Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Oakspar77777 12-20-03, 06:21 PM	This thread is to explore the Alignment and other mechanical aspects of various forms of mental defect. Those so affected, and thus capable of taking this tread to personnally are exempt from participation. To aid discussion, I will list all mental defects discussed in this thread with numbers, so that further post can refer back to mental defects as defined by this post. This will be updated if my list proves insufficient. (1) Psychosis (anti-social behavior) - This is the inability to tell right from wrong, reguardless of desire to be good or evil. (2) Psychosis (anti-social nature) - This is the general dislike of people, usually resulting in hermitage. (3) Phobias - Strong irrational fears towards a stimuli. (4) Anxiety (Disorders) - Like phobias, but more gerneral in nature. (5) Psycho-somatics - Hypocondria and false blindness fall into this catagory. (6) Repression - Thoughs, feelings, and memories that are held unknowingly within the mind. (7) Neurosis - Percieveing things that are not there. (8) Scitzophrenia - Like Neurosis, but more aggessive. (9) Compulsive Disorders - Feelings that compel actions (like hand washing) from the victim. (10) Addictions - Duh. (11) Mania - Prolonged hystarical actions. (12) Depression - Prolonged feelings of sadness. (13) Bi-Polar Disorder - Shifting between Mania and Depression. (14) Multiple Personality Disorder - Multiple consciousnesses, one biologic. (15) Amnesia - Loss of long term memory. If there are any more, let me know, and I will add them to the list. That should be sufficient for now. Remember, we are looking for meaningful ways to incorporate these illnesses into the game mechanics of D&D.
bolobaby 12-20-03, 08:05 PM	Obviously, many of these mental illnesses would tend to lean somone towards the chaotic realm. Especially stuff like multiple personalities and bi-polar. You've bitten off a big subject. Maybe we should break it into smaller pieces. For example, first asking what mental illnesses (if any) could be applicable to a lawful good character? LG, by your list... 1. Psychosis (anti-social behavior) would probably discount you from being good. 2. Psychosis (anti-social nature) - I think this would push the character more to a neutral stance. If they were good, they would probably have to be NG. Perhaps CG. Is see the antisocial nature preventing the character from acting (sometimes) when a LG character would normally act. 3. Phobias - Hmmm. It's completely reasonable to have a LG character with minor phobias. If the phobias are severe and varied, I'd disallow it. The character would be making too many decisions based upon their personal fears instead of a moral code. 4. Anxiety - Again, the anxiety *may* prevent a character from acting in accordance with their moral code. Depends on the severity, but acceptable as long as the character continues to make decisions that are "right." 5. Psychosomatics - Acceptable for the LG template, imo. In fact, devoutly religious people sometimes have psychosomatic reactions when their strong beliefs surface. It doesn't affect their beliefs or choices, so OK. 6. Repression - Absolutely acceptable. In fact, it could play a key role in why the LG acts zealously sometimes. GREAT CHARACTER HISTORY HOOK FOUND HERE! Booyah. 7, 8. Neurosis an Schizophrenia - Oooh. Tough one. This could cause chaotic behavior, OR it could be something that forces a character to stay the path. Example: A schizophrenic paladin "sees" an angel of their god telling them how to act. I guess it all depends on how it manifests itself. If the things seen provide conscious and constancy, then LG would be OK. In most cases, though, this would create a Chaotic character. 9. Compulsions - Compulsions will often override decisions based on moral codes, so I think (in severe cases) LG would have to be disallowed. Minor compulsions are simply character tics and should be acceptable for any alignment, unless it is the compulsion to drink the blood of newborn babies! 10. Addiction - Would probably prevent the LG alignment because behavior would be driven by the addiction and not principles. 11. Mania - This would create chaotic behavior, I think, especially by the dictionary definition. So no LG here. 12. Depression - Hmmmm. This is OK for LG, I think. Severe depression may cause general apathy and a shift to neutrality. 13. Bi-polar disorder - As mania, this causes chaotic behavior, so I'd rule no. 14. Multiple personalities - Each personality would have it's own alignment, I imagine. The question is how would this affect gameplay? Would the characters overall alignment be CN for determining what alignment based spells affect the character? I'd say CN overall. 15. Amnesia - Yeah, this would be OK. I guess those answers cover a bit more than the LG analysis, but it is a starting point. Neurosis, Scitzophrenia, and Bi-Polar would make a more chaotic character, so I'd discount them from lawful.
rmilsop 12-20-03, 10:17 PM	Just a note on the multiple personalities - when we've had a character with this, its been a pretty major effort in the campaign. It required totally seperate character sheets, with differing mental stats (int/wis/cha), differing classes, different skills and feats etc. There were certain pre-prescribed conditions which only the player and the DM knew about that caused certain personalities to come to the fore. Usually the DM would just hand the player a note telling them who was in control now. So for alignment it would depend who was in command at that point in time, quite capable of changing at a moment's notice, hence adding that randomisation to the campaign.
