Why "insanity defense" does not work within D&D Alignment

[Frozen_Feet]

I've seen it pop up every so often that some players insist their characters are "Chaotic Neutral" or some other alignment despite outrageous evil acts because, well, their characters are insane.

Well, I don't buy it.

D&D is not a complete simulation. To create a working world, it relies on the GM to fill in the gaps. Much of this task hinges on the assumption that "the game reality is like ours unless otherwise stated".

Now, here's the deal: many, I'd even dare say most, acts we commonly perceive as "evil" in real life, and which are defined as evil within context of D&D, are caused by an unhealthy psyche. From thievery and sexual deviancies to proneness to excessive violence and cruelty, can all be attributed to dysfunctional mind. From this it also follows that most, if not all Evil beings in D&D would be diagnosed as disorderous or insane in the real world.

This is heightened more by the fact that many creatures within D&D are not human, and thus wouldn't follow (and shouldn't be subjected to) human standards of sanity. Great many of them would qualify as socio- or psychopathic as humans, but everything indicates that such behavior is normal based on their nature and insticts. Indeed, for them goodness would count as insanity, as it showcases much greater deviation from habits that would be fundamental to their survival in their natural habitat.

As such, sanity is too varied to be a working factor in the alignment system. It injects too much subjectivity and complexity to a system that's supposed to be simple and objective. Alignment of insane inviduals is assigned based on their intentions and actions, as usual, without their mental health influencing the outcome. If your insanity leads to great enough evil, you're Evil, even if you're delusional about it.

(It should be noted that D&D does allow reprieve to greatly mentally impaired, namely those with Int below 3, by assuming they aren't aware enough to act outside their instincts. Such character is True Neutral like animals. [Note: alignment is still sometimes assigned in special cases, usually when supernatural is involved.] However, such characters aren't actually allowed as Player Characters.)

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right. Indeed, in some cases, creatures are specifically stated to be both insane and evil. Derro, for example.

[Morph Bark]

Sounds about right. Indeed, in some cases, creatures are specifically stated to be both insane and evil. Derro, for example.

There should be better examples though, as Derro's get -6 Wis, +6 Cha out of their racial insanity.

[hamishspence]

According to Lords of Madness, beholders are insane. Though there are a very few "sane beholders".

[Frozen_Feet]

Most Aberrations and creatures of the Far Realm, to my understanding, are described as ineffable and psychologically impenetrable to mortals, yet nonetheless have some flavor of Evil as their Alignment because their actions fall in line with what would be expected from Evil mortals.

[That_guy_there]

You hit that one dead on.
In my experience few Chaotic Neutral Characters are ever "actually Insane". they're just jerks.

What i think (and a few of my party members have done this) is blame the way alignment was in AD&D 2nd ed. It constantly refered to the CN fighter that was equally likely to charge a dragon as flee it. Despite how often 3.x points out this is no longer true, i still find people playing this way.

I've had a huge number of fights over alignment, and in my estimation the closest Alignment to "Insane" is Chaotic Evil. these are people so devoted to evil and anarchy and destruction that they do not appear "rational" or "sane" to the normal lawful good or neutral good citizen.

[Frozen_Feet]

You hit that one dead on.
In my experience few Chaotic Neutral Characters are ever "actually Insane". they're just jerks.


Actually, in my experience, they would be insane. Namely, they suffer from severe case of Anti-Social personality disorder, or downright socio- or psychopathy.

Really, look up the list of common symptoms sometime. Contrast and compare with expected behaviours from standard "Chaotic Stupid" or "Stupid Evil" D&D adventurers. They match up pretty well.

[Heliomance]

But then you have characters like Rorschach. I've seen arguments for him being any one of the nine alignments, but I think the most compelling case is that he doesn't fit in the grid at all by virtue of his insanity.

[Geigan]

Yeah sanity is subjective. It basically boils down to the mindset that is considered normal by a culture. Therefore the disparities pop up much more in D&D due to not even having much to relate with between species. At least in the RL the guy in you consider crazy is still as much human as you are.

As for alignment, I find that the problem you're talking about really illustrates the tendency of most to never think of themselves as evil in their own mind. A player doesn't want to think of those things he's doing as bad, or morally wrong when they're just having "fun" with the game. Of course to the DM who is seeing the actions that the "good person in their own mind" is perpetrating it's a different story. Actions speak louder than words and saying you are an alignment without an argument to back it up, leaves the DM to observe your actions to judge your alignment.

It's one thing to say you're chaotic neutral after slaughtering an entire village, and an entirely different thing to explain that the villagers acted against you first, trying to capture you for whatever reason and you merely defended yourself accordingly without compunction or a willingness to understand their motives because you're chaotic neutral and don't care about why they attacked you, just that they stop and leave you free to your own business(note: this does not summarize my viewpoint on what is or is not representative of chaotic neutral alignment, just an example argument that a player could make that's better than just stating your alignment).

[Boci]

Actually, in my experience, they would be insane. Namely, they suffer from severe case of Anti-Social personality disorder, or downright socio- or psychopathy.

Really, look up the list of common symptoms sometime. Contrast and compare with expected behaviours from standard "Chaotic Stupid" or "Stupid Evil" D&D adventurers. They match up pretty well.

Anti-Social personality sure, but socio- or psychopathy? That's neutral evil surely. Biploar is more apropriate for chaotic neutral/stupid, at least superficially.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'm always a little wary of CN to begin with. Not that I haven't seen and heard of CN played well, it just seems like, as this thread has already pointed out, the go-to alignment for rampant, unrestrained douchebaggery under the guise of "insanity."

For players who legitimately wish to play an "insane" character, as a DM, I would remind them that there are more ways to play "insane" other than sadistic and homicidal. Speaking as someone who has worked with the mentally ill IRL, I can tell you that many of them are nicer than normal folks, they're just off in their own little world much of the time.

[Gnaeus]

The insanity defense works fine with D&D alignment.

Whether it operates by RAW, or via one of the optional rules in HOH or BOVD is debatable, but there is nothing preventing it from working within the alignment system.

To my mind, it is all about intent and context. The difference between Knowingly performing evil, Recklessly doing it, or Accidentally doing it. If one's insanity is of certain types, it could prevent you from understanding that an act is evil or what the consequences of the act are. In that case, it becomes an accidental act, therefore not evil.

If I throw you off of a building because I think you are a butterfly and that you will fly away, I don't know that I am harming you. Not evil.

If I throw you off a cliff because I have insane fits, and rather than retreating into isolation or seeking help I just hang around cliffs, I might not have intended to throw you off a cliff, but I certainly didn't do anything to stop it, and I knew something like that could happen. This is an evil act, although not an intentional one.

If I throw you off a cliff because I insanely believe that your wife will then marry me, that is intentional evil. I know what I am doing is harmful and wrong, but do it anyway.

3 situations. 3 types of insanity. Only 2 are evil. Of course, after explaining levels of intent, BoVD has an example that directly contradicts it, but 3.5 would never have an example that contradicts the rules, would it?

The kind of insane that = I am chaotic neutral and I just do whatever I feel like, aside from not depicting insanity very well, is not a defense.

