PDA

View Full Version : Adventurers are people with mental disorders



Anderlith
2012-01-02, 09:41 PM
I know it's kind of a trope, adventurers run about solving/creating problems with huge, logical holes in their morality. You can't kill people it's wrong, but greenskins aren't people, so have at it. You can't rob people but it's okay to kill that dragon & repurpose it's horde... etc. It seems like, at best, adventurers are sociopaths, & many have worse problems like megalomania, & such. So I got to thinking, do you, the playground, think that a game could be played in which instead of choosing an alignment you chose two or three disorders & used them like one uses alignments? (Instead of Protection vs Evil; Protection vs Pychopath, etc)

Sidmen
2012-01-02, 10:04 PM
Its not only possible, its been done. Or rather, something similar has been done (how the heck would Protection from Megalomaniac work?).

All you really have to do is look outside DnD to find dozens of games with Mental derangements modeled in them. In World of Darkness you choose a Vice, which you get willpower points (a usable resource that is very nice to have) for indulging in and a Virtue which you get willpower points for following as well.

An example Vice would be Greed, which lends your character to always wanting to make the most money possible - and he gets Willpower for being so greedy that it hurts his own plans, or the rest of the party. Another would be Sloth, where the character is just plain lazy, and gets willpower when his lazyness hurts the group's progress.

On the flip side, a Virtue would be Charity; the character gets Willpower when he gives so much that it hurts. Another would be Justice, where the character will want to bring people to justice even if it costs them ("if you let me go, I'll give you 1M gp" "no, your going to jail").

Anyway, yeah - thats just one of a dozen games that do "alignment" type effects that... actually matter.

pasko77
2012-01-03, 05:12 AM
your thesis only (barely) works in dnd cliches.
None of my pcs have ever fitted in this description. I flesh them with motivations and a ( i think) consistent moral compass.

Socratov
2012-01-03, 05:21 AM
I know it's kind of a trope, adventurers run about solving/creating problems with huge, logical holes in their morality. You can't kill people it's wrong, but greenskins aren't people, so have at it. You can't rob people but it's okay to kill that dragon & repurpose it's horde... etc. It seems like, at best, adventurers are sociopaths, & many have worse problems like megalomania, & such. So I got to thinking, do you, the playground, think that a game could be played in which instead of choosing an alignment you chose two or three disorders & used them like one uses alignments? (Instead of Protection vs Evil; Protection vs Pychopath, etc)

{Ted Mosby}And that, kids, is why nou never DM for an evil aligned party...{/Ted Mosby}

in a sense you are right... that's what makes BoED so much fun in a regular party. You literally (even when chaotic good) get an excuse to crank up your social skills, because you are under the impression violence is not the answer. (either that or you are a crusading knight stick up the arse palladin)

Seharvepernfan
2012-01-03, 07:02 AM
You could make an argument that alignments are disorders.

Anyway, it's not the act of killing that's evil, it's who you kill and why.
edit: (and sometimes how)

Mastikator
2012-01-03, 07:32 AM
your thesis only (barely) works in dnd cliches.
None of my pcs have ever fitted in this description. I flesh them with motivations and a ( i think) consistent moral compass.

Ditto.

Well, actually I've played explicitly evil characters but then I did do some research on psychopathic and sociopathic behavior.

GnomeFighter
2012-01-03, 07:42 AM
I know it's kind of a trope, adventurers run about solving/creating problems with huge, logical holes in their morality. You can't kill people it's wrong, but greenskins aren't people, so have at it. You can't rob people but it's okay to kill that dragon & repurpose it's horde... etc. It seems like, at best, adventurers are sociopaths, & many have worse problems like megalomania, & such. So I got to thinking, do you, the playground, think that a game could be played in which instead of choosing an alignment you chose two or three disorders & used them like one uses alignments? (Instead of Protection vs Evil; Protection vs Pychopath, etc)


I would disagree with the premis. Adventurers kill evil humans & bandits just as much as they kill greenskins, and the orks and goblins being killed are always threatening someone, unless you DM is, well, lazy. And Dragons? Only evil ones who kill and steal. I have never played a good PC who has attacked a good dragon.