bolobaby 12-20-03, 10:47 PM	I'd have issue with that to some extent. I'd say that a player could roll one set of stats for wis, int, and cha. Those stats would act as maximums, but could be adjusted downwards for a different personality. (I *might* allow a point swap between those scores, but if the three of them totalled to 45 points (for example) I'd never allow that total to increase.) Then, the biggie... I'd argue that any experience gained by the character would go to each specific personality as it was earned. What an accounting nightmare for the DM! BUT, as you can see, that would mean that the character would apparently level at a much slower rate. These things simply represent the limits on human potential to "be" and learn at certain rates.
Wizard 12-21-03, 12:23 AM	Originally posted by bolobaby 11. Mania - This would create chaotic behavior, I think, especially by the dictionary definition. So no LG here. Dominate person can cause chaotic behavior. What's your point? Not a flame, just pointing out weak spots.
bitnine 12-21-03, 12:44 AM	Meh, I imagine that one of the bigger schisms of evaluation will be that many people to be a judgement of a person's actions and mindset, whereas others think that it's a descriptor, that which best describes such. If a person suffers from an inborn complusion to murder and torture everyone he sees, is he evil? Even if he say, didn't, from our viewpoint of his condition, have a choice with possessing such? Is he evil? Some would say that it's not his fault, so judging him evil is inappropriate. Others will say that it's a basic part of his being, so describing him as evil in the terms of D&D is accurate.
OrigamiCommando 12-21-03, 01:26 PM	Originally posted by Oakspar77777 (1) Psychosis (anti-social behavior) - This is the inability to tell right from wrong, reguardless of desire to be good or evil. (2) Psychosis (anti-social nature) - This is the general dislike of people, usually resulting in hermitage. (3) Phobias - Strong irrational fears towards a stimuli. (4) Anxiety (Disorders) - Like phobias, but more gerneral in nature. (5) Psycho-somatics - Hypocondria and false blindness fall into this catagory. (6) Repression - Thoughs, feelings, and memories that are held unknowingly within the mind. (7) Neurosis - Percieveing things that are not there. (8) Scitzophrenia - Like Neurosis, but more aggessive. (9) Compulsive Disorders - Feelings that compel actions (like hand washing) from the victim. (10) Addictions - Duh. (11) Mania - Prolonged hystarical actions. (12) Depression - Prolonged feelings of sadness. (13) Bi-Polar Disorder - Shifting between Mania and Depression. (14) Multiple Personality Disorder - Multiple consciousnesses, one biologic. (15) Amnesia - Loss of long term memory. Let's see, my opinion of this matter on the following people in the D&D universe is: 1) Most likely neutral evil. In the abscence of concience a human tends to do what helps itself out and the shortest, easiest road to serving yourself generally involves harming others. Selfishness to the extreme of serving yourself, even if it harms the innocent is neutral evil. 2) Neutral. Self centered but rather than a willingness to harm people they simply disdain them and choose solitude. 3) Everyone has a fear and some people have extreme fears. This has nothing to do with alignment. A chaotic evil wizard might be just as afraid of mice as a lawful good paladin. 4) Again, no effect on alignment, but I'd bet these types probably aren't very charismatic. 5) This is like phobia and really wouldn't effect alignment, though it maybe effected by it. 6) Again, just like above, this is more or less a protective mesure taken by the mind in odd circumstances and is not affecting alignment. 7) These types are probably more likely to be evil but not enough so to say that they'd most likely be evil. 8) Same as neuroticism. 9) Though useless action might be innefficient, it is hardly enough to be good or evil. 10) Shows an immense lack of wisdom, but besides that, it really depends on the person and how far they are willing to go to get a fix of whatever they are addicted to. 11, 12, and 13) These conditions would most likely make you neutral. Self centered without a willingness to harm others but a possibility that you may harm yourself. 14) Depends on the personalities. Alignment would probably change from one personality to the next. 15) Same as repression, most likely. Of course, this is using the tools of an objectionally moral world. In the real world, you can't judge these mental diseases one way or the other because that is what they are - diseases that the afflicted can't help. In the D&D world, actions are law, regardless of the compulsions behing them. The how and the what always outweigh the why in these circumstances.
bolobaby 12-21-03, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Wizard Dominate person can cause chaotic behavior. What's your point? Not a flame, just pointing out weak spots. Yeah but Dominate Person is not representative of the nature of the individual. If manic behavior is in their nature, I'd say that their behavior would tend to be chaotic, thus leading to a chaotic alignment.
