people are not fully following any alignment path that they choose. It may be in part or in whole but their actions are being directed or restricted by a physical ailment, not a demonstration of the characters willing choice of action.

Characters of ANY alignment can be insane without affecting thier alignment one whit. It is only when the character is freely CHOOSING actions and taking them that you see their alignment. As a result a character could be any alignment and act directly contrary to what you would expect. Actions that a character actually has no control over (such as those dictated as a result of insanity) cannot be taken as having any effect on the characters alignment. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't still CONSEQUENCES, even though they had no control over what they were doing, but you can't change or determine alignment because of it.

 

[fusangite]

Perhaps we have a definition problem. Where I come from, "hold them to" means, in essence, "restrict them to". If I hold you to an agreement, I don't allow you to break that agreement. Holding them to an alignment means saying, "You cannot do that, you are X-aligned". I will never, ever do that to a full PC. If that's not what you meant, then ignore me on that point back there

My main concerns with alignment have to do with running NPCs. See my examples above.

PCs have free will. They will act as they will. Those actions may have consequences they don't expect or don't like. Possibly losing class abilities is a consequence, rather like cheesing off the town guards.

This is like saying, in this society, you have free will -- you can commit murder in public; there will just be consequences. In any practical sense, murder is proscribed in our society. So too are certain actions by bards, paladins, monks, etc.

I feel the race alignment descriptors are for the DM, and NPCs. If I allow a PC to be of such a race, I will either treat that character to have levels in a racial class that has alignment restrictions, or ignore the limitation altogether.

There we go! I knew you house-ruled alignment. You're too rational not to. Any defender of the alignment system will ultimately confess to a massive house-ruling of the system.

If you look at my example, above of the evil duke, how would you handle questions of time horizon? If you proceed relentlessly to a cosmically evil goal but don't use "evil" means to do it, do you only become evil when you achieve the goal?

 

[fusangite]

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.

Yeah -- and this is absurd. Besides, the mayor of Sunnydale isn't plotting to achieve an orderly new society, he's working towards anarchically devouring the world -- not a lawful goal; just lawful means.

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.

Thanks! It's a pleasure to be in a dialogue where we can see one another's points.

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.

Normally, when one part of the SRD says one thing and another part says another thing that might be contradictory or consistent with it, you assume that both statements are true. Usually when people try to get around the problems of alignment, they argue that this statement somehow makes the other statements in the rules untrue. NPCs can be homicidal lunatics with no long-term impulse control and still be very different from one another. Just look at all the different serial killer characters they make for American TV shows and movies every year. The fact is that you can read the rules so that this section and the section describing CE are simultaneously true. Therefore, in any normal understanding of the rules, you should.

Either way you interpriet alignment above, the personality leads to the alignment, the alignment doesn't lead to the personality.

So what? Which thing leads to the other doesn't change the way in which alignment and personality correlate.

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.

As I said to Umbran, I find it telling that even alignment's defenders house-rule it. Doesn't this suggest a major rewrite/overhaul is necessary?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

Quite so. It HAS to be that way. If characters were forbidden from acting contrary to their alignment then you never have fallen paladins, barbarians who acclimate to civilization and cease their chaotic ways, characters who make their way back to a former alignment after having had their alignment involuntarily altered by magic, nor could you have LG Drow ranger PC's... ... Actually, that last one may not be so bad...