[Geigan]

The insanity defense works fine with D&D alignment.

Whether it operates by RAW, or via one of the optional rules in HOH or BOVD is debatable, but there is nothing preventing it from working within the alignment system.

To my mind, it is all about intent and context. The difference between Knowingly performing evil, Recklessly doing it, or Accidentally doing it. If one's insanity is of certain types, it could prevent you from understanding that an act is evil or what the consequences of the act are. In that case, it becomes an accidental act, therefore not evil.

If I throw you off of a building because I think you are a butterfly and that you will fly away, I don't know that I am harming you. Not evil.

If I throw you off a cliff because I have insane fits, and rather than retreating into isolation or seeking help I just hang around cliffs, I might not have intended to throw you off a cliff, but I certainly didn't do anything to stop it, and I knew something like that could happen. This is an evil act, although not an intentional one.

If I throw you off a cliff because I insanely believe that your wife will then marry me, that is intentional evil. I know what I am doing is harmful and wrong, but do it anyway.

3 situations. 3 types of insanity. Only 2 are evil. Of course, after explaining levels of intent, BoVD has an example that directly contradicts it, but 3.5 would never have an example that contradicts the rules, would it?

The kind of insane that = I am chaotic neutral and I just do whatever I feel like, aside from not depicting insanity very well, is not a defense.

^I second this. That last one is a perfect example of insane and still evil.

[That_guy_there]

Now we get into my ... we'll call it "misunderstanding" of D&D and Alignment.

Isn't the Alignment system intended to also cover the acts of your character? Isn't an evil act, still an evil act, regardless of your understanding of that act? From the way I read it (and this may be the crux of my problem) the alignments are static... mostly Black and white with very little grey.

Otherwise, the fits of insanity, and the "i don't understand what I'm doing" argument could be used by a Paladin. By those examples, the Paladin has done something that is "not evil" yet it resulted in the unjust death of a possible innocent by his hand, and he still retains his Paladin abilities.

[Frozen_Feet]

But then you have characters like Rorschach. I've seen arguments for him being any one of the nine alignments, but I think the most compelling case is that he doesn't fit in the grid at all by virtue of his insanity.

Grrrr. I once had a multi-page discussion of that character. To avoid repeating it, let's just say I very firmly think post-insanity Rorschach can only be CN or CE, and if someone tries to claim otherwise, I'll come and bite their head off. :smalltongue:



If I throw you off of a building because I think you are a butterfly and that you will fly away, I don't know that I am harming you. Not evil.

Yes it is. Intent and action both matter. Action; murder. There might have not been any evil intent, but there was no good intent either. Net result: Evil. Specific scenarios are often subject to GM adjucation, but if you go scrounging through splatbooks, you'll find many examples of how it's possible to do Evil unwittingly and unwillingly.

To clarify, insanity defense might still work before an in-universe court of law, even if the setting uses Alignment. They might decree you unresponsible due to your insanity and assign treatment instead of punishment, but that doesn't affect your Alignment.

[Morph Bark]

Actually, in my experience, they would be insane. Namely, they suffer from severe case of Anti-Social personality disorder, or downright socio- or psychopathy.

Take to mind that insanity and anti-social disorders are not the same thing. They can occur at the same time or be part of one another, but there is a difference.

[Anxe]

Mental disorders don't count as insanity? Then what does?

[Geigan]

Yes it is. Intent and action both matter. Action; murder. There might have not been any evil intent, but there was no good intent either. Net result: Evil. Specific scenarios are often subject to GM adjucation, but if you go scrounging through splatbooks, you'll find many examples of how it's possible to do Evil unwittingly and unwillingly.

To clarify, insanity defense might still work before an in-universe court of law, even if the setting uses Alignment. They might decree you unresponsible due to your insanity and assign treatment instead of punishment, but that doesn't affect your Alignment.

So what, does the insanity spell change your alignment if you do something accidentally bad? The intent there has a lack of feeling one way or another about it. He doesn't know that what he's doing is evil. That doesn't make him evil, that makes him unwitting. There are many examples of good/neutral people doing evil things because they didn't realize what they were doing was wrong. Is the butterfly that beats it's wings evil because it unwittingly caused a tornado? Is the party of adventurers who unleashed a demon from imprisonment evil because they thought they'd just be finding treasure? The direct action that causes an evil act is only evil if the party involved in the act has a say in the matter. If you fire off a gun accidentally and end up wounding someone or worse are you evil or just grossly irresponsible?

[Morph Bark]

Mental disorders don't count as insanity? Then what does?

I guess I should have been more specific. Certain mental disorders do indeed count as insanity, but not all do.

You also have to know that there is a difference between psychological disorders or psychotic disorders, as "mental disorder" is a rather broad term. In fact, most people you have met will probably have at least one.

[Frozen_Feet]

Take to mind that insanity and anti-social disorders are not the same thing. They can occur at the same time or be part of one another, but there is a difference.

To my understanding, "insanity" is catch-all term for all sorts of mental health problems. If there's a narrower clinical definition for it, I admit I was unaware of it.


So what, does the insanity spell change your alignment if you do something accidentally bad?

Nope. Alignment is about actions that persist. Doesn't change the fact that the act itself is evil. If you've been goody-two-shoes for rest of your life, screwing up when inebriated or otherwise under bad influence is unlikely to shift your Alignment. If you happened to be, say, a Paladin or Exalted character, you might be in need of Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm), though. Do note the spell has special rules for exactly this sort of situation.


The intent there has a lack of feeling one way or another about it. He doesn't know that what he's doing is evil. That doesn't make him evil, that makes him unwitting. There are many examples of good/neutral people doing evil things because they didn't realize what they were doing was wrong. Is the butterfly that beats it's wings evil because it unwittingly caused a tornado? Is the party of adventurers who unleashed a demon from imprisonment evil because they thought they'd just be finding treasure? The direct action that causes an evil act is only evil if the party involved in the act has a say in the matter. If you fire off a gun accidentally and end up wounding someone or worse are you evil or just grossly irresponsible?

Intent isn't the sole thing being weighed here. The actual deed matters as well, and in D&D some deeds are evil unto themselves, intent be darned. If you do enough Evil things recklessly and without thought, you end up as Evil. Again, if you seldom screw up and often do things right, it's just few black stones amongs wealth of white.

[Malimar]

I've recently come to realize that I consider the Lawful-Chaotic axis a measure, above all else, of how rational you are.

This kind of falls apart when it comes to the classic Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good, in that both of them as traditionally presented could easily be equally rational (indeed, Lawful Stupid Good is probably less rational in many situations than Chaotic Good), but it works fine for Lawful Neutral vs Chaotic Neutral and especially well for Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil.

So if a player said to me "I'm not Evil, I'm just insane!" I would say "Your insanity means you're Chaotic. It has no bearing on the Good-Evil axis."

[Geigan]

Nope. Alignment is about actions that persist. Doesn't change the fact that the act itself is evil. If you've been goody-two-shoes for rest of your life, screwing up when inebriated or otherwise under bad influence is unlikely to shift your Alignment. If you happened to be, say, a Paladin or Exalted character, you might be in need of Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm), though. Do note the spell has special rules for exactly this sort of situation.

