Sociopathy in Order of the Stick

[Beacon80]

I was meeting with my writing group, and we were discussing sociopathy and how it relates to developing villains. And I kept thinking of Order of the Stick.

First, I though about Tarquin and Nale. I'm not sure Tarquin qualifies 100% as a sociopath*, but he's certainly got a lot of sociopathic tendencies. Well, children of sociopaths are much more likely to develop narcissistic tendencies, which definitely describes Nale.

* I think it really comes down to how much he actually loves his sons, but I'd rather leave that can of worms unopened right now.

We also discussed how sociopathic children often torment animals, which lines up nicely with Xykon's childhood in Start of Darkness. I think in some ways, Xykon shows what a sociopath might be if they were strong enough that they didn't have to pretend to be normal.

Finally, we have Belkar. In terms of -paths, he's more psycho than socio, at least at the beginning. Shojo's advice to him, in some ways, boils down to "stop being a psychopath and start being a sociopath". In practice, though, we've seen Belkar's actually started empathizing with people now, even if only in limited degrees.

[NerdyKris]

We also discussed how sociopathic children often torment animals, which lines up nicely with Xykon's childhood in Start of Darkness. I think in some ways, Xykon shows what a sociopath might be if they were strong enough that they didn't have to pretend to be normal.

Xykon doesn't really torment his dog, though. It was already dead when the story begins. He accidentally zombifies it. The zombie dog then eats a bird, and he thinks it's "cool". That's not really "tormenting". The bird didn't suffer. It wasn't killed for no reason. The dog ate it. Dogs will eat small animals normally.

[Beacon80]

Yeah, like Tarquin, Xykon doesn't fall 100% into sociopathy, since he actually cared about the dog in the first place, where a true sociopath wouldn't have.
Feeding more birds to the dog does count as tormenting* the birds, though.

* Unless "torment" doesn't apply in fatal cases, in which case I apologize for using the wrong word. The example of the behavior I was told about involved blowing up frogs.

[SavageWombat]

Nah, Xykon would torture animals if it weren't so much work. Killing paladins is faster.

[Mike Havran]

Nah, Xykon would torture animals if it weren't so much work. Killing paladins is faster.

Locking the poor rabid dire wallabies into a cage with O-Chul certainly qualifies as a torture

[hamishspence]

Xykon doesn't really torment his dog, though. It was already dead when the story begins. He accidentally zombifies it. The zombie dog then eats a bird, and he thinks it's "cool". That's not really "tormenting". The bird didn't suffer. It wasn't killed for no reason. The dog ate it. Dogs will eat small animals normally.

"Lets go find more birds!" is his immediate response.

I vaguely remember seeing the theory that the reason the dog was dead was that he killed it and then felt a few moments remorse and started crying.

[Porthos]

"Lets go find more birds!" is his immediate response.

I vaguely remember seeing the theory that the reason the dog was dead was that he killed it and then felt a few moments remorse and started crying.

I've entertained the thought now and again. In fact, I was just about to mention it before you brought it up.

[NerdyKris]

"Lets go find more birds!" is his immediate response.

True, but really not a sociopath response. A lot of people will feed mice to their pet snake, for instance. Or fish to a larger fish. Or watch nature shows. That's not sociopathy.

I vaguely remember seeing the theory that the reason the dog was dead was that he killed it and then felt a few moments remorse and started crying.

A theory with literally nothing backing it up. The very first panel in the comic has him crying over the dead dog. There is absolutely nothing indicating he killed it, and certainly nothing saying he did it on purpose.

My biggest issue here is a lot of people whip out that "Sociopaths torture animals!" statistic at a moments notice, with no regard for the circumstances. For starters, they need to understand that the animal is in pain and deriving enjoyment from it. Simply accidentally killing an animal because you don't realize you're hurting it does not make you a sociopath. It makes you a young child that needs to be taught how to handle animals. I saw people pulling this line out when a kid simply handled an animal too roughly and breaks it's spine. The kid didn't mean to do it. He simply applied too much force on the animal in an instant (trying to put a cat in a box) and something awful happened. But no, now people are shouting "He'll grow up to be a sociopath!" when he was absolutely distraught over the outcome.

