clinically insane?

[Mystic Muse]

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

[Korivan]

You don't have to be clinicly insane to be CN.....But it helps

[Nano]

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

[sonofzeal]

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

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

[Vangor]

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

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

[Je dit Viola]

Actually, I don't think of brown horses, I think of Mustangs (the horse, not the car) that are 'painted'. But my preference proves Sonofzeal's analogy more - not all of them are brown, but many people think of Chaotic Neutrals as insane.

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

[Mystic Muse]

so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

[Milskidasith]

You know there is no such thing as clinical insanity, right? Insanity is purely a legal term.

[Nano]

A character of any alignment could. It's not really a quirk that's limited by either axis... An LG person could have just as much of a tendency to talk to himself as a CE one would.

[Blaine.Bush]

Alignments =/= medical conditions.

[Ozymandias9]

You know there is no such thing as clinical insanity, right? Insanity is purely a legal term.

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

[herrhauptmann]

so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

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

[Vangor]

so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

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

[TheCountAlucard]

so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Prob'ly a Malkavian.

[OracleofWuffing]

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

[Stormthorn]

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

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

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

[Paulus]

so what would a character who talks to themselves be?

Noisy?

Spoiler

Show

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

[Gralamin]

Noisy?

Spoiler

Show

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

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

[Paulus]

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

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

Spare the rod...

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler the child.

[Roland St. Jude]

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

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

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

[Glass Mouse]

Ugh.

"CN is clinically insane."

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

"CE is a cannibalistic monster."

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

"Evil is stupid."

"TN is only for druids."

"Etc."


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

[/end pointless, annoyed post]

[Dixieboy]

Prob'ly a Malkavian.

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

[Vangor]

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

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

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

[Fiery Diamond]

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

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

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

[Mystic Muse]

So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

[Yora]

Well, I'd say that almost everyone would agree that he does have mental health issues.

[taltamir]

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

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

[daggaz]

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

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

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

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

Least, thats how I DM it. '

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

[Kesnit]

Spare the rod...

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler the child.

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

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

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

[Paulus]

So would this character attacking things that weren't there, talking to things that weren't there and talking to herself count as playing insane correctly?

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