Well technically a paladin only loses his levels if he commits an evil act willingly, and the atonement spell has no cost if you committed and evil act under compulsion anyway. Would you rule that a paladin mind raped by the evil wizard into killing his own family stops being a paladin? Would a god consider the paladin at fault here, especially if he had a sterling service record, and is obviously remorseful for the death of his family? I'm not even making an argument here I'm just curious about your opinion.


Intent isn't the sole thing being weighed here. The actual deed matters as well, and in D&D some deeds are evil unto themselves, intent be darned. If you do enough Evil things recklessly and without thought, you end up as Evil. Again, if you seldom screw up and often do things right, it's just few black stones amongs wealth of white.

As for the insanity thing. Yeah I'll agree it doesn't constitute a defense for a lifetime of evil actions, but that swings both ways. If the insane character is normally peaceful and isn't normally destructive with his behavior, this one incident in which his lack of clarity resulted in death is hardly an evil act. Especially if had he realized the "butterfly" was a person he would obviously not have reacted that way. Accidents happen all the time and some do result in death. Is a bad judgment call enough to tip someone into the evil range?

[Pentachoron]

I would argue the reason that "insanity" doesn't work as an excuse for a character's behavior has much more to do with metagame reasons. Primarily that regardless of if you're playing your character to every last detail of the character that doesn't change the fact that you're the one that created the character. Can we not just agree that making a character that is going to be more disruptive to the group than it is beneficial is a d***** move and move on?

[Geigan]

I never really understood the aversion of some to becoming evil in campaign. You really gonna deny your nature man? Just accept it and you won't be bothered as long as you don't disrupt the game's flow.

Example:
My own CE cleric of Talos, "Crow". He actually had some insane god whispering in his ear(essentially the BBEG), but he didn't let him get in the way of getting things done. We were tasked with rescuing a little girl from a "legendary" group of kidnappers. Now why would my guy go along with this? Why would a CE character save this girl? Well evaluate his priorities. Talos is an arrogant god of the storm. Essentially a god of entropy and destruction. My guy's first priority, was make sure no one challenges the power of Talos. No problem, most of the players didn't even ask who I worshiped, and the rest didn't care(like 1 or 2 were good, the rest were neutral). After that, his priority was to just kinda flow where the wind took him caught up in the storm of fate. This ended him up in a group with some adventurers who were a relatively chaotic bunch. We were saving this girl, but in the process effectively tearing down a powerful organization that had stood long enough to have gained tales that were whispered of in taverns across Faerun. We never finished that module but I do recall killing a lot of the kidnappers for little reasons other than saving the girl. So I got to sow death and chaos, all for the price of a small insignificant good deed. How could I pass that up?

Your insanity doesn't have to get in the way of the game. In the end yours is just another character concept and you shouldn't use it to hog the spotlight or disrupt the game. Even an insane character can be helpful.

[Ozymandias]

Anti-Social personality sure, but socio- or psychopathy? That's neutral evil surely. Biploar is more apropriate for chaotic neutral/stupid, at least superficially.

Psychopathy is just an outdated word for antisocial personality disorder (which is what sociopaths have). It's usually neutral evil, I'd agree, because it's typically also narcissistic.


To my understanding, "insanity" is catch-all term for all sorts of mental health problems. If there's a narrower clinical definition for it, I admit I was unaware of it.

There is no clinical definition; "sanity" is mostly used as a legal term. Essentially it means that someone is in control of their actions and thus responsible for them, but the extent to which that "control" can actually be seen is nebulous (because of the problem of other minds, among other reasons). Hence the myriad legal controversies on the subject.

For example, anitsocial personality disorder by itself isn't grounds for insanity in the US (to my knowledge). For one thing, they are conscious of their actions, aware of their consequences, and also aware that society views them as wrong. Also, it's functionally untreatable. Perhaps this is the way you should deal with "insane" Evil characters.

[classy one]

What exactly does alignment have to do with sanity? If anything it has more to do with WIS, or more accurately, lackthereof.

Chaotic neutral is just a impulsive, not insane. They just do what they feel like, they don't have to suffer from paranoia, delusion of grandeur, mania, or hallucinations. THAT is the real hallmark of legal insanity, anything that can impair your sense of reality, namely schizopheria. This precludes thing like personality disorders like antisocial personality disorder.

I find the issue here is not so much the D&D alignment system, but more ignorance of what legal sanity and mental health really mean.

What if you suffered from the paranoid delusion that an evil cult was monitoring you (parania), thoughts in your head (thought insertion) and replaced your wife with an exact clone (Capgras syndrome) to assassinate you? All of this is very typical of schizophrenia. Now let's say you, as a good citizen decide to mete out justice to this evil cult assassin and kill her. Would that be an evil act? Certainly, but are innocent of the crime? That depends on the lawyers involved and the judge.

[Boci]

Psychopathy is just an outdated word for antisocial personality disorder (which is what sociopaths have). It's usually neutral evil, I'd agree, because it's typically also narcissistic.

I thought psycopaths was just an older term for sociopaths which was changed so that it no longer resembled the word psycotic.

[Coidzor]

Well, it generally only comes up when the player is trying to keep their alignment from being adjusted due to the actions they've taken. So that's kind of a black mark against it in the first place, since it's a last-ditch attempt to justify behavior that had the DM actually stop the game to deal with the alignment of the character.

[Taelas]

You cannot divorce intent and action when considering the alignment of an act. They are intrinsic to one another; an action divorced of its intent cannot be classified by the alignment system.

You cannot say an act is Evil without looking at the intent behind it. That being said, even if the intention is Good, the act can still be Evil.

Doing the same thing -- throwing a man off of a cliff, for example -- becomes different acts depending on the intent behind it. If you are insane and believe he will fly away like a butterfly... Eh. The alignment system isn't really designed to handle insanity, and it is one thing I have never been sure of how to deal with. I would say that while the act is probably Evil, but very lightly so. You would have to be on the cusp of being Evil for it to turn you over, and in most cases, it would have basically no effect.

[Geigan]

Well, it generally only comes up when the player is trying to keep their alignment from being adjusted due to the actions they've taken. So that's kind of a black mark against it in the first place, since it's a last-ditch attempt to justify behavior that had the DM actually stop the game to deal with the alignment of the character.

Yeah it's really only a problem if the player is using insanity as a defense for disruptive actions(as the OP stated themself). No point really as they aren't insane and are perfectly capable of making decisions that fit their character concept and don't waste other player's time.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I never really understood the aversion of some to becoming evil in campaign.

Yeah. I've never had a problem writing "LE" on my character sheet. Thing that scares me is when the people I'm playing with start arguing I'm really only "LN". Just because I'm nice to you...

I think peoples' unwillingness to admit that their PCs are Evil comes from them thinking their characters shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions. If they're CN, putting out their cigar on the Mayor's eye is just being a badass; if they're CE, they expect Paladins to start hunting them every where they go. They don't want to let realism interfere with their adolescent power fantasies, and they don't understand that adolescent power fantasies are pretty much the basis of Evil in real life.