As for choseing two or three disorders, there are games that do have this, as mentioned. However, I personaly find them inappropriate and insensative.

zegram 33
2012-01-03, 07:57 AM
see, to me, being a good or evil aligned character is more to do with your approach before the fight. a good character will try and avoid the fight and reduce casualties if possible, an evil one will rock on in and murder em all (although some "good" players tnd to do this too).
a lawful character will try and reason with them first, for example, whereas a chaotic one might attack from cover or anything like that.

obviously depending on how strongly aligned they are, theres variance here, but to me, those are the general approaches each alignment has, not "well he killed orcs rather than people so he MUST be a good guy"

kamikasei
2012-01-03, 09:11 AM
Mental health is a topic that deserves respectful handling in a game, and that takes both care and nuance. Trying to base an alignment-like system on it is a great way to wreck that.

Tzevash
2012-01-03, 09:18 AM
You could make an argument that alignments are disorders.

Anyway, it's not the act of killing that's evil, it's who you kill and why.
edit: (and sometimes how)

This. Also: it matters if you can avoid killing your foe to solve a problem, but you do it anyway. A good character never chooses "death" as first solution, when he can, and gives (when possible) a chance to surrender.

Dimers
2012-01-03, 09:53 AM
a game could be played in which instead of choosing an alignment you chose two or three disorders & used them like one uses alignments? (Instead of Protection vs Evil; Protection vs Pychopath, etc)

If you're proposing this as snide humor, I'm totally with ya. I'd even enjoy playing a campaign with it. Though there should be some flexibility of choice, maybe "retraining" for disorders, because they often come about during play. People won't generally know which ways their characters are screwed up until a few sessions in.

If you're proposing it seriously as a useful replacement ... nah, no thanks. Too many problems to go along with such a change.

Anderlith
2012-01-03, 11:14 AM
your thesis only (barely) works in dnd cliches.
None of my pcs have ever fitted in this description. I flesh them with motivations and a ( i think) consistent moral compass.

I'm not saying that characters with personality disorders shouldn't be played like normal characters. A full fleshed out character probably has a personality disorder & you just don't know that you made it. There is such a thing as a "Principled Sociopath" a person who, doesn't not feel empathy or have a conscience in the traditional sense yet follows a moral code. This is very similar to how Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral & is played. Just because someone has a personality disorder doesn't mean they are evil, their are personality disorders that cause you to act benevolently. Superheroes are very similar to adventuring heroes yet look how messed up Batman is, or look at how Tony Stark acts.

You would be surprised how many people have issues. Every important historical person in the world had one or two personality disorders. Lincoln had depression, Teddy Roosevelt had an inferiority complex which caused him to become superior to compensate. A huge percentage of sociopaths are in positions of power, it is where they gravitate naturally.

Tengu_temp
2012-01-03, 11:26 AM
your thesis only (barely) works in dnd cliches.
None of my pcs have ever fitted in this description. I flesh them with motivations and a ( i think) consistent moral compass.

This so much. I never played a character whose modus operandi is "walk around, kill creatures and take their stuff". If one of my characters enters a goblin lair, they do it for a reason consistent with their personality, not because they just decided to go adventuring and this was the closest dungeon available.

Jay R
2012-01-03, 11:36 AM
I have little interest in a D&D game in which PCs slay non-evil creatures or sentient creatures that aren't causing harm. The goal is to play the hero. I don't want to pretend to be Lex Luthor; I want to pretend to be Superman. In the current game, we have killed animals to help feed a colony, killed people who attacked us, destroyed slavers, and defeated the army that rose up against the rightful king. We've taken their money, but looting a battlefield has been standard practice for millennia.

And we've fed orphans and rewarded peasants along the way.

My thief uses his talents against the evil, the corrupt, and the unjust. He has a strict policy that he will never steal from the poor. (Of course, that's because they have no money.)

Tebryn
2012-01-03, 11:49 AM
I'm not saying that characters with personality disorders shouldn't be played like normal characters. A full fleshed out character probably has a personality disorder & you just don't know that you made it. There is such a thing as a "Principled Sociopath" a person who, doesn't not feel empathy or have a conscience in the traditional sense yet follows a moral code. This is very similar to how Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral & is played. Just because someone has a personality disorder doesn't mean they are evil, their are personality disorders that cause you to act benevolently. Superheroes are very similar to adventuring heroes yet look how messed up Batman is, or look at how Tony Stark acts.

