PDA

View Full Version : clinically insane?



Mystic Muse
2009-09-25, 10:26 PM
okay. I've heard a DM or two state that chaotic neutral was clinically insane. Is this true by the rules? if so do you have to be chaotic neutral to be insane or is it like one of those "a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square" situations?

Korivan
2009-09-25, 10:27 PM
You don't have to be clinicly insane to be CN.....But it helps:smallsmile:

Nano
2009-09-25, 10:28 PM
Uh. No. It actually isn't. Chaotic doesn't mean full blown Dark Knight Joker crazy. Perfectly normal people can easily be Chaotic Neutral. Insanity could come from any alignment, by the way, even Lawfuls.

sonofzeal
2009-09-25, 10:30 PM
It's a joke. "Chaotic Neutral" is also referred to as "chaotic stupid", as characters of that alignment are far, far more likely to do idiotic things, have absolutely no though of consequences, and generally play like they're, you guessed it, clinically insane.

That said, it's not a rules thing, it's just something that happens a surprising amount. It's like saying "horses are brown"; not all horses are brown, and not all brown things are horses, but when you picture a horse you tend to picture it brown.

Vangor
2009-09-25, 10:33 PM
Chaotic Neutral can be, although insanity can actually be lawful if insanity leads a person towards being obsessive compulsive and extensively organized, or the archetype of the recluse mathematician is a rather Lawful character. The first axis, in this case Chaotic, refers to order and position on order in the universe. Preferring absolute structure is the extreme of Lawful, while preferring absolutely no structure is the extreme of Chaotic.

Chaotic Neutral could be insanity, but this is not necessary for insanity nor is insanity necessary for Chaotic Neutral. Simply, Chaotic Neutral as played is a lack of concern for law without a specific want to relieve suffering.

Je dit Viola
2009-09-25, 10:35 PM
Actually, I don't think of brown horses, I think of Mustangs (the horse, not the car) that are 'painted'. But my preference proves Sonofzeal's analogy more - not all of them are brown, but many people think of Chaotic Neutrals as insane.

I'll just also echo what he said: Not all insane people are CN, and not all CN are insane. It's just that that's the only way most people know (or want to) play it that way. 2 dimentional and 'pretty much evil, without being an evil alignment'.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-25, 10:36 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Milskidasith
2009-09-25, 10:39 PM
You know there is no such thing as clinical insanity, right? Insanity is purely a legal term.

Nano
2009-09-25, 10:40 PM
A character of any alignment could. It's not really a quirk that's limited by either axis... An LG person could have just as much of a tendency to talk to himself as a CE one would.

Blaine.Bush
2009-09-25, 10:41 PM
Alignments =/= medical conditions.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-25, 10:42 PM
You know there is no such thing as clinical insanity, right? Insanity is purely a legal term.

It has medical validity: it's just going on a century outdated.

herrhauptmann
2009-09-25, 10:46 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Somebody who's lonely? Or they forgot how to internally monologue?

Vangor
2009-09-25, 10:51 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

This would possess no specific bearing on the alignment of the character. Speaking to yourself, especially in d&d, does not limit you from performing good or evil or upholding or breaking law, nor simply being reserved about either. I mean, Minsc is obviously crazy and effectively talks with himself, but he is all about the good and less concerned with the law being a berserking ranger.

TheCountAlucard
2009-09-25, 11:20 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?Prob'ly a Malkavian. :smalltongue:

OracleofWuffing
2009-09-25, 11:23 PM
Well, the context of what you're speaking to yourself may or may not be important. If you constantly monologue to yourself about your overly elaborate scheme to sacrifice a city of kittens to somehow destroy Pelor, you might be edging a little bit towards the chaotic evil section.

Stormthorn
2009-09-25, 11:26 PM
It has medical validity: it's just going on a century outdated.

Nowadays insanity is simply a legal term relating to a type of defence.

Psychotic, Sociopathic (or, closely related, Anti Social), Borderline, Histrionic, Obsessive-Compulsive, Disorganized Shizophrenic are all more like actual forms of madness.

Paulus
2009-09-25, 11:27 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Noisy?

Insanity is not an alignment nor a requirement for one, and by Bahamut do I ha-... dislike people who think it is cool to play it. Mostly because they do it wrong. Angst is not insanity, nor is emo. Please keep that in mind. This message brought to you by the "you can't post one word posts" club.

Gralamin
2009-09-25, 11:38 PM
Noisy?

Insanity is not an alignment nor a requirement for one, and by Bahamut do I ha-... dislike people who think it is cool to play it. Mostly because they do it wrong. Angst is not insanity, nor is emo. Please keep that in mind. This message brought to you by the "you can't post one word posts" club.

I know completely where your coming from. Now, if a character is meant for comic relief as a sorta insane goofy guy, thats alright. Trying to make an serious mentally unbalanced person is hard.

Paulus
2009-09-25, 11:48 PM
I know completely where your coming from. Now, if a character is meant for comic relief as a sorta insane goofy guy, thats alright. Trying to make an serious mentally unbalanced person is hard.

Oh for comedic effect is fine, quirks, and eccentricities, and things that are seen as crazy is great and high humor! As long as it ISN'T serious or real in any way. Because then it would just be sad. and speaking of sad, beware the rant below.

Spare the rod...
Especially since the only benefit you should EVER get out of it is if you were an Alienist. And even they don't benefit that much. why? because it ISN'T A benefit. It isn't "cool" or "trendy" or something to strive for because it scares people. Heroes and Adventures should not have mental aliments, unless their players fully understand them and play them correctly. However, that is not to say if you use it correctly it can't be awesome. Hannibal per example. But it should usually be reserved for villains, especially since their end always turns out bad, bad, bad. but then I'm biased, for reasons you can probably figure out yourselves. but above because I see it way to often. "You don't want to mess with me! I'm crazy!!" ...yeah. People like that would literally crap themselves if they ever met a true insane person. But most of the time it always ends sadly. why? BECAUSE INSANITY IS NOT A GOOD THING! guh! /rant Spoiler the child.

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-26, 12:17 AM
okay. I've heard a DM or two state that chaotic neutral was clinically insane. Is this true by the rules? if so do you have to be chaotic neutral to be insane or is it like one of those "a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square" situations?

The 2E PHB is the source of that over-simplification, I think. It has a line about "lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior." I think those two categories are the only ones given in the CN description, so people thing "CN, oh, the insane alignment." Also, though, I think some DMs say you can't be CN because that's for insane characters to keep players from claiming CN but acting CE (or, as mentioned above, CStupid).

Someone could easily be insane, by whatever definition modern or medieval, without being CN or could be CN without being insane.

Glass Mouse
2009-09-26, 12:40 AM
Ugh.

"CN is clinically insane."

"LG is a self-rightious ****."

"CE is a cannibalistic monster."

"Lawful can never break a promise."
"Chaotic should never keep a promise."

"Evil is stupid."

"TN is only for druids."

"Etc."


