Sociopathy in Order of the Stick

[Arcite]

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.

I do not believe Belkar *can* empathize with other people.

I believe he is indeed a psychopath and his behavior is a charade. It matches perfectly with "the mask of sanity". Psychopaths cannot care about other people or understand non-negative emotions. Unsuccessful ones eventually get imprisoned by society because of this.

But successful psychopaths learn to fake it. They learn to develop a mask that imitates a non-psychopath, even though they never really understand what they are faking. Belkar is explicitly doing exactly this, playing a game so he can survive as a psychopath.

Psychopaths do not "get better". Don't ever try to imagine that. All you can do is get away from them. All Belkar has done is learned to wear a mask, whereas before he did not bother.

Great, quick read about psychopaths is here! Worth checking out!
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/

Wiki about the "Mask of Sanity" is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask_of_Sanity

[nocker]

"Evil" in D&D is all about not giving importance to other people's lives and dignity. Anybody with an <Whatever> Evil alignment being in D&D would show symptoms of what we call socio or pyschopathy. You need to be at least <Whatever> Neutral to consider something that other people are entitled to keep existing, even when they bother you (and for the sake of completion, people of <Whatever> Good alignment make personal sacrifices to ensure the Natural Rights of other people).

Tarquin or Xykon don't kill everybody that displeases them at once because convenience or ulterior motives (Tarquin because he wants to be respected as a leader, Xykon because he finds hilarious when other beings live in terror of what he can do). Less powerful Evil people like Belkar or Crystal refrain from "killing all the idiots" for self-preservation reasons. And even less powerful Evil people can stay their whole lives without committing a crime because they don't think they can get away with it.

To make things more complicated in D&D, there are Evil Gods that are as real as the Good Gods. Erythnul is not a demon in disguise, he's actually a peer to Lathander, Pelor and co. (for OotS, substitute him for Nergal). So sociopathic behavior like mass murders can be divinely inspired and rewarded. Of course, Evil people are rewarded by going to an afterlife full of other Evil people and they enter it from the bottom, which is an objectively worse fate than the good option, but this is as far as "eternal punishment" looks like in D&D.

[jidasfire]

I don't know if I agree that all evil characters are by nature sociopathic. In particular, Redcloak is evil but I don't see it as a mental disturbance at all. He's someone who simply traded his idealism for cowardice, bitterness, and expediency through years of compromises and mistakes.

Nale and Tarquin are also not quite sociopathic, as they are capable of caring about others (Tarquin valuing family and allies, Nale valuing love and friendship). Of course, they do both fit the profile for extreme narcissism and megalomania, so their ability to care for others only goes so far. I'm not sure I can diagnose Tsukiko, but she doesn't seem sociopathic either. Perhaps some extreme level of delusions.

Xykon is obviously a sociopath, and Belkar probably is too, except that he seems to be growing a tiny bit of empathy, which as stated is impossible for such people, so perhaps he is something else. It would take more development to see if he is capable of such a change and if so to what degree.

[nocker]

I don't know if I agree that all evil characters are by nature sociopathic. In particular, Redcloak is evil but I don't see it as a mental disturbance at all. He's someone who simply traded his idealism for cowardice, bitterness, and expediency through years of compromises and mistakes.

Nale and Tarquin are also not quite sociopathic, as they are capable of caring about others (Tarquin valuing family and allies, Nale valuing love and friendship). Of course, they do both fit the profile for extreme narcissism and megalomania, so their ability to care for others only goes so far. I'm not sure I can diagnose Tsukiko, but she doesn't seem sociopathic either. Perhaps some extreme level of delusions.

Xykon is obviously a sociopath, and Belkar probably is too, except that he seems to be growing a tiny bit of empathy, which as stated is impossible for such people, so perhaps he is something else. It would take more development to see if he is capable of such a change and if so to what degree.

Redcloak, pretty much as Malack, can sign an order for the execution of thousands of innocent people without any sign of remorse. That he doesn't derive personal pleasure from that is pretty much irrelevant to the people who die and for his classification as somebody with psychopathic tendencies.

Some people are Evil and ascetic, (as opposed to Evil and hedonistic). I'm pretty sure you can remember some RL people like this.

[hamishspence]

I do not believe Belkar *can* empathize with other people.

He's capable of empathising with Mr Scruffy, and, he's growing to see others through the same "lens" so to speak:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html

[jidasfire]

Redcloak, pretty much as Malack, can sign an order for the execution of thousands of innocent people without any sign of remorse. That he doesn't derive personal pleasure from that is pretty much irrelevant to the people who die and for his classification as somebody with psychopathic tendencies.

Some people are Evil and ascetic, (as opposed to Evil and hedonistic). I'm pretty sure you can remember some RL people like this.