You would be surprised how many people have issues. Every important historical person in the world had one or two personality disorders. Lincoln had depression, Teddy Roosevelt had an inferiority complex which caused him to become superior to compensate. A huge percentage of sociopaths are in positions of power, it is where they gravitate naturally.

Arguments from Authority isn't really a good start for your idea here really. We know people have issues, people are complex. But really, trying to say that sociopaths and those with inferiority complexes are somehow similar is...a very bad road to go down. One isn't even a real mental diagnosis or a thing at all (sociopathy) and the other isn't a personality disorder at all. I think you need to study actual personality disorders or mental disorders before returning to this thesis. Also, it's a fairly...absurd assertion that -every- important historical figure had one or two anything without out a little proof.

boomwolf
2012-01-03, 01:42 PM
In a whole, it makes much more sense in the "FFA medieval war" sense, its not "ok" because they are "greenskins", its "ok" because the bastards want to do the same to you-and given the chance they will.

It more of a war state of mind then a law state of mind, yes yo have law, but they got another law and the two don't mix well.

Socratov
2012-01-03, 02:21 PM
In a whole, it makes much more sense in the "FFA medieval war" sense, its not "ok" because they are "greenskins", its "ok" because the bastards want to do the same to you-and given the chance they will.

It more of a war state of mind then a law state of mind, yes yo have law, but they got another law and the two don't mix well.

you mean, the law of survival of the fittest prevailing over social law :smallyuk:

The problem with replacing the alignment system with mental disorders. yes PC's are in their world 'special' people, though not in that sense.

think of it the other way around: how would you play certain mental disorders without having experienced them? is there a 'proper' way to play a certain mental disorder? if there is, who is to decide that? the player? the DM? wikipedia? some book by Freud? Look some of these mental illneses up and you will see a list of symtoms. Pls note all those lists start with "A person suffering from [insert mental illness], usually exhibits some of the following symtoms: [list of symtoms]" (bolded and underlined for emphasis). Some of those symtoms would be rather easy to roleplay as it deals with a certain pattern of making choices (especially when you can turn that up to 11), for example: the serial killer will exhibit the pattern of killing is a certain ritualistic way, perhaps using some set of maneuvers in a particular way, in a particular order. other symtoms will be harder to roleplay, for instance: if you are by nature a happy person, it will be extremely hard for you to exactly roleplay a depressive person, this goes doubly so for manic-depressive characters. it is quite a different thing to have people select a mental disorder as a flaw (see dandwiki) since it will present a certain ruleset/set of choices/bonus and/or penalties in a certain way. If you however want to go ahead and use mental illnesses as the alignment system, (actually the full basis for making choices in character), you will only make roleplaying that much harder, and I doubt you want to do that...

Tebryn
2012-01-03, 02:47 PM
So you're saying it's difficult for people to role play things they aren't themselves? I disagree with that on a fundamental level.

Jay R
2012-01-03, 03:18 PM
So you're saying it's difficult for people to role play things they aren't themselves? I disagree with that on a fundamental level.

I disagree on a fundamental level with the assertion that anybody said that. What he said is that it's difficult for people to play certain mental disorders without having knowledge of that mental disorder. This is akin to saying that it's difficult to play a liar if you don't know what lies are.

We have lots of direct experience with many kinds of people. But very few of us have any direct experience with anyone with a strong mental disorder, and most people have a lot of misinformation about them.

boomwolf
2012-01-03, 04:06 PM
you mean, the law of survival of the fittest prevailing over social law :smallyuk:


Social law? what social law?
King A's social law? or king B's? or maybe king C's? or that tribe of lizardfolk's laws? celestial law? infernal law? that other lizardfolk tribe's law? and we god King D as well! and some goblins, a tribe of nomad orcs, a kenku murder, and the list goes on and on. the average dnd setting has over 100 factions with their own law system, and for most its "guildlines" that stand for smaller factions that make them (for example one of the main factions are the goblins, they you got dozens of goblin tribes, each with his own variation)

Social law does not function the same when there is no metagroup
Even in the modern world, some thing are considered crime punishable by death in one place-and in another its not even a crime. and we got globalization we actually KNOW what the hell is going on around the world and what law is supported by who-and we STILL can't decide on a single law we all accept.