A lot of these misconceptions do hold some truth to them, but by Zeus is it annoying when people treat them as facts.

[/end pointless, annoyed post]

Dixieboy
2009-09-26, 12:47 AM
Prob'ly a Malkavian. :smalltongue:

Malkavians are a bad example, since they are well... unpredictable, which is a chaotic trait.

Vangor
2009-09-26, 12:53 AM
A lot of these misconceptions do hold some truth to them, but by Zeus is it annoying when people treat them as facts.

Chaotic is not random.
Evil is not depraved and sadistic.
Good is not not (double negative) killing villagers.
Neutral is not murdering a villager then rescuing a damsel.
Neutral is not ignoring laws.
Neutral is not ignoring pleas for help.
Neutral is not ambivalence.

A few of those the alignment can be, but especially the Neutral one of, "Well, I will kill this guy in order to steal the sword he is selling, but as long as I stop the more evil necromancer this should all balance...right?" is annoying.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-26, 01:47 AM
Chaotic is not random.
Evil is not depraved and sadistic.
Good is not not (double negative) killing villagers.
Neutral is not murdering a villager then rescuing a damsel.
Neutral is not ignoring laws.
Neutral is not ignoring pleas for help.
Neutral is not ambivalence.

A few of those the alignment can be, but especially the Neutral one of, "Well, I will kill this guy in order to steal the sword he is selling, but as long as I stop the more evil necromancer this should all balance...right?" is annoying.

This. So many people think that Neutral covers much of the territory actually covered by Evil. It really, really bothers me.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-26, 03:52 AM
So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

Yora
2009-09-26, 04:26 AM
Well, I'd say that almost everyone would agree that he does have mental health issues. :smallbiggrin:

taltamir
2009-09-26, 04:59 AM
WOTC has the same problem with alignment that most "designed by committee" alignment systems have...
Take for example jade empire, a very very nice description of what "open hand" and "closed fist" stand for... which you get lectured on in the game by your kung fu masters... which the game then promptly ignores and treats and "TV evil" and "TV good".

Likewise the description for "chaos vs law" is not so bad... but then they go and give example characters, played by game designers, and those ARE clinically insane... and insane stupid... as in "compelled to wear a different outfit every day" or "talks in gibberish now and then"

daggaz
2009-09-26, 05:19 AM
Chaotic. The opposite of being lawful, which means you have a lot of order and structure in your life and for the most part will follow the laws of the land so long as they dont conflict with your ethical axis. So chaotic people are missing order and structure, and are likely to be very spontaneous and for the most part are not tied down by things like rules and laws. They dont even really value the honor system or verbal contracts and promises, tho they dont have to break said things.

Neutral. Not good. Not evil. More or less unaffected by the ethical axis.

So a chaotic neutral character has little to nothing in the way of restraints in the way of laws, systems of behavior, or ethical codes of conduct. They are like a loose cannon, tho there is no inherent reason that they should be either violent or dangerous, or be compelled to act "crazy." Theres just not a lot of outside reasons for them to do, or not do, whatever it is they do.

They have the most freedom when it comes to personal decisions, ironically even more so than TN.

Least, thats how I DM it. '

And for that matter, if characters want to play the great "cosmic balancing act between good and evil" then their character has an abnormal compulsion into the realms of things normally handled by deities, and as well is under a very lawful, if narrow, system of looking at things. So narrow, and so compulsive, that they cannot possibly be adventurers and usually take up the life of a monk or a cloistered cleric. My players dont get to use "a good act cancels an evil act" bs to justify being chaotic stupid. They just have to come up with a different concept entirely.

Kesnit
2009-09-26, 06:46 AM
Spare the rod...
Especially since the only benefit you should EVER get out of it is if you were an Alienist. And even they don't benefit that much. why? because it ISN'T A benefit. It isn't "cool" or "trendy" or something to strive for because it scares people. Heroes and Adventures should not have mental aliments, unless their players fully understand them and play them correctly. However, that is not to say if you use it correctly it can't be awesome. Hannibal per example. But it should usually be reserved for villains, especially since their end always turns out bad, bad, bad. but then I'm biased, for reasons you can probably figure out yourselves. but above because I see it way to often. "You don't want to mess with me! I'm crazy!!" ...yeah. People like that would literally crap themselves if they ever met a true insane person. But most of the time it always ends sadly. why? BECAUSE INSANITY IS NOT A GOOD THING! guh! /rant Spoiler the child.

I have a 4E Wild Mage SORC who hears voices. That's how he gets his powers. ("I do what the voices tell me." or "The voices tell me you go BOOM!") What these "voices" are is not defined, and I have no intention of doing so unless the DM tells me to. He's rather unhinged from hearing voices all of his life, but he is far from evil.

I also played a Malkavian with multiple personalities. The players (and eventually the rest of the party) figured out she had it, but she never admitted to it. (She just thought she had blackouts. The secondary personality knew and admitted it when she came out.) I set up a situation that would cause the switch (stressful social situations), then told the ST he had complete control over her switches (to keep me from cheating, since the alternate had slightly better rolls with the Domain powers).

Then again, in both of these games, the players are mature enough to not make insanity a joke.

Paulus
2009-09-26, 05:09 PM
So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

No. You could just be a Spirit Shaman.
But really, play it as you like. It's your game. Play it how you like.

Gralamin
2009-09-26, 05:25 PM
I have a 4E Wild Mage SORC who hears voices. That's how he gets his powers. ("I do what the voices tell me." or "The voices tell me you go BOOM!") What these "voices" are is not defined, and I have no intention of doing so unless the DM tells me to. He's rather unhinged from hearing voices all of his life, but he is far from evil.
Not Crazy. Not really, anyway. (This is coming from someone who does actually know people who have various mental diseases that people would consider make them insane. No, I won't elaborate, my personal life isn't your business).


I also played a Malkavian with multiple personalities. The players (and eventually the rest of the party) figured out she had it, but she never admitted to it. (She just thought she had blackouts. The secondary personality knew and admitted it when she came out.) I set up a situation that would cause the switch (stressful social situations), then told the ST he had complete control over her switches (to keep me from cheating, since the alternate had slightly better rolls with the Domain powers).
You also probably never did it right. Its VERY VERY rare people that have DID have just blackouts and multiple mannerisms - There are huge amounts of other symptoms that you'd likely have, none of which would make adventuring a very good idea.


Then again, in both of these games, the players are mature enough to not make insanity a joke.
Having dealt with people with mental disabilities in real life, I'd probably find your portrayal offensive, if your description was all it was to it, since it belittles the difficulties these people are going through.

Thats just me though.

That said, I have played characters who have heard voices, but I tend to make clear to the other players that he isn't insane, he just happens to hear voices.

Green Bean
2009-09-26, 05:25 PM
So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

There are so many different types of mental illness, and they manifest in so many different ways that it make that question pretty pointless. It's like asking "would this character having a job as a upper-middle class investment banker count as playing human correctly?"

Tyndmyr
2009-09-26, 05:51 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Sociable, most likely.

