Does a mental illness effect alignment?

[killem2]

If someone is insane, and as a result commits acts that would normally be done by Chaotic Evil players, should the person in question be held to that level of change in alignment?

[Flickerdart]

A creature incapable of making moral and ethical choices is True Neutral regardless of what it does. Unless it's undead, because undead are evil.

AD&D 2e ventured to suggest that Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of the insane, but that sentiment was not echoed in 3.5 and Pathfinder, as far as I know.

[Segev]

If someone is insane, and as a result commits acts that would normally be done by Chaotic Evil players, should the person in question be held to that level of change in alignment?

Yes.

Longer answer: madness-induced alignment shifts are one of the few believable ways to have them happen suddenly. Likewise, curing a madness that caused somebody to be CE could rapidly shift them to a non-evil alignment, if only their madness made them act CE.

But alignment is a descriptor of who you are. If you're mad and that madness makes you CE, then you're CE as long as you're mad.

[GrayDeath]

First off: Chaotic neutral Characters please.
Players an alignment dont mix ^^


As for the Question: I`d say it depends. Answer me these questions three.....;)

Was hesheit always Insane or is it a "new developement"?

Is it a continuous insanity that reliably makes them act "as if Chaotic Evil"?

Does hesheit have lucid moments (and if so, does hesheit remember the mad deeds)?

[Geddy2112]

A creature incapable of making moral and ethical choices is True Neutral regardless of what it does. Unless it's undead, because undead are evil.

AD&D 2e ventured to suggest that Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of the insane, but that sentiment was not echoed in 3.5 and Pathfinder, as far as I know.

I second this.

In addition, any action taken by accident, coercion, necessity or a character is forced to do against their will/mind control/magic etc. should not factor into alignment. Alignment is far more about intent and less about the action unless the action is a textbook objective aligned act, such as creating undead being objectively evil.

So if a character is insane for whatever reason, and the insanity is causing the acts that the character would otherwise not commit, then they do not affect the actual alignment of the character. In legal terms, they are not guilty(of any alignment) by reason of insanity.

[Mehangel]

In Pathfinder, insanity is explained in-depth within the Gamemastery Guide. However, of all the different forms of madness described therein only one, Psychosis, changes ones alignment (to Chaotic Evil). So I guess what I am saying is that mental illness may change ones alignment, but not necessarily.

[Keltest]

For the most part, the rule of thumb is if they are insane to the point of being unable to differentiate right and wrong, then they are true neutral and alignment does not otherwise affect them, much like creatures with int below 3. if they can differentiate it and choose to do wrong, then theyre still on the alignment grid as normal.

[Troacctid]

Insanity permanently afflicts you with a nasty status condition, but does not change your alignment in any way. Generally speaking, the same is true of any compulsion effect.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Madness that compels a character to perform evil or provides delusions that encourage the character to do evil do not necessarily rob them of the ability to understand the moral or ethical implications of their actions. It also does not rob them of the ability to resist those compulsions or ignore those delusions though doing so may be extraordinarily difficult.

This in mind, the answer to your question is that, yes, madness that results in evil actions results in an evil alignment as well. No, it's not fair to the character in question. Sometimes life sucks like that.

[killem2]

FYI character is already N/E.

Basically and I have already had a talk with the player, he states he is going insane (rp flavor) I advised him that the encounter he is talking about had no effect like that and in the future if he would like to RP something like this, he needs to let any DM know. I will roll with it but basically his N/E drow is acting much more chaotic, very much so when plans he had do not go his way.

He went to rob a store and due to a recent rash of roberies the shop owner had taken all his items and put them somewhere else. (Portable holes are wonderful). He went to the room where the man would normally be sleeping (instead slept in an inn) and found three pouchs in this place. Two i the room which after looking into them and not getting much proceeded to defcate on the bed, draw asmodeus symboles in to the wall, and break the furniture. One of the items though was a small metorite.

After he was done with that, he found the final pounch on the front counter which had a blood sausage in it. He said he ate it. No hesitation. He said he shoved it right in his mouth and ate it. It had two poisons, one that almost killed him. Left him at 3 CON. After that poison did its job he said he swallowed the small metorite. This was before of course he told me he was going insane.

I brought up to him that is erratic behavior is pushing him to chaotic. Because it is not normal for a N/E character to just lose their mind for no reason.

[P.F.]

As noted earlier, a mentally ill character who has no concept of right or wrong is neutral, at least for the duration of the condition.

If a mentally ill character is hearing voices which tell them to commit evil acts, and they are aware that those acts are evil and commit them anyway, then their alignment should reflect their actions.

If a mentally ill character is having hallucinations and/or paranoid delusions, and commits a crime in the belief that they are acting in self-defense, or similar, their alignment should remain unchanged.

In the second case, a mentally ill paladin would suffer permanent loss of special status, while in the former or the latter case, they would be eligible for an atonement.

[Milo v3]

As an mentally ill person who has many insane friends, I can't really say that most of those people would be happy being considered Chaotic Evil. I even dated a "psychopath", and she was Chaotic Neutral at worst.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As an mentally ill person who has many insane friends, I can't really say that most of those people would be happy being considered Chaotic Evil. I even dated a "psychopath", and she was Chaotic Neutral at worst.

Don't get it twisted, dude. The madness doesn't make you CE, the actions you take because of the madness do. If you manage the mental illness well, you can even be LG in spite of it. The presumption is that the character will -act- on whatever compusions or delusions plague him.

[Jack_Simth]

FYI character is already N/E.

Basically and I have already had a talk with the player, he states he is going insane (rp flavor) I advised him that the encounter he is talking about had no effect like that and in the future if he would like to RP something like this, he needs to let any DM know. I will roll with it but basically his N/E drow is acting much more chaotic, very much so when plans he had do not go his way.

He went to rob a store and due to a recent rash of roberies the shop owner had taken all his items and put them somewhere else. (Portable holes are wonderful). He went to the room where the man would normally be sleeping (instead slept in an inn) and found three pouchs in this place. Two i the room which after looking into them and not getting much proceeded to defcate on the bed, draw asmodeus symboles in to the wall, and break the furniture. One of the items though was a small metorite.

After he was done with that, he found the final pounch on the front counter which had a blood sausage in it. He said he ate it. No hesitation. He said he shoved it right in his mouth and ate it. It had two poisons, one that almost killed him. Left him at 3 CON. After that poison did its job he said he swallowed the small metorite. This was before of course he told me he was going insane.

I brought up to him that is erratic behavior is pushing him to chaotic. Because it is not normal for a N/E character to just lose their mind for no reason.

In this specific case?

The actions involved are pure player choice, so yes, alignment is shifting to CE. (Well, OK, CS and SE both, but, those aren't official).

Edit: That said... I'd be inclined to treat character actions that were the result of an Insanity spell (or similar) as not affecting alignment. No choice involved for the character.

[P.F.]

As an mentally ill person who has many insane friends, I can't really say that most of those people would be happy being considered Chaotic Evil. I even dated a "psychopath", and she was Chaotic Neutral at worst.

I dated a Borderline and she was the rulebook definition of chaotic evil--impulsive, resentful, only kept her promises when she felt like it; spiteful, malicious, hurt people to make herself feel better, callous disregard for the well-being of others.

Mentally ill people are all the samelike a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.

It doesn't matter if she thinks that she is chaotic evil, or if she would be happy that I'm telling all you fine folks that she is (she wouldn't). What matters are her actions, and the fact that she knew what she was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

[Barbarian Horde]

If your thoughts are being influenced then I vote True Neutral. Your making both good and bad decisions. No matter what those decisions you follow through with regardless of consequences, or the reward. My suggestion is ether find a table to roll actions from. The other option I had in mind was you create your own table of actions to be performed(much more fun) and just roll those percent dice. I just hope your party doesn't have evil or chaotic neutral in it, or they may just decide it's to much of a pain in the ass to keep around somone that my knife them at any moment around.

[SangoProduction]

As noted earlier, a mentally ill character who has no concept of right or wrong is neutral, at least for the duration of the condition.

If a mentally ill character is hearing voices which tell them to commit evil acts, and they are aware that those acts are evil and commit them anyway, then their alignment should reflect their actions.

If a mentally ill character is having hallucinations and/or paranoid delusions, and commits a crime in the belief that they are acting in self-defense, or similar, their alignment should remain unchanged.

In the second case, a mentally ill paladin would suffer permanent loss of special status, while in the former or the latter case, they would be eligible for an atonement.

Lacking the concept of good/evil doesn't change the cosmic forces at work. If the paladin is actually getting to the point where he's "acting in self-defense", or so he perceives, so much that he is changing alignment, then a truly Good character would recognise that they can no longer serve in their current role.

Actions are Good and Evil. Intent is only part of the equation. A person summoning undead to save orphans is doing a neutral act, because it's Evil for the sake of Good. (Let's ignore the argument of "well, undead really shouldn't be Evil spells", ok?)

[P.F.]

Lacking the concept of good/evil doesn't change the cosmic forces at work.

I disagree.


SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Lacking the concept of good/evil doesn't change the cosmic forces at work.

Actually, any mental deficiency that leaves the character -unable- to grasp the very concepts of right and wrong is categorically neutral but such severe impairment would also make that character unplayable. The canonic example is creatures with animal intelligence.

Some creatures are exceptions to this because of the influence of the supernatural but that's the general rule.

[Necroticplague]

It depends on what exactly the 'insane' is. Some mental illnesses would restrict ability to decide right and wrong to a sufficient degree that I'd say they could still be neutral, as long as they had decent intentions when committing the act. Others, however, still leave you with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, just have an attitude that predisposes one way or another. This is no different from how non-human creatures can have 'usually good', 'often neutral' or 'always evil', indicating they have inherent mentalities that predispose them one way or another. For these mental illness sufferers, it's their duty to fight against their most base impulses if they want to remain Good.

[killem2]

In this specific case?

The actions involved are pure player choice, so yes, alignment is shifting to CE. (Well, OK, CS and SE both, but, those aren't official).

Edit: That said... I'd be inclined to treat character actions that were the result of an Insanity spell (or similar) as not affecting alignment. No choice involved for the character.

That's sort of the problem. He obviously didn't realize he can't just claim insanity to justify his actions, but I did tell him I don't care if he does, as long as there is a mechanic to lock him into it. Which the insanity rules will be great for that.

I just need to know about the alignment stuff because the AP has a strict no G or C alignments and he would be forced into NPC hood.

[Jack_Simth]

That's sort of the problem. He obviously didn't realize he can't just claim insanity to justify his actions, but I did tell him I don't care if he does, as long as there is a mechanic to lock him into it. Which the insanity rules will be great for that.

I just need to know about the alignment stuff because the AP has a strict no G or C alignments and he would be forced into NPC hood.Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/insanity.htm) is a VERY nasty debuff. I can assure you, he won't want it.

"Did the player have essentially free reign in picking the actions" is going to be the determining factor for me in most cases when it comes to "does this action potentially affect alignment"? and related questions (barring, of course, things like a helm of opposite alignment and whatnot). The why:

The player is almost certainly aware of the "No Good, no Chaotic" requirements of the adventure path. You almost certainly spelled them out during character creation. The adventure path is intended for LN/LE/NE and possibly TN characters. The player is choosing to act very CE despite this. The player says "That's because this character is afflicted with a form of insanity" - but the player specifically invented the form of insanity to be able to have the character act that way. In the same sense that "My character is a jerk, that's just my how my character would respond" is not a valid defense against "that was a jerk move" (the player deliberately made the character a jerk, ergo, the jerk behavior is completely the player's fault), "my character is insane" is not a valid defense against "He's acting CE" when it was the player who decided that the character is insane, and the player who picked the specific form of insanity. The player is trying to sneak in a CE character in a game specifically not for CE, and isn't even using any actual rules in the attempt. The character's gone CE. If the AP rules say all CE characters are NPCs, and you don't want to override the AP rules to permit a CE PC, then that character is now an NPC and the player needs to roll up a new character if the player wishes to continue.

[Doctor Awkward]

D&D alignment is determined entirely by willful thoughts and actions.

If you are constantly plotting and scheming about how you are going to ruin the lives of everyone around you in order to improve your own as soon as an opportunity presents itself, you show up under a black light as evil. Even if you have never once committed an evil act in your entire life.

If you willfully, intentionally, and consistently commit any of the actions that are covered under "Evil acts" in numerous books, you will also ding as evil.


However in 99% of cases it won't be one single event will switch an alignment. Even paladins who fall don't necessarily change their alignment, unless it was a particularly heinous act. It takes a concerted and repeated effort. Redemption in D&D is hard, but dipping yourself down to that point is also hard.

Alignment differs from a Code of Conduct when dealing with mind control too. It's possible to trick a paladin into falling. You cannot trick someone out of their alignment. It has to be a conscious and deliberate choice.


The reason chaotic neutral was the "insanity" alignment, was because they were totally unpredictable on the ethical scale. This differs from true neutral in that a true neutral person is generally reasonable and wouldn't ask for a glass of water so he could use it to spit neat patterns on the ceiling. They were neutral on the moral scale because they were incapable of understanding the impact of their choices.

[killem2]

Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/insanity.htm) The player is trying to sneak in a CE character in a game specifically not for CE, and isn't even using any actual rules in the attempt. The character's gone CE. If the AP rules say all CE characters are NPCs, and you don't want to override the AP rules to permit a CE PC, then that character is now an NPC and the player needs to roll up a new character if the player wishes to continue.

You are not far off. I think he may be trying to implement a bit of a jokerish type of evil doer, and sadly the powers that be who really run the organization don't hire people like that. Well see what happens. If he can even manage his character during stealing runs.

[Dr.Samurai]

Mental Illness is way too broad a term/topic to come down on this one way or another without knowing what exactly is afflicting the character. I know someone suffering bipolar disorder with psychotic features (paranoid delusions). Her frame of reference is very different from ours, and she suffers believing that she is constantly under surveillance and persecuted on the street; any random comment or look is a direct threat or subtle message. This shapes her outlook and her actions. But it hasn't changed who she is. She doesn't suddenly accost people on the street that she believes are spying on her for the police. She would like to. She suffers greatly. But she doesn't, because she is still who she is. To the contrary, she has fled the homes of people helping her to avoid getting them caught up in the same conspiracy she believes she is a target of.

My point is... mental illness is complicated, and it isn't simply a matter of "I do evil or erratic things all of a sudden because I'm nuts".

[tomandtish]

As others have mentioned, you really have to define the term. These days, insanity is used as a legal term (although obviously also used informally) meaning one isn't capable of understanding the rightness (now defined as legality) of their actions. So, is he mentally ill, or is he insane? IF he's actually insane, then he may not have an alignment shift (but if he started evil, then he may still stay evil). But if he's just mentally ill, then he KNOWS what he is doing is right/wrong and gets to deal with the consequences.

Case in point: someone mentioned the Joker earlier. Both Law and the Multiverse (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/01/18/supervillains-and-the-insanity-defense/) and a panel at New York Comic Con (my link to that is on another computer) point out that under existing US law he doesn't actually meet the definition of insane for a criminal defense. He knows what he is doing is wrong, he just doesn't care.

So yeah, what the term means is important.


As an mentally ill person who has many insane friends, I can't really say that most of those people would be happy being considered Chaotic Evil. I even dated a "psychopath", and she was Chaotic Neutral at worst.

Case in point: I checked and Australia works roughly the same way. If your friends are actually insane (by the legal definition), then they are locked up somewhere, since technically only the courts can declare someone insane (and they'd be held until they were declared sane). So I suspect you're using it as a term for mentally ill?