In any case, I don't think I've ever seen an "insane" character in an RPG that portrayed a realistic mental illness, except for the occasional half-assed portrayal of "hearing voices". They've all been minor variations of "CE with a wacky sense of humor" and "CE with a temper", often with a hearty helping of "CE with no sense of self preservation". I've got no tolerance for it. I don't have a problem with Chaotic or Evil characters, but I refuse to play with people whose notion of fun is disrupting everyone else's fun and making them uncomfortable.

I'm sure there are people who can play characters with real psychological disorders. But they're usually the kind of people who realize there are mental illnesses other than "homicidal mania".

Wow. Sorry. That came out kinda angry.

[Geigan]

Just a bit angry.

I could list some of Crow's more defining disorders. I realize that the description i gave was more of just a CE character rather than insane.

He wasn't nonfunctional but he certainly had some "insane" traits. He pretty much had textbook sociopathy and a whole creepy doctor thing going on. He was a field medic in his backstory and was the party "healer." He felt no remorse for his actions as he worshipped the god of storms and really only saw entropy as his divine purpose.

He had a particular obsession with an NPC from his backstory that turned up as a questgiver as sort of the "experiment who got away." The DM really did a good job of playing a creeped out headcase which was really encouraging to me to be all the creepier.

He also had the DM's own god of madness beginning to whisper in his ear but that could have been signs of schizophrenia. All in all not very "realistic" but I was trying to play a functioning person, not a mental cripple(no offense to those with actual problems).

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Just a bit angry.

No offense, boss. Hell, from what you posted it sounds like you get it. His alignment and his illness might have been related, but they weren't the same thing and you understood the difference.

I wasn't criticizing you at all.


He also had the DM's own god of madness beginning to whisper in his ear but that could have been signs of schizophrenia.

Either way. It was a thing, and he responded to it. Like a person. With a thing.


All in all not very "realistic" but I was trying to play a functioning person, not a mental cripple(no offense to those with actual problems).

Heh. If you're trying to play a functioning person, you're not the one I'm aiming at. I'm talking about the ones that don't function, refuse to function, and the only reason otherwise sensible adventurers don't abandon them on the side of the road is the "PC" flag that says you've all got to get along.

Except the cuckoo didn't get the memo, because he doesn't care if anyone else is enjoying the game or not. Those are the ones that cause me to launch into ill-considered meandering tirades at strangers on the Internet.

[classy one]

Insanity as it exists in the game should be a valid defense for change in alignment. But not the way your PCs think. Look at the psionic power Insanity, or the old madness rules in Ravenloft. If they were indeed under these effects it basically make them NPCs. Its not like insanity was some vague term in D&D, it is a permanent confusion. So if they were not acting under the clearly defined rules of confusion then they are not insane.

D&D, unlike the real world has only one concrete definition of insanity and even has cures for them (albeit in the form of 8-9th lvl powers/spells). Making a player's case for insanity pled even less defensible.

[Geigan]

No problem, I can totally understand the common problems with other players(hell, who hasn't met one alignment x+stupid character in their experience). I currently have at least one chaotic stupid player, but at least he's biddable. He only really does his shenanigans as comic relief, and doesn't let it detract from the game. He can be talked down from true stupidity, and doesn't manage to be annoying. It's about being reasonable is all. An alignment doesn't justify you to not go along with the game.

[hamishspence]

Would you rule that a paladin mind raped by the evil wizard into killing his own family stops being a paladin? Would a god consider the paladin at fault here, especially if he had a sterling service record, and is obviously remorseful for the death of his family? I'm not even making an argument here I'm just curious about your opinion.

In Greek myth, that's pretty much what happened to Hercules- he was "driven mad" by a deity, killed his family, then became sane again.

He still, to avert the wrath of the Furies, had to perform a kind of atonement quest. The famous 12 Labours.

[Taelas]

Well technically a paladin only loses his levels if he commits an evil act willingly, and the atonement spell has no cost if you committed and evil act under compulsion anyway. Would you rule that a paladin mind raped by the evil wizard into killing his own family stops being a paladin? Would a god consider the paladin at fault here, especially if he had a sterling service record, and is obviously remorseful for the death of his family?
Mind rape as per the spell? Immediately and without hesitation. The Paladin is no longer the same character, and would require the appropriate spells to return to his original state of mind. Once that is done, he would have to undergo atonement (which would not be particularly harsh, given that his change was magically induced).

[Geigan]

In Greek myth, that's pretty much what happened to Hercules- he was "driven mad" by a deity, killed his family, then became sane again.

He still, to avert the wrath of the Furies, had to perform a kind of atonement quest. The famous 12 Labours.

Yeah I've heard of that one. I'm curious to know if anyone else thought that was fair. I really don't and wouldn't force my player to change alignment over something they couldn't control(though they'd better at least have some remorse over losing their family). Though I do think the atonement quests would make for an awesome campaign idea, if a bit unoriginal and centered on one character.

[hamishspence]

I'd probably go with "no alignment change for acts not committed of one's own volition"- even if such acts might cause someone to lose access to class features.

Myths in general can have scenes which seem a little unfair.

[Gnaeus]

Yes it is. Intent and action both matter. Action; murder. There might have not been any evil intent, but there was no good intent either. Net result: Evil.

By that logic, brushing my teeth, without either good or evil intent, is evil. Fortunately, there is a word for things that are done with neither good nor evil intent...neutral.



Specific scenarios are often subject to GM adjucation, but if you go scrounging through splatbooks, you'll find many examples of how it's possible to do Evil unwittingly and unwillingly.


I can also find optional rules about relative morality, and large discussions of intent and context. If I sort through all the modules, I bet I can find examples of insane people who are neutral.

I am not going to debate what is RAW here. As I said before, Insanity as a defense can work just fine within the alignment system. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't blame it on the brokenness of alignment.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well technically a paladin only loses his levels if he commits an evil act willingly, and the atonement spell has no cost if you committed and evil act under compulsion anyway.

You are, quite simply, wrong. From the SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities."

While you can surmise that these overlap in most cases, it's not true in all cases. It is possible to change your Alignment despite being unwilling (like your Mind Rape example), and it is possible to change Alignment unwittingly as well, due to the aforementioned way D&D describes some acts as "always evil" (Commit enough "always evil" acts without meaning to, and you'll still switch Alignment). Likewise, it's possible for a Paladin to be grossly disrespectful, unhelpful or unhonorable without ever committing evil acts.


Would you rule that a paladin mind raped by the evil wizard into killing his own family stops being a paladin? Would a god consider the paladin at fault here, especially if he had a sterling service record, and is obviously remorseful for the death of his family? I'm not even making an argument here I'm just curious about your opinion.

Sure he stops being a Paladin. As per the spell, his whole personality has been revamped. He has changed, so his Alignment changes as well.

To go bit more in-depth, not all Paladins even get their power from gods. So I'll tackle this situation from the perspectives of both a devout and godless Paladin.