Kesnit
2009-09-26, 06:35 PM
You also probably never did it right. Its VERY VERY rare people that have DID have just blackouts and multiple mannerisms - There are huge amounts of other symptoms that you'd likely have, none of which would make adventuring a very good idea.

A good friend of mine has DID. I am well aware of what it is like. In her case, she does not have blackouts because all of her personalities are aware of each other. However, that is not always the case. In the case of my Malkavian, having the primary know about the secondary did not fit the character concept. It was not done for comic relief, nor to game the system by giving myself a PC that can handle any situation simply by switching. (That is why I put the ST in charge of the switches.)

Also, Vampire: the Requiem (which is what the Malkavian was from) is very different from D&D in terms of game play. I assumed people would know the game from the words "Malkavian" and "Domains," but in hindsight, I probably should have stated it clearly. I agree that playing a D&D PC with multiple personalities would be a bad idea. However, what is a bad idea for a D&D PC is perfectly acceptable for a V:tR character because the games are structured rather differently.


Having dealt with people with mental disabilities in real life, I'd probably find your portrayal offensive,

If you were, you would have been offended by reality since I based her on actual cases of DID I found by doing research.


if your description was all it was to it, since it belittles the difficulties these people are going through.

Except my description WASN'T all there was to it. There was a lot more to it, which I did not see the point in laying out since it did not directly relate to the point I was making.


That said, I have played characters who have heard voices, but I tend to make clear to the other players that he isn't insane, he just happens to hear voices.

He is insane BECAUSE he hears voices, and has heard voices all of his life, and is now mostly unable to determine what is real and what is coming from inside his head. He only knows that if he does what the voices tell him, magical things happen.

Gralamin
2009-09-26, 06:52 PM
A good friend of mine has DID. I am well aware of what it is like. In her case, she does not have blackouts because all of her personalities are aware of each other. However, that is not always the case. In the case of my Malkavian, having the primary know about the secondary did not fit the character concept. It was not done for comic relief, nor to game the system by giving myself a PC that can handle any situation simply by switching. (That is why I put the ST in charge of the switches.)

Also, Vampire: the Requiem (which is what the Malkavian was from) is very different from D&D in terms of game play. I assumed people would know the game from the words "Malkavian" and "Domains," but in hindsight, I probably should have stated it clearly. I agree that playing a D&D PC with multiple personalities would be a bad idea. However, what is a bad idea for a D&D PC is perfectly acceptable for a V:tR character because the games are structured rather differently.



If you were, you would have been offended by reality since I based her on actual cases of DID I found by doing research.



Except my description WASN'T all there was to it. There was a lot more to it, which I did not see the point in laying out since it did not directly relate to the point I was making.
Except it did, since obviously it came off as a less then serious portrayal, leaving out quite a bit of important information. With the more in-depth amount, it becomes quite clear. I take back my objections.

Paulus
2009-09-26, 11:14 PM
I have a 4E Wild Mage SORC who hears voices. That's how he gets his powers. ("I do what the voices tell me." or "The voices tell me you go BOOM!")... snip A good friend of mine has DID. I am well aware of what it is like... snips

No. no you don't. Knowing someone who is suffering from something and suffering from having it yourself are vastly different. And once more multiple personalities giving you a benefit, even mitigated by the lack of choice, is still a benefit. If you wished to be accurate you would have the character have ONE source of power and then via use of his personalities that were unaware of each other, be unable to use his class features unless under a specific personality. Possibly found by rolling a percentile dice. that is acceptable because it is not a benefit, that is acceptable because you lack control. It must be this way because such things are NOT good to have provide NO benefit and usually occur when something is WRONG.

A person does not just have multiple personalities, there is a reason, and usual one that fractal to their past with terrible terrible origins. Now. if you had said perhaps the person was two spirits housed in one body, or perhaps two minds in one body, or even a magical artifact forming a splinter of his soul THAT would be good to achieve your desired outcome without stepping on the very real and tragic instability of a person's mind. Which would most likely render them ineffective in adventuring since mental disabilities can render a person ineffective in normal life. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your friend whom you based a game character on, but if they so willing to forgive or accept that you take their condition so lightly as to use it for fun in a game... well. I would re-evaluate my friendship. Especially if sed person claimed to understand and know it very well yet went ahead and used it -wrongly I might add- for their own fantasy purposes.


He is insane BECAUSE he hears voices, and has heard voices all of his life, and is now mostly unable to determine what is real and what is coming from inside his head. He only knows that if he does what the voices tell him, magical things happen.

A benefit. from insanity. Again. If you were to say the voices were actually spirits of wizard past, or the embodiment of spells, or the mystical whispers of elder beings from another dimension- THEN- THEN- i could possibly look past the "I have voices in my head which say you go BOOM" aspect. A character driven insane by hearing voices in his head would NOT be adventuring unless to find a way to get rid of them. In which case you should know the origins instead of just arbitrarily assigning him 'insanity' and 'voices in his head which is how he does his cool magic!". there should be a background to this character, an explanation, a reason for why he is tormented by these voices enough to drive him to the very serious end of insanity- and an insanity which allows him to function WELL! An insanity which allows him to use MAGIC! My god, don't you see how offensive this is? People who are insane are more likely to hear the voices of the devil telling them to murder their own children, not cast magical spells for gold and experience!

In this you truly show you do not understand and I don't know if you were looking for my approval or to say "yeah you played it correctly!" because you haven't at all.

...

But again... I merely say this because you tread upon ground which I find highly offensive and mentioned only in passing due to this very instance. Also why I spoiler'd it. For the sake of not having this thread shut down due to further argument this will inevitably generate. I will leave it at this.

I am not in your party, and am glad of it. So by all means, play anything anyway you like. If you have fun I am all for it. But don't expect to mention it around me and not get this kind of negative response. but. of course no one asked me to read this, and therefore I have not fully lit into a outraged rant... but I do respond only because you replied to my post and seemed to want a response from me. So this is it.

I apologize to the Op and others of this thread if I have somewhat put a sour note in this thread. but honestly, there are certain things I can not be silent about. I hope I have at least been genial enough to have have the thread removed and unless further asked, shall comment no further. Thank you.

KellKheraptis
2009-09-26, 11:42 PM
so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Anyone who's figured out how to create a permanent schism, having a vocal conversation between the halves (or quarters, or eighths, depending on how advanced you want the chat to be). Just ask Jaerom Darkwind about it :)

quillbreaker
2009-09-26, 11:59 PM
The 2E PHB is the source of that over-simplification, I think. It has a line about "lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior." I think those two categories are the only ones given in the CN description, so people thing "CN, oh, the insane alignment." Also, though, I think some DMs say you can't be CN because that's for insane characters to keep players from claiming CN but acting CE (or, as mentioned above, CStupid).

Someone could easily be insane, by whatever definition modern or medieval, without being CN or could be CN without being insane.

