Making a CN Sociopath

[Bad Wolf]

So, suppose there's this guy. He doesnt really care about anyone other than himself. He has "friends", but he sees them more as pets or toys than equals. He'll always treat them nice, but otherwise doesn't assign them that much importance.

Somehow, he still has a family. His wife was someone who he met ages ago after his memory was wiped. He loves her, but some people might say it's only because he met her so early, and thus considers her a part of himself.

His children on the other hand, he sees more as "projects." You know how people can sometimes be like "oh hey, now I finally have someone to take to ball games and talk about science with"? Its like that, and also the pet view of them.

He still goes out to save the world and stuff because one: he likes adventure, two; he doesnt want the world to end.

I have two questions about this guy

1: Could he still be CN, rather than a shade of Evil?
2: Is this vaguely around Sociopathic territory?

[Koo Rehtorb]

If he avoid doing evil then he can be CN.

[Zhorn]

Yep, as long as they are
1 - Not actively seeking the pain and suffering of others by their actions, and
2 - Doing good things out of self interest rather than for the benefit of others

then yes, that's neutral.

[gkathellar]

Sounds like he could be CN or TN, depending on what he actually gets up to. Maybe even LN, if he values habit and routine. Moral indifference isn’t really evil until it starts doing evil.

Advice I give in every alignment thread: this all works works best when you play it sort of fast and loose, with a preference for saying “yes” over saying “no.”

[PastorofMuppets]

The way you described this character has me thinking about Jonas Venture from the venture brothers.

[That House]

Sounds pretty sociopathic to me. Some other key things to include would be lacking emotions and faking them to win people’s trust, some level of being a manipulative person, and some degree of social ineptness (optional, kind of depends on how smart he is).

None of these are requirements, but they’ll make him more of a sociopath if that’s what you’re going for.

I like it! *thumbs up from down here in Maybe Hell*

[Cygnia]

Sounds similar in 'tude to a CN Duskblade I'm currently playing. Though I did tell the other players OOC that if he goes too far to please let me know. The character is supposed to be a ****, but not me.

[Particle_Man]

I would say he is in more danger of becoming evil though. The right temptation from the right fiend and he could sell out or kill all of his pets because he got a better option.

But the most important thing is to talk to your DM.

[Bad Wolf]

I would say he is in more danger of becoming evil though. The right temptation from the right fiend and he could sell out or kill all of his pets because he got a better option.

But the most important thing is to talk to your DM.

I mean would you kill your pets for money or fame?

[gkathellar]

I mean would you kill your pets for money or fame?

Some people would. Most people wouldn't. Would a psychopath/sociopath? That's impossible to answer, since the word has no precise medical definition, and everyone brings their own view to the table. What is certainly true is that the character you've described doesn't seem to have Anti-Social Personality Disorder (which is the closest any psychiatric authority gets to recognizing psychopathy/sociopathy as a concept), because his behavior isn't anti-social. Maybe he's stone-cold and deeply amoral in his heart of hearts, but if his actual actions don't present as problematic ...

Anyway, if your view is that this character wouldn't ruthlessly sacrifice the things that he values for material wealth, that's another point in favor of neutrality, probably.

[KillianHawkeye]

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, but did you say "memory wipe"?

[Bad Wolf]

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, but did you say "memory wipe"?

Its an interesting character start. Someone who was basically a saint in their previous life might end up as a demon worshipper, it all depends on what happens and who they meet. Nuture over nature, if you will.

In this scenario, bad case of political intrigue.

[Phhase]

Surely you've heard of the Paul brothers?

[Bad Wolf]

Surely you've heard of the Paul brothers?

If you're referring to a certain pair of online celebrities, I'd rather you stop before this gets locked for spiralling out of focus.

[Kitten Champion]

I had a character with Narcissistic personality disorder who... wouldn't go as far as calling others pets, but he definitely viewed them as lesser beings and only truly significant in terms of relevance to himself. Sort of like the extras in the background of a play. However, he was ultimately pretty high functioning, most of his deep-seeded personality issues would be considered somewhat normal by the subculture of the setting's nobility and you could easily draw the conclusion that he was merely a confident extrovert with healthy ambitious tendencies that matched up with his specific profession -- which was a Bard.

Point being, he wasn't Evil despite having very limited empathy and his motivations being far from altruistic. He wanted to be adored and praised by others for his natural abilities and physical attractiveness and not feared or reviled. The idea of being looked down upon would fill him with a mix of anger and anxiety that mostly led to him either avoiding others for a time or redirecting his feelings at something more socially acceptable like burning brigands alive or whatever.

[LibraryOgre]

Yep, as long as they are
1 - Not actively seeking the pain and suffering of others by their actions, and
2 - Doing good things out of self interest rather than for the benefit of others

then yes, that's neutral.

I would say that a certain level of depraved indifference towards the pain and suffering of others also goes to evil, but, yes, if he's doing good out of self-interest, and mostly indifferent to the suffering of others he does not himself cause, he's probably neutral. At a certain point, "not my circus, not my monkeys" becomes evil, but that's a fine line to draw.

[jjordan]

Does he care about consequences? I would say the answer to this question what will define good, neutral, or evil. If he doesn't care about the consequences actions have on other people then he's evil. If he cares and tries to make sure that consequences don't negatively effect people then he's probably good. If he tries to minimize the effects his actions have on other people and/or believes that people should be free to accept the consequences of their own actions then he's probably neutral. Or something like that. We could argue details for years.