Dasein 12-21-03, 06:20 PM	From an ethical standpoint, one could argue that mental illness diminishes the capacity for ethical choice, and thus has less effect or even no effect on alignment. Dasein
bitnine 12-21-03, 06:39 PM	Originally posted by Dasein From an ethical standpoint, one could argue that mental illness diminishes the capacity for ethical choice, and thus has less effect or even no effect on alignment. Interesting. One example from D&D might be: A Helm of Opposite alignment does just that, alter alignment; despite a distinct lack of choice of its wearer, it influences his actions and mindset (an instantaneous permanent change to his outlook itself, unlike a domination spell) and the alignment does change to match. Likewise, a half-fiend very likely had no say to the state in which he was born. And yet their alignment is "Always evil (any)." But, as mentioned above, a lot of this boils down to if you think that alignment is a moral judgement or a descriptor of a person's being.
Dasein 12-21-03, 06:46 PM	I do not think a being that lacks the ability to decide upon it's alignment can be aligned - it's actions are not under it's control, and thus it cannot be held morally responsible. Resposibility without authority would make alignment arbitrary. One is good or evil not because of what you do, but because of what plane you happened to be born on or who your parents were. If fiends are incapable of being good, then one must ask if they are capable of being evil, as in both cases, what is essential is choice. If there is no choice, then they are little more than animals, and should be considered neutral as they have no direct control over their actions. Dasein
bitnine 12-21-03, 08:12 PM	Originally posted by Dasein I do not think a being that lacks the ability to decide upon it's alignment can be aligned - it's actions are not under it's control, and thus it cannot be held morally responsible. Resposibility without authority would make alignment arbitrary. So you think that alignment in D&D is arbitrary if it it's taken as a descriptor of how a character acts and thinks and not as a moral judgement of the choices that they have made?
Dasein 12-21-03, 08:17 PM	Correct - an ethical system that looks solely at the end results of an action, without taking into account motives is arbitrary as the labels lack any requirement of moral responsibility. That is, those who have no authority over their actions cannot be held acocuntable for their actions, and thus assigning alignment to such creatures makes about as much sense as assigning an alignment to a natural disaster or an animal. Dasein
Wizard 12-21-03, 08:22 PM	I agree completely with everything Dasein has said.
bitnine 12-21-03, 08:25 PM	Originally posted by Dasein Correct - an ethical system that looks solely at the end results of an action, without taking into account motives is arbitrary as the labels lack any requirement of moral responsibility. Hm, I find at least a touch of this unclear. Are you using the terms choice and motivation interchangably? [Edit: Quote from the future! He is still Lawful Good, he is no longer responsible for his actions. There is a difference between an outside influence that controls a person and a part of their makeup that they did not get to choose; whether that's actually a line of distinction is debatable, but the two are seperate things. /Edit]
Sproik 12-21-03, 08:25 PM	Originally posted by Dasein Correct - an ethical system that looks solely at the end results of an action, without taking into account motives is arbitrary as the labels lack any requirement of moral responsibility. That is, those who have no authority over their actions cannot be held acocuntable for their actions, and thus assigning alignment to such creatures makes about as much sense as assigning an alignment to a natural disaster or an animal. Dasein I am in total agreement. Another way of looking at this: You cast Dominate Person on a Lawful Good carpenter, and get him to steal a load of money from someone and give it to you. What alignment is the carpenter now? He is still Lawful Good, he is no longer responsible for his actions.
Sproik 12-21-03, 08:29 PM	As an aside, I am not entirely comfortable with the feel of this thread. It involves real-life mental health issues which are outside the scope of a typical D&D game - this is a potentially very insulting topic. Imagine if someone created a thread entitled 'Alignments for Paraplegics' or 'Alignments for Lepers'. At the very least, perhaps it should be in the 'Mature Content' forum? Mental illness is a very mature topic - at least I think so.
Dasein 12-21-03, 08:42 PM	Hm, I find at least a touch of this unclear. Are you using the terms choice and motivation interchangably? I seem to have been there, so to clarify: Motive is a difficult subject, as all actions taken by living creatures could be seen as having some sort of intended consequence, even if there is no choice involved. What is important at an ethical level is what I call conscious motive, that is, the motive that is active in a sentient creature. Ethical reasoning comes in to play when a creature must decide if it is correct to act on certain motives - for example, compassion or a desire for justice may be considered 'good' motives, while revenge or hatred may be seen as 'evil'. A sentient creature capable of moral reasoning is able to decide which motives to act upon, and which to ignore or resist. A creature that is unable (not merely unwilling) to discern between good and evil motives lacks the ability to chose at an ethical level, and while such a creature may be capable of making many other choices, like how best to pursue whatever plans it has concocted, if it is incapable of making that fundamental ethical choice to decide why to act, then one cannot rightly call such a creature good or evil. It is simply programmed to take certain actions, an accident (or perhaps intent) of its creation. Dasein
bitnine 12-21-03, 09:03 PM	Hm. One thing to consider is that D&D posits a world where good and evil are external, objective cosmological forces, so I think that it aids communication if people say if they are accepting that premise for the purpose of determining the alignment of a particular group within the game, or if they are using alignment as more of a classification applied through their real world (often more subjective) view of morality. (Even if it is such the case as you run with the latter introduced into your game more than the former.) As you might imagine, running with that basic premise or rejecting it will likely end up with fairly different takes on, as an example, issues like these.