Socratov
2012-01-03, 04:27 PM
Social law? what social law?
King A's social law? or king B's? or maybe king C's? or that tribe of lizardfolk's laws? celestial law? infernal law? that other lizardfolk tribe's law? and we god King D as well! and some goblins, a tribe of nomad orcs, a kenku murder, and the list goes on and on. the average dnd setting has over 100 factions with their own law system, and for most its "guildlines" that stand for smaller factions that make them (for example one of the main factions are the goblins, they you got dozens of goblin tribes, each with his own variation)

Social law does not function the same when there is no metagroup
Even in the modern world, some thing are considered crime punishable by death in one place-and in another its not even a crime. and we got globalization we actually KNOW what the hell is going on around the world and what law is supported by who-and we STILL can't decide on a single law we all accept.

In any RPG you will (eventually) enter a a town/city/of some sorts. let's call that a community. This community has certain customs, social behavior and laws which are more or less established from a social point of view. I call those laws from a social prespective, or in short: Social law

so to make use of your example: they are all examples of social law in the part where those kings or tribes reign.

obviously, when social law doesn't protect it's subjects anymore, a whole other law si raised: when done on purpose we call it martial law (in which the militairy protects us), in case of anarchy it's the law of survival of the fittest (in which you protect yourself, and your interests)
ok? :smallamused:

@tebryn: Jay R allready said pretty much what I meant, and yes, that is exactly what I meant on the mental disorder argument, From the current alignment perspective, we have a certain idea (from folklore, fairy tales, etc.) to have a pretty good idea of good and evil.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-01-03, 05:31 PM
Or how about just keeping the alignment system (screwed up or not, but that's another debate) and let people justify their characters actions and choices in any way they see fit. If your character has been raised from an early age to think of those "greenskins" as inferior and vermin it's gonna take a lot before they change their minds, it's racist yes but that's what he's been taught. Another one might have <insert mental disorder here> that cause him to <insert odd behavior here>, a third one might be a perfectly normal, well-balanced person who really doesn't have a choice in the matter and so on and so forth.

In short, why would you want to replace one broken system with one even more broken system that would not only be broken but even more restrictive for the players, make even less sense mechanically (you don't have to be evil to be an assassin anymore, you have to have one of the following mental disorders: <insert long, odd, partly irrelevant list here>) and on top of it it would be highly disrespectful towards the people who actual do have mental disorders.

Incorporate it if you wish, but let your players decide if their characters have any issues or not.

Tengu_temp
2012-01-03, 06:53 PM
By the way, most RPGs don't use an alignment system, much less have spells and abilities that are affected by it. If this is a DND 3e thread than it should go to the DND 3e forum.

Anderlith
2012-01-03, 08:24 PM
This is only a thought experiment, I thought it might be an interesting idea. I was just wondering whether the playground thought it was an interesting idea.

Do not view this thought experiment to be used as a basis for running an "evil" campaign. A paladin could have a hero complex, or be overly empathetic. A fighter could be manic depressive & so he takes out his inner demons by fighting real ones.

Most important people have personality flaws & behavioral disorders. They have something that makes them stand out above the crowd. Winston Churchill had a stuttering problem. Because of this stuttering problem he didn't want to be seen as an idiot, so he prepared everything he said in advance, his flaw made him think of every single sentence he ever said in advance. Just saying "Hello" or a qip or a joke was meticulously thought over a hundred times before he thought to prepare it to be said. Well rounded, ordinary people do not stand out because they are well rounded & ordinary.

Again I will point out superheroes as a parallel for adventurers. Adventurers adventure because they felt that being a carpenter or a farmer didn't suit them. A well rounded person would not fight crime in a bat suit like Bruce Wayne because of a tragedy. He fights crime because he's not a well rounded person.