Evil, sure, never said he wasn't. But full on psychopathic no, as he does care about some things outside himself and has a shriveled but existent sense of compassion and empathy for some beings. Perhaps I was hasty in calling him fully sane, but he and Malack are both religious/political zealots, which tends to twist the morals of some people. Since they're both perfectly sincere and not just using these beliefs as a smokescreen for a love of hurting others, I'd say they're still not sociopathic.

[Nilan8888]

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.

This is most probably correct.

Tarquin is simply too disciplined in a highly-changing environment to be a proper sociopath. He ALSO has valid curiosities and 'hobbies' -- that of bardic drama. Although Narcissists can tend to be big on drama, Psychopaths tend to not require it, plus Tarquin seems to understand the ins and outs of his said hobby(ies) to a degree that would be beyond most narcissists. They're just not as interested in the world around them as Tarquin is. They'd want you to think they were, but they're not.

Narcissists and Psychopaths, you see, don't HAVE hobbies. They don't HAVE curiosities and interests. All that is a facade. They're only interested in what stimulates them. In the case of narcissists, that's 'narcissistic supply'. In the case of psychopaths, it's entertainment. And mere hobbies -- things that don't have instant gratification -- don't stimulate them. It's hard enough for them to maintain interest enough to get a high-paying job (and they probably wouldn't even get THOSE unless they come from a social strata that values it).

Keep in mind as well that in common terms, there might actually be no difference in the terms 'psychopath' and 'sociopath'. There's an effort, I think, to try and make 'sociopath' distinct, but it's veering into describing the more survivalist-type isolationists, and if that's the route it goes it really will no longer bear resemblance to these sorts of discussions (not in this forum, I mean in the wider world).

Xykon is a proper psychopath, but he's of the rarer type that has a high degree of sadism. To be sadistic is a separate thing from being a psychopath or narcissist, but people think it follows from on to the other. All these conditions really describe is an emotional state where empathy is lacking to non-existent. This does NOT therefore mean that a psychopath seeks the deaths of others for their entertainment. It merely means that they would lack an emotional, empathetic response from that demise. It's does not mean that they automatically get enjoyment from the demise either.


Consider it like this: a sadistic person with empathy can hold innocence in high regard and be very sensitive and warm to their friends. But when crossed -- to whatever degree that might take -- said person would be absolutely merciless in retribution and take joy in giving no mercy to a person they thought was receiving just deserts.

A psychopath without empathy and high sadism, is Xykon.

A psychopath with empathy and low sadism... I don't know if there's an equivalent example in this comic, but it would essentially be someone watching the death of their 'best friend' and having no emotional reaction, even if they were actively helping that friend get out of their situation. They help their 'friends' because maybe its advantageous to them, and they don't hurt them for the same reasons. Without sadism, these people aren't out for blood. But they're not going to have any real reaction to the death of that person, and would have double-crossed them if it became advantageous.

[hamishspence]

Thing is, strong empathy and strong psychopathy don't really go together.

As much as Belkar's faking "being a team player" - his empathy is, slowly, growing.

[F.Harr]

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

It's also more fun.

[Nilan8888]

Thing is, strong empathy and strong psychopathy don't really go together.

As much as Belkar's faking "being a team player" - his empathy is, slowly, growing.

Right, which would pre-clude him from being a psychopath, which would imply that this is impossible. I suppose Rich might say this is all fictional anyhow and to not get too hung-up on modern psychoanalysis of the characters, BUT... if we WERE to get thusly hung-up... then Belkar would not rise to the level of a psychopath.

He is, however, a total sadist.

You could, I suppose (as some have here), say that Belkar's foil is similar to how a psychopath mimics regular people, but I really only think that it's a surface comparison. Interesting to note, but not really the same thing. Belkar is much more blase about his role and doesn't take his self-image all that seriously, which narcissists definitely do, and psychopaths at least have some tendency in that area as well.

My thinking is that Belkar's empathy is more severely repressed than non-present. Frankly, V might have had similar issues.

[hamishspence]

There may be an element of grey-area in the OoTS-verse- characters with (virtually) no empathy, being able to develop some.

One might argue that in real life, there's no such thing as an "ex-sociopath" - but this may not apply in the world of OoTS.

[Nilan8888]

Sure.

I think it just plain comes down to that having a straight-up psychopath in the position of a protagonist or part of a team of protagonists just doesn't work in fiction. The audience will just start to reject the work, or it's going to start looking REALLY messed up.

Belkar, I don't think, CAN be a straight up psychopath because we'd just plain be looking for him to die, no matter how funny he is. After all, a true psychopath would probably have either left or betrayed the OOTS by now. Maybe it wasn't true at the beginning, but I think there's a strong possibility SOME sort of un-admitted affection has crept into Belkar. Some of the nastier things he says just don't seem to be on the level, and frankly haven't for some time. When he met up with Buggy Lou, WHY didn't he hook up with him again? I mean, he'd already made the decision not to before Mr. Scruffy got threatened. WHY did he not betray the resistance in Azure City? Because he thought it'd be more fun to throw a cat in her face? Really? Why isn't it just as much fun to throw a cat in Haley's face and betray them all?