A surprising number of the alignments in 1st/2nd are unplayable. CN is portrayed as completely crazy. Neutral is replaced by True Neutral, which is top contender for "alignment which will get you killed by your own party if you play it as written".

The third edition alignment system is a tremendous improvement. It's one of the few changes from 2nd to 3rd that is pretty universally regarded as an upgrade. And then we get downgraded by 4th (less choices. I got a kick out of writing CG on my 4th edition sheet).

quillbreaker
2009-09-27, 12:03 AM
WOTC has the same problem with alignment that most "designed by committee" alignment systems have...
Take for example jade empire, a very very nice description of what "open hand" and "closed fist" stand for... which you get lectured on in the game by your kung fu masters... which the game then promptly ignores and treats and "TV evil" and "TV good".

Likewise the description for "chaos vs law" is not so bad... but then they go and give example characters, played by game designers, and those ARE clinically insane... and insane stupid... as in "compelled to wear a different outfit every day" or "talks in gibberish now and then"

I remember Jade Empire. "This isn't the Light Side / Dark Side from the star wars games, despite the fact that it's made by the same designers! It almost has depth!" And then you leave the monastery and the first 'closed fist' subplot involves crippling someone for life for pocket change. I almost ejected the disk and took it back to the store.

taltamir
2009-09-27, 02:04 AM
I remember Jade Empire. "This isn't the Light Side / Dark Side from the star wars games, despite the fact that it's made by the same designers! It almost has depth!" And then you leave the monastery and the first 'closed fist' subplot involves crippling someone for life for pocket change. I almost ejected the disk and took it back to the store.

ugh, yea that was terrible!

it should have been:
honest cure to fair (aka balanced?) = open fist
honest cure because you want to grow through challenge = closed fist
crippling for life = neither, you are just an evil bastard. maybe some in game effects.

Actually, it shouldn't have really been there at all, it was a terrible subplot.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-27, 02:32 AM
Yeah closed fist didn't really make sense. Showing others to be strong through your own examples, I can see that. Then they decided to make closed fist more just "evil and more evil and stupid evil." :smallsigh:

and I apologize to anybody I may have offended with this topic. I didn't want to offend anybody I just wanted to make sure this character didn't have to be chaotic neutral and I want to treat this with the taste it deserves. I won't even touch this topic with a ten foot pole if the players or anybody listening to it would be uncomfortable.

Boci
2009-09-27, 07:08 AM
So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

Such a character would probably be delusion, which to the best of my knowledge is rarely the sole mental ailment of a person, although this is not my field of expertise. People who take LSD can have flash backs, so you could reflavour your character to be suffering from the flashbacks of a D&D equivilant of the drug (only stronger with clearer and more frequent flashbacks)

Kesnit
2009-09-27, 10:32 AM
And once more multiple personalities giving you a benefit, even mitigated by the lack of choice, is still a benefit. If you wished to be accurate you would have the character have ONE source of power and then via use of his personalities that were unaware of each other, be unable to use his class features unless under a specific personality.

If you had read my initial post, you would know that the secondary personality knows about the primary. That is how the secondary knows the Discipline powers. However, the effects of the powers are different because the personalities have different social skills. (The powers in question are based off social skills.)


Possibly found by rolling a percentile dice. that is acceptable because it is not a benefit, that is acceptable because you lack control.

I completely lacked control. It was up to the ST (and often his dice) whether the character switched or not. And he didn't let me off easily. More than one, I got switched in the middle of a scene.


A person does not just have multiple personalities, there is a reason, and usual one that fractal to their past with terrible terrible origins.

Which she had. (It was in her back story.) But again, I did not feel that was necessary to spell out as it wasn't applicable to the point.


Which would most likely render them ineffective in adventuring since mental disabilities can render a person ineffective in normal life.

As I said before, this was a Vampire game, not D&D. Vampire is run very differently than D&D. There are no "adventures" as such. Instead, there is a story that the PCs are involved with. There is a lot of RP and very little combat. (And my PC was specifically built to be ineffective as a combatant. What she could do was use the powers of her derangement - which is spelled out in a VtR supplement - to buff or debuff the actual combatants.)


I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your friend whom you based a game character on, but if they so willing to forgive or accept that you take their condition so lightly as to use it for fun in a game... well.

She's my ex girlfriend and still a close friend. She found it rather amusing, actually.

Also, I take offense at you calling it "for fun." It was done in all seriousness to add a deepness to the RP aspect of the game. It was NOT done to get added benefits. (In reality, the character would have been easier to play had I not taken a derangement and the associated Discipline.)


I would re-evaluate my friendship. Especially if sed person claimed to understand and know it very well yet went ahead and used it -wrongly I might add- for their own fantasy purposes.

In other words, you would make your decision based on your own wrong assumptions, rather than listen to reality. You would turn your back on a long-time friend, rather than use the opportunity to help someone understand.

That isn't what a friend is.


A benefit. from insanity.

And major detriment. Which you seem to be disregarding. Malkavia is NOT a "topic of polite conversation" in Vampire society. Those with it (and it includes all derangements) are pushed aside in most any situation. They are looked down upon by other vampires. Once the rest of the party figured it out, everyone had to out of their way to protect my PC's secret from our superiors, else she would have been killed. (The other players obviously knew prior to game start, so knew it would probably become an issue.)

Also, as I said above, I had to give up my entire offensive and much of my defensive capability in order to play this character. She was HELPLESS in combat without the party because her abilities were controller-type only.


Again. If you were to say the voices were actually spirits of wizard past, or the embodiment of spells,

Again, this is Vampire, not D&D. Vampire is set in our world. There are no wizards of the past or embodiment of spells. Vampires used to be human, and come from all places and time periods, but World of Darkness assumes Vampires (and other WoD occupants) mingle with normal humans without the normals having any idea of the WoD occupants.


i could possibly look past the "I have voices in my head which say you go BOOM" aspect.

You are confused. The one with MPD is NOT the one that has the "voices in my head that say you go BOOM!" The one with voices in his head is a 4E D&D Wild Mage SORC. The MPD is a Vampire from Vampire: the Requiem. Two different games with 2 very different systems. I mentioned them in the same post because I played one and am playing the other. But they are not the same person.


A character driven insane by hearing voices in his head would NOT be adventuring unless to find a way to get rid of them. In which case you should know the origins instead of just arbitrarily assigning him 'insanity' and 'voices in his head which is how he does his cool magic!".

Again, a moot point since I do know the basis for the vampire's MPD. The Wild Mage is just a little unhinged, but not to the point of it interfering with his ability to function. (More like The Joker from Batman, but not evil.)


But again... I merely say this because you tread upon ground which I find highly offensive and mentioned only in passing due to this very instance.

I spelled out that the characters were two different ones in two different games under two different systems. I said it twice. If you didn't read it, don't blame me.

Indon
2009-09-27, 12:05 PM
Bruno (http://www.brunothebandit.com/) is a perfectly sane example of a Chaotic Neutral character, in a setting that would probably take relatively well to a D&D campaign no less. Ditto Lina Inverse from Slayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayers).