Skelengar
2012-01-03, 08:49 PM
This is only a thought experiment, I thought it might be an interesting idea. I was just wondering whether the playground thought it was an interesting idea.

Do not view this thought experiment to be used as a basis for running an "evil" campaign. A paladin could have a hero complex, or be overly empathetic. A fighter could be manic depressive & so he takes out his inner demons by fighting real ones.

Most important people have personality flaws & behavioral disorders. They have something that makes them stand out above the crowd. Winston Churchill had a stuttering problem. Because of this stuttering problem he didn't want to be seen as an idiot, so he prepared everything he said in advance, his flaw made him think of every single sentence he ever said in advance. Just saying "Hello" or a qip or a joke was meticulously thought over a hundred times before he thought to prepare it to be said. Well rounded, ordinary people do not stand out because they are well rounded & ordinary.

Again I will point out superheroes as a parallel for adventurers. Adventurers adventure because they felt that being a carpenter or a farmer didn't suit them. A well rounded person would not fight crime in a bat suit like Bruce Wayne because of a tragedy. He fights crime because he's not a well rounded person.


The issue with your thought experiment is that you don't seem to understand the difference between a personality disorder and a personality flaw. Yes, a paladin could have a hero complex. However, that is not a personality disorder, it's simply a character flaw. The same goes for stuttering.

Should characters have flaws? Yes. Does this mean that they need to have diagnosable disorders? No. Woud replacing the alignment system with mental disorders would be anything other than offensive and restrictive? No.

In short, before conducting this thought experiment, take an Abnormal Psychology class.

Fiery Diamond
2012-01-03, 09:06 PM
So you're saying it's difficult for people to role play things they aren't themselves? I disagree with that on a fundamental level.

Not sure why you disagree on a "fundamental level." I'd say that yeah, that's inaccurate, because:


I disagree on a fundamental level with the assertion that anybody said that. What he said is that it's difficult for people to play certain mental disorders without having knowledge of that mental disorder. This is akin to saying that it's difficult to play a liar if you don't know what lies are.

We have lots of direct experience with many kinds of people. But very few of us have any direct experience with anyone with a strong mental disorder, and most people have a lot of misinformation about them.

But I'd also add that it's difficult to role play things with which they have no experience, not just no knowledge. Having textbook understanding of something that is utterly alien to you personally is not going to magically make you able to role play that thing easily. But neither do you need to be that thing, you simply need to make it a little less alien to you through experience, whether that be interacting with someone who is that thing or something similar.


This is only a thought experiment, I thought it might be an interesting idea. I was just wondering whether the playground thought it was an interesting idea.

Do not view this thought experiment to be used as a basis for running an "evil" campaign. A paladin could have a hero complex, or be overly empathetic. A fighter could be manic depressive & so he takes out his inner demons by fighting real ones.

Most important people have personality flaws & behavioral disorders. They have something that makes them stand out above the crowd. Winston Churchill had a stuttering problem. Because of this stuttering problem he didn't want to be seen as an idiot, so he prepared everything he said in advance, his flaw made him think of every single sentence he ever said in advance. Just saying "Hello" or a qip or a joke was meticulously thought over a hundred times before he thought to prepare it to be said. Well rounded, ordinary people do not stand out because they are well rounded & ordinary.

Again I will point out superheroes as a parallel for adventurers. Adventurers adventure because they felt that being a carpenter or a farmer didn't suit them. A well rounded person would not fight crime in a bat suit like Bruce Wayne because of a tragedy. He fights crime because he's not a well rounded person.

This shows forth an additional problem, closely related to the risk (that has near 100% certainty) of being insulting or offensive to people with certain disorders: what qualifies as a disorder? Who gets to be the judge of that? What counts as "normal" rather than a "disorder"? I think it's been well established that "normal" is a nonexistent illusion. "Well-rounded," similarly, doesn't actually have a concrete meaning. Why is a guy who farms for his family somehow more "well-rounded" than a guy who impulsively feels the need to go out and protect innocents from muggers? I think you understand what I'm saying.

Doorhandle
2012-01-04, 12:07 AM
Adventurers are people with mental disorders

Tell us something we don't know. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2003/05/31/episode-289-a-change-of-heart/)