In the case of a devout Paladin, his god is most likely perfectly aware of the situation. He might understand he had no other options, or that his hand was forced. But the job and purpose of a Paladin is to serve as a paragon of goodness, and no matter the reason, he's ceased to be that. The god knows that, and the Paladin should know as well. That has to be made up for, even if it just means going to the church and saying "I'm sorry" (which is what Atonement amounts to, quite often). It's the burden of a Champion to sometimes take responsibility of not just himself, but others as well.

In the case of the godless Paladin, it's exactly his remorse that's keeping him from being a Paladin. No matter the reason, he's failed at being what he aspires to be. He cannot walk that path until he's cleared his conscience, which is again what Atonement represents. You could say it's psychosomatic - rationally, you might not have been at fault, but you feel you were at fault still. You need to be relieved from that burden to keep on going.


As for the insanity thing. Yeah I'll agree it doesn't constitute a defense for a lifetime of evil actions, but that swings both ways. If the insane character is normally peaceful and isn't normally destructive with his behavior, this one incident in which his lack of clarity resulted in death is hardly an evil act. Especially if had he realized the "butterfly" was a person he would obviously not have reacted that way. Accidents happen all the time and some do result in death. Is a bad judgment call enough to tip someone into the evil range?

The underlined part is where you get it wrong. Just because a character is good, doesn't mean they can't do evil! If the insane character stays good, it's because their other good acts and intents overwhelm that singular case of evil. The act still is evil, however.

Within the D&D, yes, bad judgement is enough to take you to the deep end of the Alignment pool. That's why creatures with abysmal Wis can still be Evil at all. That's what this whole thread is about, really.

Do note that insane character can be good. But that's due to same reasons. In D&D, being off your rocker doesn't save you from moral burden of your acts.


I would argue the reason that "insanity" doesn't work as an excuse for a character's behavior has much more to do with metagame reasons. Primarily that regardless of if you're playing your character to every last detail of the character that doesn't change the fact that you're the one that created the character. Can we not just agree that making a character that is going to be more disruptive to the group than it is beneficial is a d***** move and move on?

Not quite what this thread is about. I've seen many players who weren't disruptive at all still arguing that their characters are Alignment X, when everything they've done points they're Y instead. I'm trying to tackle a particular misunderstanding that leads to this to clarify the issue.


Insanity as it exists in the game should be a valid defense for change in alignment. But not the way your PCs think. Look at the psionic power Insanity, or the old madness rules in Ravenloft. If they were indeed under these effects it basically make them NPCs. Its not like insanity was some vague term in D&D, it is a permanent confusion. So if they were not acting under the clearly defined rules of confusion then they are not insane.

D&D, unlike the real world has only one concrete definition of insanity and even has cures for them (albeit in the form of 8-9th lvl powers/spells). Making a player's case for insanity pled even less defensible.

Hehehe. That's a very good point. I must thank you for pointing it out. :smallbiggrin:


Yeah I've heard of that one. I'm curious to know if anyone else thought that was fair. I really don't and wouldn't force my player to change alignment over something they couldn't control(though they'd better at least have some remorse over losing their family). Though I do think the atonement quests would make for an awesome campaign idea, if a bit unoriginal and centered on one character.

Fairness has jack and squat to do with Alignment. For majority of characters, changes in Alignment don't even constitute a noticeable penalty. Alignment is descriptor first and foremost, not punishment or reward. And even when it is punishment or reward, it should be noted that not all punishments or rewards are, or are even meant to be, fair.

For example, if you choose to play a Paladin, you're choosing to stay on the straight and narrow. It comes with being a paragon of goody-two-shoeness that sometimes, you're responsible not only for your own actions but those of others as well, because sometimes, they don't know what they're doing. It's the burden of all savior archetypes, and the thing that makes Paladins interesting to roleplay!


By that logic, brushing my teeth, without either good or evil intent, is evil. Fortunately, there is a word for things that are done with neither good nor evil intent...neutral.

You are (again) failing to factor in the actual deed here. Intent still isn't the only thing that matters here. The action is murder, and murder by D&D rules is evil by itself. Evil action with neutral intent = Evil.

Brushing your teeth (etc.) counts as neutral, because it's not been defined as either Good or Evil, and you aren't intenting for it to be either as well.


I can also find optional rules about relative morality, and large discussions of intent and context. If I sort through all the modules, I bet I can find examples of insane people who are neutral.

If you read my first post, you might have noticed I made a case for some creatures being Good despite, or because they're insane by standards of their own species. That's because sanity doesn't actually factor to Alignment, which is what I've been arguing.

If you can find insane people with Neutral Alignment, that's simply because not all kinds of mental unhealth lead to Evil actions or intent. Someone with antisocial personality disorder will act differently from someone who's clinically depressed, and that will be reflected in their Alignment.


I am not going to debate what is RAW here. As I said before, Insanity as a defense can work just fine within the alignment system. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't blame it on the brokenness of alignment.

This thread isn't about brokenness of Alignment in the first place. Rather, it's about a perceived and widespread misunderstanding of how mental health interacts with Alignment.

[Geigan]

You are, quite simply, wrong. From the SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities."

While you can surmise that these overlap in most cases, it's not true in all cases. It is possible to change your Alignment despite being unwilling (like your Mind Rape example), and it is possible to change Alignment unwittingly as well, due to the aforementioned way D&D describes some acts as "always evil" (Commit enough "always evil" acts without meaning to, and you'll still switch Alignment). Likewise, it's possible for a Paladin to be grossly disrespectful, unhelpful or unhonorable without ever committing evil acts.
One thing at a time. First, yes I was only examining one part of what revokes a paladin's powers so yes I was wrong on account of classifying it too narrowly. But I was mainly arguing the point that if forced to do an evil act against his will I would not revoke his powers since this one mark isn't enough to change his alignment and it was most importantly unwilling. So my fault is that I am assuming the paladin has a stellar record, and that he would have never done said act of his own will.

As for the unwitting and dramatic alignment shifts see below.


Sure he stops being a Paladin. As per the spell, his whole personality has been revamped. He has changed, so his Alignment changes as well.

To go bit more in-depth, not all Paladins even get their power from gods. So I'll tackle this situation from the perspectives of both a devout and godless Paladin.

In the case of a devout Paladin, his god is most likely perfectly aware of the situation. He might understand he had no other options, or that his hand was forced. But the job and purpose of a Paladin is to serve as a paragon of goodness, and no matter the reason, he's ceased to be that. The god knows that, and the Paladin should know as well. That has to be made up for, even if it just means going to the church and saying "I'm sorry" (which is what Atonement amounts to, quite often). It's the burden of a Champion to sometimes take responsibility of not just himself, but others as well.

In the case of the godless Paladin, it's exactly his remorse that's keeping him from being a Paladin. No matter the reason, he's failed at being what he aspires to be. He cannot walk that path until he's cleared his conscience, which is again what Atonement represents. You could say it's psychosomatic - rationally, you might not have been at fault, but you feel you were at fault still. You need to be relieved from that burden to keep on going.