There are sane fictional characters who could readily be CN in a D&D game, therefore not all CN characters need to be insane. QED.

Edit: Similarly, there're tons of insane characters that would have other alignments than CN. Kefka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefka_Palazzo), for instance, is pretty clearly CE.

Edit: Oh, I should give a different example for clarity. Coren, from the Death Gate Cycle novels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Gate_Cycle), would be LG or NG.

Dixieboy
2009-09-27, 12:37 PM
Chaotic is not random.
.However, Random is definetely chaotic. :smallwink:

Indon
2009-09-27, 12:42 PM
However, Random is definetely chaotic. :smallwink:

Later in the books he turns more lawful, if you ask me.

taltamir
2009-09-27, 02:47 PM
Bruno (http://www.brunothebandit.com/) is a perfectly sane example of a Chaotic Neutral character, in a setting that would probably take relatively well to a D&D campaign no less. Ditto Lina Inverse from Slayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayers).

There are sane fictional characters who could readily be CN in a D&D game, therefore not all CN characters need to be insane. QED.

Edit: Similarly, there're tons of insane characters that would have other alignments than CN. Kefka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefka_Palazzo), for instance, is pretty clearly CE.

Edit: Oh, I should give a different example for clarity. Coren, from the Death Gate Cycle novels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Gate_Cycle), would be LG or NG.

good examples.. especially bruno..

Mystic Muse
2009-09-27, 03:38 PM
Such a character would probably be delusion, which to the best of my knowledge is rarely the sole mental ailment of a person, although this is not my field of expertise. People who take LSD can have flash backs, so you could reflavour your character to be suffering from the flashbacks of a D&D equivilant of the drug (only stronger with clearer and more frequent flashbacks)


I don't want to do this due to religious reasons and the fact that the other people playing in this campaign are pretty young. The oldest will turn 13 this November. I'd elaborate mroe but it would go against forum rules.

Paulus
2009-09-27, 03:42 PM
If you had read my initial post, you would know that the secondary personality knows about the primary. That is how the secondary knows the Discipline powers. However, the effects of the powers are different because the personalities have different social skills. (The powers in question are based off social skills.)

I did read your initial post, which is why I replied. Admittedly I don’t know about the game Vampire itself which means I have to make a lot of assumptions in order to try and reply to your post effectively, and at that, try to restrain the sheer outrage such a thing is generating. Again. I said I was highly sensitive about this, and as such, make no promises about my rationality when discussing it! The only difference you’ve shown me here is that you have two sets of social skills, instead of the more correct one set, in which the characters mental disability allows them to switch between the two as opposed to having only one set and the mental disability ignores portions of it out of ignorance thereby crippling your character. For the last time. no. benefit.


I completely lacked control. It was up to the ST (and often his dice) whether the character switched or not. And he didn't let me off easily. More than one, I got switched in the middle of a scene.

Admittedly I don’t know what an ST is, but seeing as how it is another person, they can at the least understand it is a game and restrain themselves when it is absolutely crucial socially speaking because quite simply they are your friend. They may try to give you a hard time sometimes, but they still care, meaning they were more than likely on your side. Which is completely unlike a mental disruptions, that cares not for you, nor has any feelings for that matter, a percentile dice gives no thought- is uncaring- and absolute. Therefore more “Correct” for this example.



Which she had. (It was in her back story.) But again, I did not feel that was necessary to spell out as it wasn't applicable to the point. It is when you pointedly try to speak to me about it, which I assume you are seeing as how you are replying to me. If you seek to justify your reasoning to me, again something I assume as you are replying to me and continuing to step upon a highly sensitive area, then these things are required. If you had simply chosen to ignore or sweep over my post or simply say “Huh, yeah I see where he is coming from. I don’t know what I would do if someone played a character with DID wrong around me.” but instead you did not. You chose to say “hey, I played crazy like this and this. Awesome huh?” In which case I would be inclined, though forcibly politely, to say no. No it is not.



As I said before, this was a Vampire game, not D&D. Vampire is run very differently than D&D. There are no "adventures" as such. Instead, there is a story that the PCs are involved with. There is a lot of RP and very little combat. (And my PC was specifically built to be ineffective as a combatant. What she could do was use the powers of her derangement - which is spelled out in a VtR supplement - to buff or debuff the actual combatants.)

Fine by me. Play however you like, whatever you like. Just don’t expect me to agree with your methods.


She's my ex girlfriend and still a close friend. She found it rather amusing, actually.

Also, I take offense at you calling it "for fun." It was done in all seriousness to add a deepness to the RP aspect of the game. It was NOT done to get added benefits. (In reality, the character would have been easier to play had I not taken a derangement and the associated Discipline.)

It most decidedly is for fun. Because you are taking a true to life suffering, which you yourself claim to understand and have experiences dealing with at least on a social level, and using it for your own game character to add challenge to it. If it was not fun, why would you include it in a game? I would have been more sympathetic if you had said you chose the disability of your friend to try and RP it and thereby get a better understanding of her perspective, but you deliberately gave the control to another person to decide when your disability would affect you, leaving you free and clear to play as you like until your friend just suddenly made you change yourself. A more ‘correct’ approach would have been to have the dice yourself and at random intervals, with NO regard to scene, or timing, or anything else, roll the dice.

This keeps the aliment on YOUR mind at all times, and the decision to have it affect you and it’s consequences on YOUR mind, thereby forcing YOU to weight the pros and cons of doing it- and in doing so- reflect on how much of a problem it truly is It keeps the play, the power, the entire character in your hands. Which would be the ultimate in perspective. Naturally, I could stretch so far as to understand why you gave it to a friend to add that feeling of lack of control yourself. But again, this is offset by the fact your friend is a person and a friend. The dilemma should have been in your hands, and mitigated by no one else. Such is the existence all people who suffer from a mental disability much face, ultimately alone. Friend can help, support can help, but in the end it is up to the person and the person alone to cope- to deal- no one can do it for them.



In other words, you would make your decision based on your own wrong assumptions, rather than listen to reality. You would turn your back on a long-time friend, rather than use the opportunity to help someone understand.

oh indeed I would. It would take quite some time before I was able to talk to that person again. Especially if they became as defensive as you are, when I specifically told them it was not coolto do so. Did you even ask permission first? Did you say “Hey is it cool if I give my character this trait? I think it would really help better understand where you are coming from and you know… bring a bit closer.” You should be glad she is comfortable enough with her own troubles to simply let it slide. I would not be so forgiving. More than likely because I feel far too strongly to let anyone, anyone, disregard, belittle, or misuse or misunderstand or PLAY with something which avails me only DAILY suffering and pain. Oh yes you are truly noble in you-. No. no. I will not let this become an enraged rant. I will not let this bother me to the point of exploding upon you, having this thread locked, and ultimately ruined for others.


That isn't what a friend is.

I am sorry you think that way. Because I. Do not.


And major detriment. Which you seem to be disregarding. Malkavia is NOT a "topic of polite conversation" in Vampire society. Those with it (and it includes all derangements) are pushed aside in most any situation. They are looked down upon by other vampires. Once the rest of the party figured it out, everyone had to out of their way to protect my PC's secret from our superiors, else she would have been killed. (The other players obviously knew prior to game start, so knew it would probably become an issue.)

I disregard because I am unaware of it. If you had decided to provide such back up information to back up your post I wouldn’t have had to assume or disregard what I didn’t know.


Also, as I said above, I had to give up my entire offensive and much of my defensive capability in order to play this character. She was HELPLESS in combat without the party because her abilities were controller-type only.

This is suppose to make me feel more sympathetic? This should be only natural if you choose to follow such a path. This is not something you should tote as fair play or reason to justify your choices, this should be the end assumption of your choice. You should have expected this and more, because again, it is not a benefit. At least, in my opinion.




Again, this is Vampire, not D&D. Vampire is set in our world. There are no wizards of the past or embodiment of spells. Vampires used to be human, and come from all places and time periods, but World of Darkness assumes Vampires (and other WoD occupants) mingle with normal humans without the normals having any idea of the WoD occupants.

Thank you for informing me.


You are confused. The one with MPD is NOT the one that has the "voices in my head that say you go BOOM!" The one with voices in his head is a 4E D&D Wild Mage SORC. The MPD is a Vampire from Vampire: the Requiem. Two different games with 2 very different systems. I mentioned them in the same post because I played one and am playing the other. But they are not the same person.

Both were played incorrectly. I am not confused. I am suppressing outrage at your position on both.


Again, a moot point since I do know the basis for the vampire's MPD. The Wild Mage is just a little unhinged, but not to the point of it interfering with his ability to function. (More like The Joker from Batman, but not evil.)

The joker from batman is most decidedly insane. And he faces drawbacks from being so. Which are thoroughly explained in the medium, and on the whole, quite tragic. But it is also done in fun, and as a form of entertainment, and yet it still mentions quite a few of the tragedies. When people miss that background, that exploration, that suffering, and only see the symptoms of it- only see what he does with it- and peoples reaction to it and they think “oh that is cool and bad ass” and then they set about making characters just like the joker without and sufficient reason or understanding.

And I would just like to add the Joker is a genius, possibly beyond even batman himself’s level. It is because of his insanity that that genius is misused and only barely able to keep him alive. Not because of his insanity. His insanity is what makes him use that genius intellect wrongly, which only further feeds his twisted understanding of enjoyment. It is only because of this genius intellect that the joker lives through his encounters, and it is his insanity that makes so he doesn’t care if he does or doesn’t. That is the tragic part. And anyone who doesn’t see the tragedy of a person willing to die for nothing, and only see’s the “cool” side of being fearless… Well. I’ve had enough of this explanation.


I spelled out that the characters were two different ones in two different games under two different systems. I said it twice. If you didn't read it, don't blame me.

And I have spelled out my position on this from the very beginning. You chose to reply, if you choose to poke the dragon with a sharp stick do not blame me when it eats you.

chaosgirl
2009-09-27, 03:49 PM
okay. I've heard a DM or two state that chaotic neutral was clinically insane. Is this true by the rules? if so do you have to be chaotic neutral to be insane or is it like one of those "a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square" situations?

The problem with the term, is that to be "Insane" you'd have to display a disorder that is in the DSM.

The VAST majority of those would make a character completely unplayable.

when people say "Insane" what they typically mean is "Wacky" and most CN characters are portrayed as being WACKY

deuxhero
2009-09-27, 03:55 PM
Wait. I thought only courts diagnosed people as "insane", in this case meaning they possese no criminal intent for their actions (I think). Clinics diagnose people with specific mental defects. As there is no such thing as "clinically insane" (I think, going from memmory here), CN can not be "clinically insane".

chaosgirl
2009-09-27, 04:00 PM
Wait. I thought only courts diagnosed people as "insane", in this case meaning they possese no criminal intent for their actions (I think). Clinics diagnose people with specific mental defects. As there is no such thing as "clinically insane" (I think, going from memmory here), CN can not be "clinically insane".


to the best of my knowledge (I AM NOT a lawyer, nor any one who has ever been to court for a serious crime)
What a court can do is declare that some one "Was not of sound enough mind to appreciated the consequence of there actions"
(this is something i only know off Law and Order and such)

I was answering what i thought the question was, I could quite well be wrong about what the question was but in oder to be "Insane" or to be regonised as "mentally or socially" disabled a therapist has to be the one to assign an entry from the DSM to the symptoms a person displays. (At least in these USA)

imp_fireball
2009-09-27, 04:27 PM
I'll just also echo what he said: Not all insane people are CN, and not all CN are insane. It's just that that's the only way most people know (or want to) play it that way. 2 dimentional and 'pretty much evil, without being an evil alignment'.

Another thing not practiced all that much in D&D is that 'evil' has to be really evil (willing to murder to accomplish a minor task), and it can't just be 'evil leaning' (say, reducing an emotionally soft person to heart break through divorce so that you benefit from them with a legion of lawyers might be pretty darn evil from the perspective of modern society; scamming people on a daily basis might not be as evil but still evil leaning, more likely neutral if you get no particular pleasure out of that method of making money and would just as easily turn elsewhere; the same even applies to those that would betray there friends for something rather extreme and yet call themselves CN).

Usually the latter of labeling someone evil applies to somebody who hasn't done very much in there life (just an average bloke) but generally is a greedy snob whom is easily provoked, ie. Just imho. If they're physically weaker then everyone else while being an average bloke, they might be generally miserable individuals who write personal 'hate lists' to remember everyone whom wronged them.
----

Paulus could really use a chill pill. I've got no clue why I've taken infractions all this time, while... y'know.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-27, 05:40 PM
i think playing a mentally ill character would be a matter of stats, not alignment. I have known a number of people who have had mental illnesses. Off the bat I can think of these people as being a variety of alignments, (mostly good).

I could see a person playing a mental illness by adjusting or applying penalties to certain stats. if a person halucinates a wisdom penalty would be approriate as their perceptions are not reliable. if a person has extreme social ticks that make them do or say unusual things a charisma penalty would be approriate. I dont Think Alignment has much to do with a persons mental state. . .

What's more important in relation to this thread is that IF you are playing a character with a mental Illness you should be extreamly carefull not to insult anyone actually suffering from a mental illness. A mental illness should be a hardship that your character deals with regularly and should never be made light of or used as comic relief.

I myself am currently playing a schizophrenic character with amnesia, she gains no benefits from her schizophernia and often suffers socially in that her quirks make her difficult to be around. She doesnt know who she is, but she also happens to be a genius (playing a factotem). I designed the character as a Roleplaying challenge for myself. So far i'm satified with how i've been playing her but it is HARD to get into that mindset when you dont actually know what its like. i can only hope i am being appropriate based on research of a very serious mental illness.