Even if young Xykon killed the dog by accident with his abilities, there's no indication that he enjoyed it and then felt remorse. We only have evidence that he was crying over his dead puppy.

[hamishspence]

True- it may be a case of applying a "hindsight" interpretation, based on Xykon's later acts as a teenager.

[Beacon80]

Given that he's visibly upset by the dog's death, I think it's unlikely that he intentionally killed it himself.
Feeding birds to it afterwards is the warning flag behavior here. He knows this is killing the birds, but still thinks it's cool.

Also something to keep in mind that displaying a warning sign for a disorder is not the same thing as having the disorder.

[Irenaeus]

I don't think the "Xykon is a sociopath" faction really need the "tortures animals" card when we're talking about a kid that killed his parents, apparently just on a whim.

That's kind of more than just a warning sign.

[dancrilis]

we're talking about a kid that killed his parents, apparently just on a whim.

Well they did let a creepy old man into his room.

[KillianHawkeye]

Finally, we have Belkar. In terms of -paths, he's more psycho than socio, at least at the beginning. Shojo's advice to him, in some ways, boils down to "stop being a psychopath and start being a sociopath". In practice, though, we've seen Belkar's actually started empathizing with people now, even if only in limited degrees.

Hey. You might be interested in knowing that psychopathy and sociopathy are two words for the same condition.

[Giggling Ghast]

Well they did let a creepy old man into his room.

He made his zombie servants eat them. The punishment does not fit the crime.

[Darakonis]

Hey. You might be interested in knowing that psychopathy and sociopathy are two words for the same condition.

I was going to bring this up. The prefix "psycho" is generally used if it is believed that the individual was born with the condition (ie chemical imbalance, "evil gene," or whatever you want to call it), whereas "socio" is generally used if it is believed that his upbringing and environment made him that way.

[hamishspence]

That said, there may be a tendency for people who blame different causes for the same general traits, to use different terms.

"environment" tends to be the cause favoured by those who use the term "sociopathy".

"physiology" tends to be the cause favoured by those who use the term "psychopathy".

At least, that's the impression I get when I look up the terms.

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[KillianHawkeye]

I was going to bring this up. The prefix "psycho" is generally used if it is believed that the individual was born with the condition (ie chemical imbalance, "evil gene," or whatever you want to call it), whereas "socio" is generally used if it is believed that his upbringing and environment made him that way.

I know, but either way the condition is the same. You cannot "stop being a psychopath and start being a sociopath" or be "more psycho than socio" as the OP described.

It's like blindness. It doesn't matter if I was born blind or if I shot lasers into my eyes during childhood, the condition is the same.

[Maur]

It doesnt fit Tarquin at all, though. He is not impulsive, for example.

Belkar, otoh...

[hamishspence]

I know, but either way the condition is the same. You cannot "stop being a psychopath and start being a sociopath" or be "more psycho than socio" as the OP described.

Maybe in this case, "sociopathy" was being used as a "high-functioning" variant- the kind of person who's very good at "faking it in order to get along in society" - so to speak.

[Beacon80]

I read an article contrasting the difference between the two, but looking around a bit more, it seems there's a lot of debate over what the distinction is, and even which is which. So, sorry about that. In the future, I'll stick with the term "High functioning."

[veti]

True, but really not a sociopath response. A lot of people will feed mice to their pet snake, for instance. Or fish to a larger fish. Or watch nature shows. That's not sociopathy.

Do zombies need food? If not, then he's just killing the birds for fun. I think if someone force-feeds mice to their pet snake even if it's just eaten and obviously not hungry, I would consider that a biiig red flag.

[KillianHawkeye]

Do zombies need food? If not, then he's just killing the birds for fun. I think if someone force-feeds mice to their pet snake even if it's just eaten and obviously not hungry, I would consider that a biiig red flag.