I did not actually mean as per the spell Mind Rape(I am not aware that is an actual spell, is it in BoVD or something?), so I should clarify what I meant by the wizard example. I meant more directly forcing the paladin against his will, as per the spell dominate person. Being used in this case to directly force a paladin to commit an act against his will. Sure he gets a +2 save if he goes against his typical nature but it's still possible for him to fail. He was forced to commit said act and aspired against it in every way. I would not penalize a player for this if he wanted to go down the righteous vengeance route as opposed to the pious atoner road to redemption. The act of vengeance would be seen as his act of atonement(and considering the zealous nature of some paladins and even gods, it's not that much of a stretch). Pious atoner is certainly a valid interpretation but it's not the only one.

As for value changer spells I agree. Insanity or Helm of opposite alignment are totally unambiguous in that they change how your character must act. I'd be hard pressed to argue that someone who rolls his actions off a table round by round is anything but chaotic.

The underlined part is where you get it wrong. Just because a character is good, doesn't mean they can't do evil! If the insane character stays good, it's because their other good acts and intents overwhelm that singular case of evil. The act still is evil, however.

Within the D&D, yes, bad judgement is enough to take you to the deep end of the Alignment pool. That's why creatures with abysmal Wis can still be Evil at all. That's what this whole thread is about, really.

Do note that insane character can be good. But that's due to same reasons. In D&D, being off your rocker doesn't save you from moral burden of your acts.

I not even disagreeing on this point, I fully agree that insanity is not a defense in and of itself. I'm just saying consider that there may be other circumstances and you seem to grasp this so I won't argue this point further.

Fairness has jack and squat to do with Alignment. For majority of characters, changes in Alignment don't even constitute a noticeable penalty. Alignment is descriptor first and foremost, not punishment or reward. And even when it is punishment or reward, it should be noted that not all punishments or rewards are, or are even meant to be, fair.

For example, if you choose to play a Paladin, you're choosing to stay on the straight and narrow. It comes with being a paragon of goody-two-shoeness that sometimes, you're responsible not only for your own actions but those of others as well, because sometimes, they don't know what they're doing. It's the burden of all savior archetypes, and the thing that makes Paladins interesting to roleplay!
What makes paladins interesting to roleplay is entirely subjective. Some see the rise and fall of a paladin to be what's interesting, some see that as entirely too much melodrama because they don't measure alignment constantly as a dynamic thing, but as an overall measurement of their deeds. Some find the role as the moral standard for the party to be the defining feature while others see that as merely annoying and arrogant. Some just wanna play the holy warrior defending the righteous from the wicked. You can't hold your own concept up as the paragon.


That's because sanity doesn't actually factor to Alignment, which is what I've been arguing.

If you can find insane people with Neutral Alignment, that's simply because not all kinds of mental unhealth lead to Evil actions or intent. Someone with antisocial personality disorder will act differently from someone who's clinically depressed, and that will be reflected in their Alignment.

I have no qualms with this. In fact I agree with this to a degree. I'm just saying that every act doesn't constitute a big moral quandary, and that while insanity isn't a be all end all defense, every action you attach a moral descriptor to can have other extenuating circumstances you may not have considered. Insanity is not a defense in itself, but there are always exceptions.

[Taelas]

Yes, mind rape is in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[Geigan]

Yes, mind rape is in the Book of Vile Darkness.

Ah that would explain the disparity. Sorry about that.:smallbiggrin:

[No brains]

One very interesting thing I heard from two separate psychology teachers is, "Insanity is not a mental health term, it is a legal term." While a court of law may deem that you are not responsible for your actions, you own conscience and the greater knowledge of the universe still know exactly what you did and why.

Another fun way to view alignment shift from a 'bad' action is to see how the character thinks about it. If a LG character kills someone who didn't deserve to die and they brood over "what have I done" while trying to make amends, even if it was totally justifiable for a greater good, they still might be LG. But if they were LG, and did the same thing without thinking much about it, they lose a bit of what LG is about and should shift away.

[classy one]

One very interesting thing I heard from two separate psychology teachers is, "Insanity is not a mental health term, it is a legal term." While a court of law may deem that you are not responsible for your actions, you own conscience and the greater knowledge of the universe still know exactly what you did and why.
Just looking at SRD shows that in game terms, insanity is a well defined condition: permanent confusion. While it is true that in the real world, insanity is a legal term, such is not the case in game terms where insanity has clearly defined behaviors. Should your actions while insane count as evil in the game? That's also a toss up, I would personally feel cheated if my DM ruled it as such, but the multiverse isn't fair.

[Coidzor]

For example, if you choose to play a Paladin, you're choosing to stay on the straight and narrow. It comes with being a paragon of goody-two-shoeness that sometimes, you're responsible not only for your own actions but those of others as well, because sometimes, they don't know what they're doing. It's the burden of all savior archetypes, and the thing that makes Paladins interesting to roleplay!

Impossible to play if your group doesn't agree to play along perfectly, you mean. :smalltongue:


Just looking at SRD shows that in game terms, insanity is a well defined condition: permanent confusion. While it is true that in the real world, insanity is a legal term, such is not the case in game terms where insanity has clearly defined behaviors. Should your actions while insane count as evil in the game? That's also a toss up, I would personally feel cheated if my DM ruled it as such, but the multiverse isn't fair.

There's another, Extraordinary, ability that would qualify. The Derro's racial madness. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/derro.htm)



Madness (Ex)

Derro use their Charisma modifier on Will saves instead of their Wisdom modifier, and have immunity to confusion and insanity effects. A derro cannot be restored to sanity by any means short of a miracle or wish spell.

*The racial madness of the derro provides a +6 bonus to their Charisma scores and a -6 penalty to their Wisdom scores. A derro restored to sanity gains 6 points of Wisdom and loses 6 points of Charisma.

[Velden]

Alignment is more like the way the god/universe reacts to the presence of your character, an evil character could perfectly consider himself "good" and still question himself why the "protection from evil" spell works against him.

The same thing could be said of a Chaotic Evil character who thinks his actions are Chaotic Neutral.

A paladin doesn´t fall because he perceives his actions as evil, he falls because his actions are evil or unlawful. The case of atheist paladins is the same, only that they don´t know the source of their powers and rely on speculation.

[classy one]

There's another, Extraordinary, ability that would qualify. The Derro's racial madness. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/derro.htm)

more mechanical than behavioral relevant but nice find.

Makes me want to make a derro wilder now..... No level adjustment either.

[Frozen_Feet]

Impossible to play if your group doesn't agree to play along perfectly, you mean. :smalltongue:

No. :smalltongue: Playing along perfectly isn't mandatory - just playing along when the Paladin is looking is enough.

I do agree it is a hard archetype to play. Paladin isn't a mechanically complex class, but it is very challenging as a role, as it requires getting into character and thinking (often deeply) of the consequences and motivations of your actions. Which is why I don't recommend it to anyone who just wants to whack some baddies.

But Paladin is hardly alone in being a hard role, or being unviable in some kind of parties. It can be equally hard to play a Druid in an industrialist party, or a Cleric of babyeating and murder in party society of decent people.

[Coidzor]

No. :smalltongue: Playing along perfectly isn't mandatory - just playing along when the Paladin is looking is enough.

Yes, that's what I meant. :smalltongue: Even that is pretty difficult to find, I've found.