Kesnit
2009-09-27, 06:11 PM
I did read your initial post, which is why I replied. Admittedly I don’t know about the game Vampire itself which means I have to make a lot of assumptions in order to try and reply to your post effectively, and at that, try to restrain the sheer outrage such a thing is generating.

Then you should have ASKED rather than making erroneous assumptions. Especially after I corrected you several times about the game and game system.


The only difference you’ve shown me here is that you have two sets of social skills, instead of the more correct one set, in which the characters mental disability allows them to switch between the two as opposed to having only one set and the mental disability ignores portions of it out of ignorance thereby crippling your character. For the last time. no. benefit.

You are correct - there was NO BENEFIT to me playing an MPD character.

But since you admit you know nothing of VtR, I will try to explain.

VtR characters have 9 attributes and multiple skills, broken down into Mental, Physical, and Social. When building a character, the player assigns "dots" to attributes and skills, which can then be leveled up as the player gains XP. Each Vampire "clan" has certain powers, called Domains, which allow them to do certain things (fight better, move faster, shapeshift, control the minds of humans, etc). How powerful Domain powers are is based on the number of dots added to the Domain, as well as associated attributes and skills. When a Domain power is activated, the player rolls a number of d10 die equal to the number of dots in the Domain, attribute, and skill and counts up the number of 8s, 9s, and 0s, rolled. Those are successes, and the more successes, the better the power works. (Lasts longer, gives more benefit, etc)

There is an additional Domain that can be accessed by a member of any clan, which is called Dementate (from "dementia.") To take that Domain, however, requires the vampire to be infected with a diseased called Malkavia. The disease triggers any latent derangements the PC had prior to infection, or makes worse any active derangement. My PC had MPD prior to her Embrace (becoming a vampire) because of an on-going trauma. To take Dementate, I also had to give up my clan Discipline, which is the power to control minds. (I could keep another Discipline that allows communication with animals.)

Rolls for Dementate are based on 1 of 2 social attributes and 1 of 3 skills. (Which attribute and skill is rolled is based on the level of Dementate being activated.)

The character's physical attributes and skills were the same for both personalities. However, mental and social attributes and skills were different. This affected how many dice were rolled to activate any Discipline or take any action that required a roll. (They had no physical Disciplines and few physical skills.) The primary had better dice pools for some rolls, the secondary had better rolls for others. Dots were bought based on the personality and not on dice pools.


Admittedly I don’t know what an ST is,

Storyteller. The DM for World of Darkness games.


but seeing as how it is another person, they can at the least understand it is a game and restrain themselves when it is absolutely crucial socially speaking because quite simply they are your friend.

Except, as I said, he had me switching at times that were very inconvenient. In fact, he went out of his way to keep the less-useful personality out for any given situation.


They may try to give you a hard time sometimes, but they still care, meaning they were more than likely on your side. Which is completely unlike a mental disruptions, that cares not for you, nor has any feelings for that matter, a percentile dice gives no thought- is uncaring- and absolute. Therefore more “Correct” for this example.

I have no idea how he was switching me. I do know he was rolling at least some of the times.


If you seek to justify your reasoning to me,

You call it justifying. I call it correcting your mistaken assumptions.


If you had simply chosen to ignore or sweep over my post or simply say “Huh, yeah I see where he is coming from.

I DO know where you are coming from. You are coming from ignorance of the situation, the game, and the character. All of which is contributing to you not understanding any explanation I make because you have no basis to understand.


You chose to say “hey, I played crazy like this and this. Awesome huh?”

Except that isn't what I said at all. I felt no need to do into detail in my initial post because no one else was. After that, I set out correcting your mistaken assumptions and trying to point out to you how I did NOT belittle mental illness.


Fine by me. Play however you like, whatever you like. Just don’t expect me to agree with your methods.

I don't. I do expect you to read and understand what is actually written and not what you think is said.


It most decidedly is for fun. Because you are taking a true to life suffering, which you yourself claim to understand and have experiences dealing with at least on a social level, and using it for your own game character to add challenge to it.

I did it for the challenge, not the "fun." Why else are there RPG's, except to experience something that we cannot experience IRL?


I would have been more sympathetic if you had said you chose the disability of your friend to try and RP it and thereby get a better understanding of her perspective, but you deliberately gave the control to another person to decide when your disability would affect you,

Switching IS out of the person's hands, so leaving control of my switching to me would be a lot less realistic than allowing them to happen without my control.


leaving you free and clear to play as you like until your friend just suddenly made you change yourself. A more ‘correct’ approach would have been to have the dice yourself and at random intervals, with NO regard to scene, or timing, or anything else, roll the dice.

As I said, I think that is what the ST did, though I did set up a situation that would lead to a switch. Since that situation required the PC to be in public, the observable switch was obvious to anyone who was around, making it much harder to hide from those who would kill her if they knew.


This keeps the aliment on YOUR mind at all times, and the decision to have it affect you and it’s consequences on YOUR mind, thereby forcing YOU to weight the pros and cons of doing it- and in doing so- reflect on how much of a problem it truly is

Now I'm confused. I could be switched at any minute (and was).


It keeps the play, the power, the entire character in your hands.

Didn't you say above that should all be OUT of my hands?


Naturally, I could stretch so far as to understand why you gave it to a friend to add that feeling of lack of control yourself. But again, this is offset by the fact your friend is a person and a friend. The dilemma should have been in your hands, and mitigated by no one else.

Except control is NOT always in the hands of those with MPD. Switching can happen at any time under any circumstance. That is why I gave control to the ST - to RP the loss of control my character had.


oh indeed I would. It would take quite some time before I was able to talk to that person again. Especially if they became as defensive as you are, when I specifically told them it was not coolto do so. Did you even ask permission first?

Yes, as I said, she rather liked the idea.


You should be glad she is comfortable enough with her own troubles to simply let it slide. I would not be so forgiving.

In other words, you would lord it over your "friends" that you are so much worse off than they could ever imagine. And if they tried to take steps to understand, you would cast them aside.

Again, I don't call that friendship.


More than likely because I feel far too strongly to let anyone, anyone, disregard, belittle, or misuse or misunderstand or PLAY with something which avails me only DAILY suffering and pain.

Again, you are making assumptions that are very wrong. I did not do it to mock mental illness. I did it to understand it.


I disregard because I am unaware of it. If you had decided to provide such back up information to back up your post I wouldn’t have had to assume or disregard what I didn’t know.

VtR comes up quite frequently on these forums, so it is a logical assumption that anyone reading them would be at least passingly familiar with WoD.


This is suppose to make me feel more sympathetic?

I was addressing your comments that I did it only get to a more powerful character.

[quite]Both were played incorrectly. I am not confused. I am suppressing outrage at your position on both. [/quote]

Since you have never seen either in play, you have no basis to make that statement. You can assume all you want, but the reality is that you cannot know.


The joker from batman is most decidedly insane.

I never said he is not. I only made the comparison to point out that insanity does not have to equal an inability to function.


And he faces drawbacks from being so.

As do my characters.