Zombies don't NEED food, but most pop culture versions have an intense craving for it. In D&D, that is better represented by ghouls than by zombies, but the Giant writes as much (or more) to pop culture than he does to the smaller D&D audience.

My impression of that page was that eating birds is what zombie dog's primitive undead instincts told it to do, and young proto-Xykon was simply enjoying it as entertainment.

[hamishspence]

It went straight for the brain, rather than eating the whole bird. Fits with zombies in OoTS always repeating the word "brains".

[tomandtish]

Do zombies need food? If not, then he's just killing the birds for fun. I think if someone force-feeds mice to their pet snake even if it's just eaten and obviously not hungry, I would consider that a biiig red flag.

Of course, given that this is the first time he's raised anything, does he understand that zombies don't need food? We're given too short a shot to see if he makes the dog eat when it doesn't want to.

"My dog was dead. Now he's alive again and wants to eat birds. And he looks cool doing it. Let's go get more birds".

I worked at a kid's Science museum in Tyler once, and we had an exhibit there for a while with rattlesnakes. Feeding the rattlesnakes live mice was always the coolest part of the day (on days it happened) and drew the most attention from our crowds. So some of this is normal to various degrees in many people. Xykon obviously takes it much further as time goes on.

Cleaning the cages (OTOH) was a real pain.

[WoLong]

'Sociopathy' does not exist as a disorder, so none of them are at all sociopaths.

If you mean disorders that feature antisocial behavior, probably all of the main villians in OotS have characteristics. Tarquin and Belkar most resemble dissocial personality disorder, while Xykon seems closer to Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder. Belkar lacks the degree of manipulativeness/deception found in most Psychopaths, but hilariously caricaturizes the impulsivity/proness to boredom. Tarquin is deceptive, callous, manipulative, and has the characteristic high ego, but is not parasitic and has no trouble following long-term plans. Xykon is an undeniable psychopath, he displays all the characteristics, and has had a history of them since childhood.

[KillianHawkeye]

'Sociopathy' does not exist as a disorder, so none of them are at all sociopaths.

If you mean disorders that feature antisocial behavior, probably all of the main villians in OotS have characteristics. Tarquin and Belkar most resemble dissocial personality disorder, while Xykon seems closer to Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder. Belkar lacks the degree of manipulativeness/deception found in most Psychopaths, but hilariously caricaturizes the impulsivity/proness to boredom. Tarquin is deceptive, callous, manipulative, and has the characteristic high ego, but is not parasitic and has no trouble following long-term plans. Xykon is an undeniable psychopath, he displays all the characteristics, and has had a history of them since childhood.

You can't say that sociopathy does not exist and then call out Xykon as an example of a psychopath, because (as mentioned earlier) they are the same thing.

[Harbinger]

Sociopathy, as I understand it, is the inability to feel empathy for those you aren't close to. Belkar, Nale, and Tarquin all fit that to a T. Xykon, on the other hand, is a psychopath, meaning he in imnapable of feeling empathy, having never shown empathy for a single living thing (well, other than a dog in one panel, but I'm willing to let that slide because he was four and he's never cared about anyone else but himself since).

[Lombard]

Sociopathy, as I understand it, is the inability to feel empathy for those you aren't close to. Belkar, Nale, and Tarquin all fit that to a T.

Belkar did though, for example, feel empathy towards the T-Rex when it was imprisoned. I'm no expert about how this relates to the definition of sociopathy, just felt like pointing it out.

[hamishspence]

The definition in an OoTS D&D context may be different from the definition in a real-world context.

From Don't Split the Party, I believe the commentary said something along the lines of:

"Belkar is pretty much a sociopath, as he has no regard for the right of others to exist."

[WoLong]

You can't say that sociopathy does not exist and then call out Xykon as an example of a psychopath, because (as mentioned earlier) they are the same thing.

Sociopathy is used as a synonym for psychopathy, but it also used as a synonym for any personality disorder that features anti-social behavior. People with antisocial personality disorder are referred to as sociopaths as well, so the word is sloppy and misleading. In a clinical context, 'psychopathy' is preferred.