After all. when they're looking is a given when one is discussing Paladins or DMs.


But Paladin is hardly alone in being a hard role, or being unviable in some kind of parties. It can be equally hard to play a Druid in an industrialist party, or a Cleric of babyeating and murder in party society of decent people.

Right. Because those setups are anywhere near as common or equal to the setup of the Paladin in the party that's not willing to kowtow to him to his face, especially since not being willing to kowtow to the Paladin isn't always immediate and obvious before the game would even start like your two examples. :smallconfused:

[Frozen_Feet]

In my experience, "kowtowing" to a Paladin isn't nearly as necessary or big of a problem as you make it to be. In a party that already lies in the shallow end of Alignment, a Paladin fits pretty well.

I admit it is harder archetype than many others, it just isn't the sole hard archetype. The two examples I came up with from the top of my head might be glaringly obvious, but there are others. Plus, I don't think problems stemming from a Paladin are any less obvious in most cases - if a group of players generally tend towards Chaotic Stupid or Stupid Evil mentality and have rarely displayed desire or habit of thinking of consequences, then it's just as obvious that a demanding archetype like a Paladin is not going to work with them.

[Veyr]

Yay, Paladins — causing aggrevation and irritation for your entire party is a class feature!

In all seriousness, I hate Paladins. Not saying they can't be interesting, not saying they can't be played well — but I am saying that they're absolutely hideous design, both mechanically (oh god they are so bad) and in terms of metagame issues (the Code is so, so bad!). Falling mechanics never should have existed.

[Burner28]

But then you have characters like Rorschach. I've seen arguments for him being any one of the nine alignments, but I think the most compelling case is that he doesn't fit in the grid at all by virtue of his insanity.

Though to be fair considering the fact he is not a character within a DnD context it can be argued he has no canonical alignment.:smalltongue:

[Surrealistik]

The insanity defense works fine with D&D alignment.

Whether it operates by RAW, or via one of the optional rules in HOH or BOVD is debatable, but there is nothing preventing it from working within the alignment system.

To my mind, it is all about intent and context. The difference between Knowingly performing evil, Recklessly doing it, or Accidentally doing it. If one's insanity is of certain types, it could prevent you from understanding that an act is evil or what the consequences of the act are. In that case, it becomes an accidental act, therefore not evil.

If I throw you off of a building because I think you are a butterfly and that you will fly away, I don't know that I am harming you. Not evil.

If I throw you off a cliff because I have insane fits, and rather than retreating into isolation or seeking help I just hang around cliffs, I might not have intended to throw you off a cliff, but I certainly didn't do anything to stop it, and I knew something like that could happen. This is an evil act, although not an intentional one.

If I throw you off a cliff because I insanely believe that your wife will then marry me, that is intentional evil. I know what I am doing is harmful and wrong, but do it anyway.

3 situations. 3 types of insanity. Only 2 are evil. Of course, after explaining levels of intent, BoVD has an example that directly contradicts it, but 3.5 would never have an example that contradicts the rules, would it?

The kind of insane that = I am chaotic neutral and I just do whatever I feel like, aside from not depicting insanity very well, is not a defense.

Thread winner.

[myancey]

Frankly, if a character wants to play the insanity card, the DM should use the variant insanity rules for him as listed in Unearthed Arcana.

Players feel insanity frees them from certain base restrictions imposed by the alignment system, but neglect any negative effects that insanity might have on their own psyche. As a result, the game is left with this mentally depraved character whose actions would easily fall into evil category were it not for the affliction.

Insanity is a trait..which in D&D means a quality inherent in the character that bestows both a positive and negative value. The positive in this instance is that he can pass through alignment restrictions as if they do not exist. So impose a negative, and give them the insanity variant rules. :smallsmile:

[Gnaeus]

Alignment is more like the way the god/universe reacts to the presence of your character, an evil character could perfectly consider himself "good" and still question himself why the "protection from evil" spell works against him.

The same thing could be said of a Chaotic Evil character who thinks his actions are Chaotic Neutral.

A paladin doesn´t fall because he perceives his actions as evil, he falls because his actions are evil or unlawful. The case of atheist paladins is the same, only that they don´t know the source of their powers and rely on speculation.

1 OK, imagine a parent of an infant, who allows his child to starve to death in its own waste, because he won't feed or clean it. I think we can all agree that this is evil.

2 Imagine that that same parent had been hit in the back of the neck and was paralyzed. Parent wants to help the child, but can't move. I think that most of us would agree that while the outcome was the same, this parent, due to his physical impairment, is innocent of wrongdoing.

3 Same situation, but instead of paralysis induced from spinal damage, the parent is Catatonic, unable to move or react to outside stimuli for hours at a time due to mental illness. Does the parent CHOOSE to be catatonic? Did he/she DECIDE to abandon the child?

Please explain to me why the gods/universe in your game, after subjecting parent 3 to a terrible disorder, will then send this person to the lower plains upon death due to their inability to care for their child. If you can convince me that this is reasonable, I will concede that insanity is not a defense to evil actions.

[myancey]

So what, does the insanity spell change your alignment if you do something accidentally bad? The intent there has a lack of feeling one way or another about it.

The insanity spell is an affliction bestowed on the player after character creation--and it has specific actions listed as effects.

The real issue is using 'insanity', as in an actual disorder, to break free of alignment restrictions in order to do whatever the heck you want.

[myancey]

Please explain to me why the gods/universe in your game, after subjecting parent 3 to a terrible disorder, will then send this person to the lower plains upon death due to their inability to care for their child. If you can convince me that this is reasonable, I will concede that insanity is not a defense to evil actions.

How about because D&D is not real life and alignments are set as specific rules. To do anything else would be house ruling--a tactic available for DM use, obviously, but nonetheless, house ruling.

And of course its not reasonable. But alignment is meant to be all encompassing. So if you have a character who wants to throw people off buildings-build him as an evil character and mention to the DM why you're going to be playing him chaotically.

Edit: The remark above was not to seem like rude, but to express that D&D has replaced our "white, gray, and black" moral areas with the 9 alignments.

[Geigan]

1 OK, imagine a parent of an infant, who allows his child to starve to death in its own waste, because he won't feed or clean it. I think we can all agree that this is evil.

2 Imagine that that same parent had been hit in the back of the neck and was paralyzed. Parent wants to help the child, but can't move. I think that most of us would agree that while the outcome was the same, this parent, due to his physical impairment, is innocent of wrongdoing.

3 Same situation, but instead of paralysis induced from spinal damage, the parent is Catatonic, unable to move or react to outside stimuli for hours at a time due to mental illness. Does the parent CHOOSE to be catatonic? Did he/she DECIDE to abandon the child?

Please explain to me why the gods/universe in your game, after subjecting parent 3 to a terrible disorder, will then send this person to the lower plains upon death due to their inability to care for their child. If you can convince me that this is reasonable, I will concede that insanity is not a defense to evil actions.

I don't think that he'd even argue that is an evil action. He doesn't even mention insanity in his arguement, either. I think he's just saying that you can think you're doing good and be totally wrong about it.

