|The Red Mage|
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
...And look, I'm not an expert on psychology or mental illness. I have no formal training and do not experience any mental illnesses myself...
It is much more likely that a psychopath would worship Rovagug than someone without that condition. A lack of empathy, amoral tendencies, and violent trends make it more likely a person will do physical harm to others than someone without those conditions. Bizarre and extreme philosophical beliefs also point in the direction of that sort of mental illness. A worshiper of Rovagug, as presented, meets both criteria.
Representation here matters, and the presentation of "madness" in this context is lazy and dishonest at best, and actively damaging (physically, mentally, and socially) to those who suffer stigma for their mental illness(es) at worst.
It is intellectually dishonest to assume all people who suffer from the stigma of a mental illness are necessarily offended or harmed by "fantasy madness". With some basic understanding of tropes and context, a reasonable person would not necessarily be taken aback by these terms. The writers do assume most readers will be reasonable, rational people, and that's their call.
As a sufferer of a mental illness (a severe chemical mood disorder), I am neither offended by "fantasy madness" nor do I think it contributes to any social harm. Real social harm comes from a lack of recognition that mental illnesses are also physical, chemical illnesses that should included with any other illness as an important part of overall healthcare.
In my opinion, you're expressing a totalitarian viewpoint on what a writer can and cannot say based on well-meaning but ill-conceived notions of social harm. Taking offense to something does not automatically make it a valid offense. "Madness" in the context of a fantasy roleplaying setting based on time-tested sword and sorcery tropes isn't. I'd rather you be offended and choose not to use that section of material than eliminate an inoffensive tidbit.