In-story, there's explanations for each of these. Outside of the story though, the answer is clear: if we want Belkar to keep staying on in the story, we can only take him so far. Play him straight-up sadistic psychopath and, at the VERY least, his goals are going to diverge pretty quickly to the point of it being impossible to suspend disbelief that he's still around.

If I'm allowed, it's the overall same reason why I don't think Dexter Morgan is actually a psychopath either. He fits the 'serial killer' mold even easier than Belkar, who is more like an overactive frat boy in persona, but if you start looking at the details there's no way he can qualify, and there's no way they could have kept the show going if he did. Dexter sacrifices for those he cares for and actually only schemes and plots to keep his fetish going: he doesn't do it to sucker punch or screw over his fellow colleagues for petty advantage. If he did that, he'd be the true-and-true definition... and we'd have no show. People would have been calling for his head by the 4th episode.

It's not that you can't have psychopaths in fiction. It's that you can't stay with them for very long without the narrative itself turning into something twisted... like 'Natural Born Killers' or 'American Psycho' or something. Those were narratives more suited to actual psychopathic 'protagonists'. And as much as OOTS isn't ANYTHING like 'Dexter', it's at least closer to 'Dexter' than it is to those works, no matter how many galaxies removed it is.

[hamishspence]

"Sociopathic Tendencies" rather than "Pure Sociopath" may apply here- not everything fits into clear-cut categories, after all.

[Harbinger]

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.

Exactly, which is why's a sociopath and not a psychopath. He's perfectly capable of feeling empathy, he simply doesn't, normally. He developed a bond with Mr. Scruffy, he developed a bond with the dinosaur, and he felt empathy for Gannji and Enor by virtue of them reminding him of he and his cat. Xykon, if put in the same scenario, would have let the Allosaurus out, and then blasted Gannji and Enor out of the air.

[hamishspence]

The term "sociopath" is more of a layman's term than an official one though- referring to several disorders, as far as I've read.

[dancrilis]

He is, however, a total sadist.

Mr. Scruffy disagrees - a total sadist would not be able to keep a pet in the manner that Belkar does, Belkar has also never been shown to revel in others pain - he kills them clean. Sure he does like them to scream that is more aesthetic - he would not be the kind to torture someone for days unless they really annoyed him.

He is more of a trill killer - than a sadist.

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

Think of the news article tomorrow morning.
Parents let creepy old man into child's bedroom.
Child feeds parents to zombie.

I think most people would be on the side of the child here.

[Mike Havran]

Mr. Scruffy disagrees - a total sadist would not be able to keep a pet in the manner that Belkar does, Belkar has also never been shown to revel in others pain - he kills them clean. Sure he does like them to scream that is more aesthetic - he would not be the kind to torture someone for days unless they really annoyed him.

He is more of a trill killer - than a sadist.

Yukyuk would like to disagree.

Belkar doesn't usually torture his victims because his attention span is not long enough to keep them imprisoned - or alive.

[hamishspence]

From their perspective, he was a careers advisor- someone to help them deal with the issue that their kid has recently raised his grandmother as a zombie.

Even Xykon refers to it as "letting strange bald men into my room".

[dancrilis]

Yukyuk would like to disagree.

Yukyuk properly annoyed him.
And if we are calling Belkar a sadist for that better tag Vaarsuvius as one also.

Belkar doesn't usually torture his victims because his attention span is not long enough to keep them imprisoned - or alive.

He has plenty of opportunities to torture people - goblin ninja, Miko after he knocked her out, the guard that he killed to write a message, Buggy Lou, off the top of my head.

He doesn't do it.

Is he sadistic - yes at times, is he a total sadist? I say no.

Even Xykon refers to it as "letting strange bald men into my room".

Strange creepy what's the difference in this case.
Parents allow stranger into child's room - doesn't read much better.

[hamishspence]

"Parents allow headmaster of a School For Gifted Children into their child's room" on the other hand, reads better.

[Nilan8888]

Mr. Scruffy disagrees - a total sadist would not be able to keep a pet in the manner that Belkar does, Belkar has also never been shown to revel in others pain - he kills them clean. Sure he does like them to scream that is more aesthetic - he would not be the kind to torture someone for days unless they really annoyed him.

He is more of a trill killer - than a sadist.

He's not a sadist in the notion of slobbering over someone being tortured like it was a sexual kink -- Belkar would probably find that weird and gross. If anything the whole thing with Jenny showed he's a regular halfling as far as that's concerned.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't get enjoyment out of pain. Belkar goes more for the quick punchline, be it someone's death or smack to the head, but he DOES get a kick out of it the way someone watches stand-up comedy. That's still sadism.