Dasein 12-21-03, 09:24 PM	Standard D&D already does take into consideration a lack of free will when determining alignments - an iron golem, for example, is neutral, even if it ordered to roast babies, as the golem is totally incapable of free thought, and it's actions are reflected on it's master - it is little different than using a sword or hammer to kill babies. The problem arises when we deal with otherwise intelligent creatures, and in this case, I would rule that devils and demons are redeemable - that is, they can chose not to do evil, and while this is a choice they very rarely make, as it is both in their nature and in their society to act in an evil manner, it mkaes their evil that much more pronounced when you know they are rejecting the good. Dasein
bitnine 12-21-03, 09:31 PM	Originally posted by Dasein The problem arises when we deal with otherwise intelligent creatures, and in this case, I would rule that devils and demons are redeemable - that is, they can chose not to do evil, and while this is a choice they very rarely make, as it is both in their nature and in their society to act in an evil manner, it mkaes their evil that much more pronounced when you know they are rejecting the good. Actually, it is mentioned that Always Evil doesn't mean 100%, that there are certain extremely rare exceptions. It's just an overwhelming trend such as to make such cases all but unheard of. However, taken parallel to the issue at hand, it's hard to say that any mental anomoly dictates a person's behavior to the extent where it was 100% certain. That is to say, if you'd rule that demons and devils have a powerful nature that drives them to evil, but this does not entirely remove their ability to choose good - even if it makes it regrettably more difficult (even to the point where it's nearly unheard of), and this is enough to classify them as evil... Well, would not that same line of reasoning apply to anything listed above?
Dasein 12-22-03, 12:19 AM	That is to say, if you'd rule that demons and devils have a powerful nature that drives them to evil, but this does not entirely remove their ability to choose good - even if it makes it regrettably more difficult (even to the point where it's nearly unheard of), and this is enough to classify them as evil... Well, would not that same line of reasoning apply to anything listed above? Not necessarily - a devil, while under considerable pressure, both internally and externally to act evil could still be considered to do so of his own free will, and can thus be held responsible. Conversly, a person with a serious mental illness is not operating in a capacity where they can be held responsbile as they have manifestly physiological problems that prevent them from making rational decisions. Perhaps their view of reality has become so distorted and the delusions so powerful that what they perceive is radically different than what a healthy person would see. Perhaps they have uncontrollable urges and engage in behavior that they know is wrong but feel powerless to stop. I think that with regards to humans, there is also a greater sense that the person is sufferring from a disease. There is something wrong with them beyond their control, and thus we should feel pity for them, and try to help them, or at least prevent them from hurting themselves or other, rather than fight them as we would a foe. There is also the sense of familiarity that one simply doesn't have with a devil or demon or other 'always evil' creature. It is just accepted that devils are evil, and that's the end of it - there's no moral issue with smiting them, they're bad because that's the way the universe works. (Besides, if they weren't evil, they wouldn't get smitten.) With humans, though, free will is one of the fundamental and defining characteristics, and one of their core values. It is what seperates them from the animals, and thus I think there would be a greater tendency to forgive those deeds that were comitted under duress - be it magical or physiological. Of course, in the world of D&D ethics, the opinions of humans don't mean anything. However, D&D as a game was written by humans and is played by humans, so I think that certain human values will be reflected in any alignment system. Dasein
Willie the Duck 12-22-03, 01:36 AM	First of all a correction. Neurosis simply means mental illness, not a specific mental illness. What the original poster called neurosis is actually called schizophrenia and what he called schizophrenia is actually called violent schizophrenia. Next, my understanding is that standard D&D defines someone's alignement based strictly on actions, not motivations or will. If someone is doing evil things because they are insane, they are still evil. The PCs might want to capture them instead of killing them because they could be cured (and from then on be good), but they were still evil at the time (by D&D core standards). The alignments of golems is neutral not because they have no choice, but because they are objects, not individuals. Not that this is my interpretation of the D&D rules, not how we do it in my campaigns (which are a lot more objective and don't focus so much on the ultimate good-evil battles).