When people miss that background, that exploration, that suffering, and only see the symptoms of it- only see what he does with it- and peoples reaction to it and they think “oh that is cool and bad ass” and then they set about making characters just like the joker without and sufficient reason or understanding.

As I said before, the reason for the vampire's MPD is known and documented in her backstory.

As for hearing voices, there does not have to be an external reason for it. Certain mental illnesses can cause people to hear voices, and hearing voices of people who do not exist can cause sufferers to become unhinged. By sheer happenstance, one such sufferer happened to have the ability to use magic. Not everything the voices tell him works, but some things do. (Kind of like "a broken clock is right twice a day.") As time passes, he figures out more and more things that work. However, since he is so new to all of this (he's LVL 4), he has not yet had a chance to really think about why he is the way he is. (Maybe it isn't really mental illness and is the spirits of long-dead wizards, as you said in a previous post.) Until then, he is functionally unhinged.


And anyone who doesn’t see the tragedy of a person willing to die for nothing, and only see’s the “cool” side of being fearless… Well. I’ve had enough of this explanation.

Ever played Dragonlance? There's a race there called Kender who truly are "fearless." Are you going to come down on WotC because of this race? After all, they are "cool." (The WM SORC is based personality-wise on a Kender Rogue I played in 3.5.)


And I have spelled out my position on this from the very beginning. You chose to reply, if you choose to poke the dragon with a sharp stick do not blame me when it eats you.

You laid out your position. I replied because you are so very wrong and I am trying to get you to see reality. (At least I finally got you to understand the WM SORC and the MPD are two different characters...)

Mystic Muse
2009-09-27, 06:14 PM
i think playing a mentally ill character would be a matter of stats, not alignment. I have known a number of people who have had mental illnesses. Off the bat I can think of these people as being a variety of alignments, (mostly good).

I could see a person playing a mental illness by adjusting or applying penalties to certain stats. if a person halucinates a wisdom penalty would be approriate as their perceptions are not reliable. if a person has extreme social ticks that make them do or say unusual things a charisma penalty would be approriate. I dont Think Alignment has much to do with a persons mental state. . .

What's more important in relation to this thread is that IF you are playing a character with a mental Illness you should be extreamly carefull not to insult anyone actually suffering from a mental illness. A mental illness should be a hardship that your character deals with regularly and should never be made light of or used as comic relief.

I myself am currently playing a schizophrenic character with amnesia, she gains no benefits from her schizophernia and often suffers socially in that her quirks make her difficult to be around. She doesnt know who she is, but she also happens to be a genius (playing a factotem). I designed the character as a Roleplaying challenge for myself. So far i'm satified with how i've been playing her but it is HARD to get into that mindset when you dont actually know what its like. i can only hope i am being appropriate based on research of a very serious mental illness.

It's not meant to be comic relief. It's meant to give the campaign a sort of horror story feel to it because sometimes the character is talking about things that aren't there and sometimes the things actually are there. The thing is actually debilitating and prevents her from being extremely useful in a battle. I'm going to be careful to not make her a burden however. It's also a logical step from her horrific past which I need to write sometime.

Xallace
2009-09-27, 06:19 PM
i think playing a mentally ill character would be a matter of stats, not alignment.

I think it depends, personally. A personality disorder like, let's say, Paranoid Pesonality disorder, could be marked statistically as a below-average Wisdom score. It'd be pretty case-by-case, and I think that the majority of potential disorders would not fit easily into D&D's ability scores. I saw a topic about this over on WotC that was pretty interesting, actually.

The only potential disorder that I know I could roleplay correctly is the aforementioned PPD (it wouldn't really be roleplaying, it'd be regressing), and it's nowhere near conducive to team play. I tried to get into the head of a character with pyromania once, but I very quickly realized that all I was doing was rolling Will Saves to not burn things, and I didn't think I was doing it correctly.

Although I guess when you think about it, most adventurers would probably be considered a little off their rockers in the first place...

Riffington
2009-09-27, 08:20 PM
Again, you are making assumptions that are very wrong. I did not do it to mock mental illness. I did it to understand it.


Just out of curiosity, have you played some borderlines that weren't DID prior to playing DID? Because, obviously vampires can have multiple personalities without having Borderline Personality Disorder (it could instead be a diablerie side effect); that would then be very different from the human disease.


Another thing not practiced all that much in D&D is that 'evil' has to be really evil (willing to murder to accomplish a minor task),

It's not practiced that much because it's contrary to the rules. Humans are as likely to be any alignment as any other. So we have about 33% evil people. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and make it only 25% evil people. So if you are more evil than 75% of humans, you are Evil. So your malicious lawsuit abusers are Evil.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-27, 08:25 PM
I certainly think you can have insane characters in a funny, not-dehabilitating way. Realistic? No. But then, neither is playing an elvish wizard. If movies can successfully depict "crazies" in humorous ways, then so can games, and realism isn't always the end goal.

deuxhero
2009-09-27, 08:27 PM
The joker from batman is most decidedly insane.


Only sometimes (http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/back20030401.shtml).

But I don't think you meant it like that that.

Paulus
2009-09-27, 08:59 PM
You laid out your position. I replied because you are so very wrong and I am trying to get you to see reality.

This will go no further. To do so will only lead to illegal behavior on these boards. I have a million things to say to you but will say none of them. You are perfectly free to continue thinking and acting however you like. But I will ask you to never, ever, broach this subject with me, in response to me or directed at me, again. Good day.

imp_fireball
2009-09-28, 01:27 AM
Good day.

Eh, good riddance.
---

Anyway, this discussion is quite similar to what is discussed in the alignment debates.

What's more interesting, however, is the question of how mental ability scores combined with alignment affects personality (rather then just the alignment)?

Say, if the wise person is lawful good, then he might be aware of the true nature of man and choose to be stoically benevolent in making sure things carry on in an orderly fashion.

If the same person has a low wisdom score, he might be trying harder to impress his peers or he might not think twice when dealing out justice (sometimes accidentally stepping across the 'lawful stupid' border but falling back on the safe side again).

I think those things need to be thought of first before these same people can try to mimic mental disorders (since that can be hard, I understand).

Vangor
2009-09-28, 01:59 AM
If the same person has a low wisdom score, he might be trying harder to impress his peers or he might not think twice when dealing out justice (sometimes accidentally stepping across the 'lawful stupid' border but falling back on the safe side again).

Depends strictly if actions or intent are considered for the purposes of alignment. Intent is generally the concern because individual actions might be done for inevitably vile purposes. Thus, committing good strictly for the sake of impressing his peers does not make the person good, but neutral. Mercenaries and, truly, most simple adventurers are a good example. Protecting a caravan or crawling through a dungeon might be good actions, but neither needs to be motivated by the intent to do good.

Of course, the d&d world becomes problematic with using weapons considered evil for good purposes still being evil actions, and similar.

Unwise would be more akin to seeking the guidance of others. In such a case, a person might want to impress goodly friends with goodly deeds due to following the example. The intent is still to do good.