Thank about the way people watch road-runner cartoons. The difference is that Belkar watches the road-runner and Wile E., but with real people suffering in real time. And he thinks it's hilarious.

[SavageWombat]

You know, that's a sociopath bit that Xykon hasn't really displayed but clearly has -

Xykon probably has the highest Charisma stat in the entire series. Just by rule necessity. We don't really see him manipulate people much because he's not clever enough - but he's probably really good at it.

[Arcite]

Wow there are some knowledgeable people on this thread. I learned from it, thank you!

Just my humble opinion, but I think Belkar's extreme popularity clouds the issue. Most people just can't not like the guy. After all, this is the same forum that argued strenuously that he wasn't evil.

I think his popularity and status as a main character leads to him getting redeemed.

In real life, people like that cannot be redeemed and cannot change. Don't ever believe you can do it; just get away.

But that's real life. In a story, popularity can probably "cure" psychopathy.

[sparkyinbozo]

The term "sociopath" is more of a layman's term than an official one though- referring to several disorders, as far as I've read.

I used to work in a felon treatment/rehab facility and I noticed a trend with these two terms. Neither is a diagnosable disorder as it is, but have been replaced by Antisocial Personality Disorder. Psychopath is often used to talk about the actively harmful symptoms (most of the ASP diagnosis) and sociopath is symbolic of the more functional symptoms commonly associated with them, like glibness or lack of remorse. Just my perspective.

[hamishspence]

In real life, people like that cannot be redeemed and cannot change. Don't ever believe you can do it; just get away.

But that's real life. In a story, popularity can probably "cure" psychopathy.

Psychiatric science is still very much in its infancy though.

Certainly laypeople should not try to cure others- but that doesn't mean that, with a lot of time and effort, the people at the top of the field are incapable of discovering a way.

In addition, it's not a "hard and fast" category- it's a large, fuzzy one with grey areas at the edges.

[dancrilis]

"Parents allow headmaster of a School For Gifted Children into their child's room" on the other hand, reads better.

"Parents allow headmaster of a School For Gifted Children into their child's room unsupervised" - this story is going nowhere good, you know that from the headline.

[hamishspence]

Says more about newspaper stories than it does about realities though.

Parents let creepy old man into child's bedroom.
Child feeds parents to zombie.

I think most people would be on the side of the child here.

It's like J. Jonah Jameson and Spiderman- the facts can be twisted to support whatever agenda the writer wants to promote.

[Themrys]

Yukyuk properly annoyed him.
And if we are calling Belkar a sadist for that better tag Vaarsuvius as one also.

Obviously, V is a sadist, too. Or maybe the author hasn't properly thought about how horrible it was what they did there.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about the dragon-thing: Threatening to kill V's mate and children and bind their souls so that they don't get to the afterlife, was a lot worse than shooting a cat with an arrow.
I thought V redeemable before s/he tortured Yukyuk as a favour to Belkar. Now ... I'm not so sure. V may repent having killed innocent human beings, but the "guilty" black dragons, and the "guilty" kobold?

[hamishspence]

V appears to be showing signs of repenting the killing of the dragons as well, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

No mention of repenting participation in what was done to the kobold yet- but it's early days.

Hopefully we can focus on the psychology of OoTS characters, and avoid a thread derail into "was Xykon's murder of his parents morally justified".

[Chantelune]

Mr. Scruffy disagrees - a total sadist would not be able to keep a pet in the manner that Belkar does, Belkar has also never been shown to revel in others pain - he kills them clean. Sure he does like them to scream that is more aesthetic - he would not be the kind to torture someone for days unless they really annoyed him.

He is more of a trill killer - than a sadist.

Belkar claimed that he didn't enjoyed killing undead because they couldn't feel fear and pain, so they wouldn't cry/beg for mercy. When Skully admit being able to fear, Belkar instantly went from "meh, doesn't care" to "you're screwed !" Also, the oracle, upon being raised, commented over Belkar seeming to dulls his blade just so they would cause extra pain upon stabbing. A really clean death would imply properly sharpened blades.

He may not tend to take his time killing or torturing his victims, but there are quite a number of indication that he has a sadistic nature. Eck, when the Azurite resistances considered making him the leader, his first idea was to set up death matches for his own amusement.

Him feeling empathy with animals might just be because he's still a ranger at his core. Beyond that, the only other actual people he felt some sort of empathy were the bounty hunters, and mosty because that reminded him of himself and his cat. Well, Shojo as well, though this was likely to be just because he made a constant mockery of Paladins right under their nose. Something he was bound to respect as this was the kind of challenge he mentioned after meeting Miko.