Like a paladin in a military group ordered to slaughter a village. He does it because the village broke the law his group laid out and he sticks to orders. He falls because he goes in and slaughters unarmed civilians who merely disagree with the order his group imposes. He thinks his group is inherently right, but he's doing a horrific action that upholds a group who may or may not be morally right, just one he's a part of. He wasn't thinking about what he did enough to stop himself but what he did was unquestionably evil.

Of course exceptions you might add to this change the situation up and may swing it in his favor. Maybe the group is morally just and imposed order on a backwater town that would backstab each other if given the chance. They've been making evil sacrifices and need to be stopped. Completely different situation and his actions can be justified as punishment for their wicked actions.

A few specifics change the entire morality of an action.


The insanity spell is an affliction bestowed on the player after character creation--and it has specific actions listed as effects.

The real issue is using 'insanity', as in an actual disorder, to break free of alignment restrictions in order to do whatever the heck you want.

You're taking me out of context from the middle of a discussion. I believe I made the statement you just made not much further into the thread(the second one, and I conceded on the first).

[Gnaeus]

The real issue is using 'insanity', as in an actual disorder, to break free of alignment restrictions in order to do whatever the heck you want.

That is a strawman. No one is arguing that a PC should be allowed to do whatever they want with no alignment repercussions. What we are arguing is that certain types of insanity, which prevent characters (PC or NPC) from understanding the nature of their actions or from acting in an appropriate way, should be taken into account by DMs when determining when alignment shifts or other alignment repercussions are reasonable.

Theft is evil. Kleptomania is a mental illness. A character who robs a monastery is evil. A character who realizes that he has Kleptomania, joins a monastery in order to keep from robbing innocent people, informs the other priests about his condition but is unable to keep himself from stealing the candleholders at night is acting in a good aligned manner, preventing himself from being evil in the best way he can.


How about because D&D is not real life and alignments are set as specific rules. To do anything else would be house ruling--a tactic available for DM use, obviously, but nonetheless, house ruling.

And of course its not reasonable. But alignment is meant to be all encompassing. So if you have a character who wants to throw people off buildings-build him as an evil character and mention to the DM why you're going to be playing him chaotically.


DMs have to house rule alignment constantly. The 9 alignments don't cover all, or even most available circumstances. If the alignment rules were clear, we wouldn't have "what alignment is my character" threads where 5 different alignments are suggested. The only question is how the DM weighs mental illness. Anyway, there are multiple optional rules regarding relative morality which DMs can use if they are afraid of using "house rules".

[Quietus]

I thought psycopaths was just an older term for sociopaths which was changed so that it no longer resembled the word psycotic.


Disclaimer : I don't have any formal training in either field, and am speaking strictly from collections of things I've heard over time. Any comparisons given that offend people are entirely my own fault, and I apologize if that is the case. Please feel free to correct me if you know better.

Actually, sociopathy and psychopathy are different. I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that sociopathy is an inability to recognize and/or follow social cues, resulting in you being incapable of functioning normally within society, or having to basically learn to ape the behaviors expected of you, despite not having the social responses expected in that situation.

Psychopathy, on the other hand, is a much more severe condition involving complete breaks from reality - that is, you literally cannot tell that you are not experiencing the real world. The "I'm throwing you off a cliff because you're a pretty pretty butterfly!" example earlier would be psycopathy; Someone who doesn't see the problem with killing a man because they want his boots would be an example of sociopathy. Both are extreme cases, of course.

On a totally unrelated note :


You are (again) failing to factor in the actual deed here. Intent still isn't the only thing that matters here. The action is murder, and murder by D&D rules is evil by itself. Evil action with neutral intent = Evil.

Brushing your teeth (etc.) counts as neutral, because it's not been defined as either Good or Evil, and you aren't intenting for it to be either as well.

Does this make anyone else wonder whether it's possible to become Evil by cackling madly and thoroughly enjoying the knowledge that we kill thousands of bacteria every single day just by brushing our teeth?

[Boci]

Psychopathy, on the other hand, is a much more severe condition involving complete breaks from reality - that is, you literally cannot tell that you are not experiencing the real world. The "I'm throwing you off a cliff because you're a pretty pretty butterfly!" example earlier would be psycopathy; Someone who doesn't see the problem with killing a man because they want his boots would be an example of sociopathy. Both are extreme cases, of course.

I'm pretty sure that is psychosis, not phychopathy. This is the precise reason why the word was changed to sociopath.

[Divide by Zero]

I thought psycopaths was just an older term for sociopaths which was changed so that it no longer resembled the word psycotic.


I'm pretty sure that is psychosis, not phychopathy. This is the precise reason why the word was changed to sociopath.

Or maybe it's because too many people were having trouble spelling the prefix "psycho" :smalltongue:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I was always told that sociopaths lacked human feeling and empathy, but didn't have the outright drive towards violence/insanity associated with psychopaths- thus sociopaths *could* and, very likely, would function well within society, at least towards their own ends.

[Quietus]

Eh, like I said, I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that sociopathy isn't inherently going to make anyone pro- or anti- violent; It just makes them have a harder time understanding social cues and contracts, so they wouldn't, for instance, understand that their topic of conversation was upsetting someone, or necessarily understand what the proper response would be after they're told that. Of course, it has as many different faces as there are people suffering from it, so it's hard to make generalizations.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Eh, like I said, I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that sociopathy isn't inherently going to make anyone pro- or anti- violent; It just makes them have a harder time understanding social cues and contracts, so they wouldn't, for instance, understand that their topic of conversation was upsetting someone, or necessarily understand what the proper response would be after they're told that. Of course, it has as many different faces as there are people suffering from it, so it's hard to make generalizations.


*raises eyebrow* You sure you're not thinking of autism?

[Boci]

*raises eyebrow* You sure you're not thinking of autism?

Sociopaths lack empathy and willing, often adept, at manipulation. Not quite the same as autism.

[Coidzor]

Sociopaths lack empathy and willing, often adept, at manipulation. Not quite the same as autism.

That specific example sounded a lot like the more generous interpretations of Asperger's one can run into though, I must admit.

[Boci]

That specific example sounded a lot like the more generous interpretations of Asperger's one can run into though, I must admit.

Sociopaths aren't socially awkward. They can tell when they can generally tell when they are boring others. Another characteristic of their is that they suffer no delusions and will not have imaginary friends as children.

[Coidzor]

Sociopaths aren't socially awkward. They can tell when they can generally tell when they are boring others.

You did read what Quietus posted, right? :smallconfused:

Because that was kinda the point of the reactions.

[Boci]

You did read what Quietus posted, right? :smallconfused:

Because that was kinda the point of the reactions.

Sorry, got confused brcsudr you quoted me, not him.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Sociopaths lack empathy and willing, often adept, at manipulation. Not quite the same as autism.

Yeah, I know- just his description seemed to fit autism better than sociopathy. At least, I hope so. Is annoying enough being autistic- would be downright confusing if I found out I was a sociopath, instead.

...I mean, I don't even *own* a boat...

[Quietus]

You did read what Quietus posted, right? :smallconfused:

Because that was kinda the point of the reactions.

Mm, well, I might have been wrong. :smalltongue: