RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was thinking: why would anyone actually worship Rovagug? As it says in his entry in Gods and Magic: "Rovagug literally wants to destroy everything." He encourages his followers to find a way to free him and his spawn (his herald being the Tarrasque), offering them divine power to wreak destruction on all things. But what is the reward for freeing Rovagug and his spawn? Nothing, save knowing of the destruction that it will bring--and being the first to be devoured. The worshipers of Rovagug behave in a manner that takes the Chaotic Evil alignment to its extreme. If someone actually played a devout follower of Rovagug as they are described, they'd get kicked out of that group instantly as the worst kind of explicitly disruptive murderhobo that you could imagine.
So why does any creature worship The Rough Beast? "Of course," says Gods and Magic, "anyone who praises a god that wants to destroy everything is at least a tiny bit mad" (emphasis mine).
There is a problem here, and it's been bugging me lately. This generic conception of "madness" is a fairly common trope in the medieval fantasy genre (and others, but I'm focusing on this right now). Whether it's the lunatic shouting apocalyptic rantings in the city marketplace or ghosts that have gone insane with grief, mental instability is often painted as nonsense, raving, and violence. The problem is that this simply isn't accurate. The problem is that the explanation for why the followers of Rovagug commit heinous acts of violence without reason is that they are insane. The problem is that not only does mental illness not make people go on murderous rampages, but that these people--especially those perceived to be the most abnormal--are far more likely to experience violence directed at them. (Note: I do not have the definitive statistics on this, but it's not like stigmatized groups aren't often mis-categorized as "dangerous" in order to justify violence against them.)
And listen: I'm NOT accusing anyone. I'm not trying to point fingers at SKR (who wrote Gods and Magic), or call anyone at Paizo or within the greater medieval fantasy creative community a bad person. I just feel like this is a common enough trope that reinforces a negative and inaccurate stigma, that I'm curious what can be done about it. I can accept Rovagug as a deity, but I cannot accept that rampant murder, destruction, and capital-C, capital-E Chaotic Evil is embodied by some undefined "madness."
Again, the question is: what can be done about this? What is the best way, in this setting, to uncouple madness from evil?
EDIT: So I'm describing what I see as a larger trend, but my knowledge of all things Pathfinder lore and general fantasy is definitely not all-encompassing, or even particularly broad! If there are any good counter examples, either in Pathfinder or fantasy more broadly, I would love to hear about them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While insanity can take many forms, I assume the type of crazy that is attracted to Rovagug are the folks who IRL climb up watch towers and shoot people, or burn stuff down for their jollies. So while mental problems do not equal violent criminals always, they certainly can lead to violence.
As for worship of Rovagug, it's probably not all madness. You can also get the following:
Societies/races who for whatever reason were brought up within the religion of Rovagug. members of such societies might not be insane, but having grown up around Rovagug preachings, might not really know better.
I suspect this is the case for many monstrous humanoids (at least in my head canon). Also, some species such as orcs may have a greater predisposition to violent acts, which might make worship more tolerable.
People/societies ostracized by greater society. If you have been spit upon and treated by dirt by another race/nobility/religion/etc all your life, you may relish the opportunity to rise up and destroy your persecutors. Obviously Rovagug is all about that.
Charismatic cult leaders. This sort of goes with the earlier point, but there are plenty of real life examples of people who prey on the gullible and weak-willed. In this case, you might get a cult of Rovagug that may worship him without really realizing what he is about. Also if a powerful sect of Rovagug worshipers takes control, they might be able to influence the greater population into serving Rovagug out of fear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also the people who are not insane and worship Rovagug knowing that he will not spare them in his destruction...and they're perfectly okay with that. They're nihilists who view the destruction of Golarion as a foregone conclusion, whether it be when Rovagug destroys it or when the multiverse collapses in on itself naturally.
At least, that's how I've portrayed many cultists of Rovagug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who suffers from schizophrenia yet still manages to run games and not attack people, I agree. Sadly, I don't know how the problem can be fixed.
|
To me, "fantasy madness" is shorthand for malignant psychopathy/sociopathy/chaotic evilness, not a blanket term for those who suffer from any form of mental illness. Madness is a discredited term anyway, and I don't feel "fantasy madness" crosses over into modern sensitivities. If the designers used contemporary terms like mentally ill, I would have a huge problem because of what that means in a real-world context.
That is to say, you would have to be a chaotic evil and extremely unstable psychopath to worship Rovagug (which opens up the roleplaying option to do so in the first place and allows for that trope), but just being unstable in some form does not in any way qualify you as such.
Nothing wrong with pointing fingers at SKR for things though. That's always a good thing.
When it comes to Rovagug, I view his worshippers as having some kind of drive that wants them to fast-forward the destruction of everything. Yes, the people whose psychosis drives them to violence are among them, but there are a few other groups that likely make up a larger portion of his worshippers. As Neongelion noted, the kind of nihilists that give other nihilists pause — evangelical nihilists, if you will — are a group who would be rather obvious worshippers of Rovagug. Similarly, some people, while not suffering from any mental disability or defect, have a tendency to get a bit too focused on revenge. You've heard the phrase "cut off your nose to spite your face", I trust? People like that, who want to get revenge on someone they feel has wronged them no matter the cost, might turn to Rovagug without thinking the consequences through (nobody said you had to have a high Wisdom to be devoted to a god). They might turn to other gods as well, but since we're talking about Rovagug in this thread, we'll stick with him.
Conversely, most mental illnesses would want nothing to do with him. Someone with severe OCD would probably be more drawn toward the worship of Irori or other lawful gods, from what I know of it. Someone with a social development disorder wouldn't be drawn to Rovagug naturally either, in my experience at least; Rovagug wouldn't be a god I'd be drawn to — Abadar or Brigh would be my two top choices. As for depression, I can actually see someone suffering from that more easily being drawn to either Pharasma (out of a grim fascination) or the philosophy of Atheism (because depression loves to make you feel like nothing at all is worth it, in my personal experience, and there isn't a god of sloth). Anxiety disorders? I know there are a couple gods who are gods of calm, and I can see someone with an anxiety disorder looking to them in order to try and calm the far-too-frequent feelings of panic that well up from nowhere.
I could go on with other mental illnesses, but I don't know as much about them.
My take on Rovagug, Old Ones worshipers, etc. is that they're not really insane/mentally ill but instead bitter to the point of hating the universe. They've experienced tragedy and they've concluded the universe is evil enough to be destroyed. The existence of Rovagug and other similar entities just gives them a rationalization for their bitterness and a way for them to come together and organize.
Another model for cults devoted to totally evil gods is for the cult leaders to act as antecedents- intermediaries that appease the deity for now so that it withholds its wrath for a little while longer. Or the deity they worship battles another (perhaps even more hated?) entity and the cultists look to their deity to protect them from this other one. Basically, worship through the lens of fear and/or despair.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
All right, long post warning. I've responded individually to most everyone, so maybe just go ahead and find your own name if that's what you're interested in?
I assume the type of crazy that is attracted to Rovagug are the folks who IRL climb up watch towers and shoot people, or burn stuff down for their jollies. So while mental problems do not equal violent criminals always, they certainly can lead to violence.
See, this is representative of exactly the problem I'm talking about: with the mention of equating mental illness with violence, you immediately gravitate toward examples of "crazed" snipers and arsonists. Why do these violent crimes have anything to do with mental illness? I would argue that mass shooters and arsonists are not automatically mentally ill, and are probably mentally ill in comparable proportions to the general population. Most murderers are not mentally ill.
Also, some species such as orcs may have a greater predisposition to violent acts, which might make worship more tolerable.
This is another issue that I think is important to address, but I think it would get a bit off topic to go into it. But, in short: yes, the violence of the orcs as a fantasy race would probably make the worship of Rovagug more tolerable. However, the orcs seem more like nomadic raiders; that is, they are often violence and destructive, but I feel like most of them would rather attack people to take their belongings, rather than attacking them and destroying all the loot. The orcs seem to have a rough lot, and while their society seems pretty grim and brutal, they don't seem to be particularly more violence than your average adventuring party.
To me, "fantasy madness" is shorthand for malignant psychopathy/sociopathy/chaotic evilness, not a blanket term for those who suffer from any form of mental illness. Madness is a discredited term anyway, and I don't feel "fantasy madness" crosses over into modern sensitivities. If the designers used contemporary terms like mentally ill, I would have a huge problem because of what that means in a real-world context.
That is to say, you would have to be a chaotic evil and extremely unstable psychopath to worship Rovagug (which opens up the roleplaying option to do so in the first place and allows for that trope), but just being unstable in some form does not in any way qualify you as such.
Again, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. "Fantasy madness" reflects poorly on real mental illness. It is impossible to separate it from a "real world context," and its poor representation in fantasy and in other media directly affects how we conceive of mental illnesses, including psychopathy/sociopathy.
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. I've just looked up psychopathy/sociopathy on Wikipedia, and I've learned two things:
1. Psychopathy/sociopathy in an individual can exhibit as the sort of more prone to violence, empathy-lacking serial killer trope that we see in TV and movies. But there are at least two different kinds of this stuff, and it's all very complicated, and the article is way too long and full of psychological jargon for me to really get through. It would take time and research to truly understand this, and the shorthand, more sensationalized version of this personality disorder we get from various media are not helpful.
2. Although these individuals can exhibit more violent tendencies, not all serial killers and what have you are psychopaths. A good number of them are, but not all. And the vast majority of murderers are not mentally ill.
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.
Someone with severe OCD would probably be more drawn toward the worship of Irori or other lawful gods, from what I know of it. Someone with a social development disorder wouldn't be drawn to Rovagug naturally either, in my experience at least; . . . As for depression, I can actually see someone suffering from that more easily being drawn to either Pharasma (out of a grim fascination) or the philosophy of Atheism (because depression loves to make you feel like nothing at all is worth it, in my personal experience, and there isn't a god of sloth). Anxiety disorders? I know there are a couple gods who are gods of calm, and I can see someone with an anxiety disorder looking to them in order to try and calm the far-too-frequent feelings of panic that well up from nowhere.
I could go on with other mental illnesses, but I don't know as much about them.
I think this is a problematic view of mental illness. These conditions are expressed very differently for each individual, and I find some of your generalizations to be a bit off the mark. Like you, I just don't know much about mental illnesses in general. I won't talk about most of these assessments specifically, but I will address the one about depression:
1. Pharasma: Pharasma's followers (well, probably mainly just the priests) delivery babies and arrange funerals. I suppose someone with an obsession with death might be drawn to being a Pharasman mortician, but again I feel like depression is a complicated and personal mental illness that you really can't make accurate generalizations about. Speaking of which...2. God of sloth? Really? As I said, I'm not super familiar with the details of many mental illnesses. However, I'm most familiar with depression, having been close to many people who are depressed, including my partner. To me this implies an association of depression with laziness, which is inaccurate and insulting. I'm sorry to call you out if that's not what you meant, but I hope you can see why I saw that implication, and why it's not a good one to make.
As someone who suffers from schizophrenia yet still manages to run games and not attack people, I agree. Sadly, I don't know how the problem can be fixed.
True embarrassing story about myself: I was talking with a fellow student of mine in college at a party. I had learned in my freshman year psychology class that the brain is pretty much finished developing around the age of 25. As it relates to mental illness, this usually means that schizophrenia manifests when one is a young adult (or at least, as far as I remember), and as such, if you get to be 25 years old without exhibiting any signs of schizophrenia by the age of 25, you probably never will.
So, back to the party: my friend said she was about to turn 25, and I mentioned that they wouldn't have to worry about being schizophrenic after that! And so they told me that they had dealt with schizophrenia as a teenager, and I felt understandably super awkward. She probably felt really insulted. But why didn't I realize she was schizophrenic? Well, because I had classes with her, and she seemed super functional (and actually is one of those crazy-busy-all-the-time go-getters who are always doing a million projects--in a very Leslie Knope from Parks and Rec kind of way), and not what I understood a "mad" person to be like.
I don't know if you've had this kind of experience before, but it seems to me that we could cut down on it if mental illness were presented differently in our media and our games. Perhaps the solution is to show a lot less (preferably zero) of "crazed" Rovagug-worshipping orcs, and a lot more of heroes and other normal, even helpful, NPCs who suffer from mental illness in an accurate way. Maybe we could see Valeros fight off bandits while also trying to fight through his depression. Seoni already has this sort of quirky, illogical lawful side: it sounds vaguely like OCD, but maybe it could be presented more accurately as a mental illness that she has to deal with while trying to save Varisia, and less as a personality "quirk." I don't know. The potential to show inaccurate or even offensive portrayals is there, but I'd rather see some earnest attempts at it that we could learn from and improve upon later.
I feel like this is battle of semantics that will lead us nowhere. I don't think anyone is saying that mentally ill people are violent. On the other hand, what is a mass murderer if not mentally ill. It's not something a reasonable person does, certainly. Or we going by narrow medical definitions here? I'm just not seeing the other side, because literally no one claimed that mentally ill people are violent. There's a lot of extrapolation here.
2. God of sloth? Really? As I said, I'm not super familiar with the details of many mental illnesses. However, I'm most familiar with depression, having been close to many people who are depressed, including my partner. To me this implies an association of depression with laziness, which is inaccurate and insulting. I'm sorry to call you out if that's not what you meant, but I hope you can see why I saw that implication, and why it's not a good one to make.
I'll admit, "sloth" may not have been the most accurate term — "inertia" probably would've been a better one, but to most people, a God of Inertia and a God of Sloth would look exactly the same, because people see the former and think it's the latter. I've struggled with clinical depression myself, and I can tell you that the biggest effect it's had on my life is an incredible feeling of nihilistic inertia: "Nothing I do matters, so I may as well keep doing the nothing-that-matters that I've been doing." Which for me was sitting in a dorm room, ordering pizza, and posting in forums online — and not attending class. Hell, I keep being surprised that I was able to get up and go to work while I was at my most depressed — but then again, that was inertia too. "If I don't go, I'll get the angry phone calls, and that's not something that normally happens. Best to just keep things as smooth and steady as possible."
And since your college professors don't tend to call your phone... and I wasn't checking my school e-mail... and they tend to have a lot on their plates anyways... you can see how that built up an inertia against going to class, because I was already sitting in my room by class had begun, I didn't have to go in to work... so why waste the energy that I just plain didn't have (or didn't think I had, since I'm not sure if I had it and didn't realize it or if I legit didn't have it, because mental illnesses eff you up in that regard)?
And I'm basing this mostly on my experience... As I said, as a person with an SDD (specifically an ASD), I'd be more drawn toward a Lawful God or a God that represents something I can understand better than people. A God of Science? I'd be all over that one. A God of Plans, of Precision, of Quantifiable Things? Hell yes. A God of Music? Oddly enough, yes, because I'd be sort of like one of their more Pythagorean-esque followers (Pythagoreans, in case you were unaware since about the only thing anyone on the street knows about Pythagoras is his Theorem, were heavily into a math-based, music-based cult that was into stuff like harmonics and figuring out the perfect ratios for harmonious music and stuff like that, so I can see a God or Goddess of Music getting a Pythagorean-esque cult really quickly). A God of Art? Maybe, although my particular expression of my ASD wouldn't get me into an Art God very well (others, quite possibly). A Goddess of Clockwork and Technology and Time? There's a reason I listed Brigh in my top two.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term 'mad' or 'madness' in fiction does not reflect a reference to a character being mentally ill in the actual sense...almost ever. It reflects a character who behaves irrationally, or is characterized by unusually extreme behavior. A certain amount of emotional instability is typical, and mental illness is possible, but neither is actually what the term is referring to.
In short, it's using the second definition listed here or the third listed here not the others.
The same is actually true of the term 'crazy' in most fiction, or again in life in general. People certainly use both as derogatory terms for those with mental illnesses, but that's not their only (or even original) definition. They are used far more often to refer to extreme or unreasonable behavior than they are to someone with a mental illness. And...violence is both extreme and unreasonable.
|
I've had depressions and I'm diagnosed with PDD-NOS. (Which would now be diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder.) From my perspective, humans are stupid and need to be destroyed. Okay, I might be exaggerating a little bit but just look at us. I just see zombies on escalators, or people that are too lazy to deposit their waste in a wastebin. Don't they know the city is just gonna tax them so they can clean the streets? I've also seen many crossroads and stopped to think by myself: "What were they thinking?" Then there are the things we do to other people and to our environment.
So yeah, I could see people that want to destroy everything. Honestly, I don't because I wouldn't know where to put all my stuff if everything got destroyed, or how to find someone willing to play Pathfinder with me.
I do feel like arguments are perhaps going past each other.
I don't think people are saying that all murderers and general bad guys are "mad" or suffer mental illness. You can perfectly understand the difference between right and wrong, and know what you are doing is wrong, but still do something bad for the sake of power, revenge, greed, or ideology. Yes...I generally believe that most serial and spree killers are crazy or otherwise suffer mental impairments. Because such actions are not by any means rational. And certainly, if the act of burning a building down causes arousal, I wouldn't equate you as having high mental health.
Personally...in my own life I have had to wrestle with severe depression and social anxiety disorder, and have been on medication for treatment. As someone with mental health issues, I have never been offended by how Paizo approaches "madness" in games.
|
I always had a problem with how madness is used in rpgs.
A lot like magic, has become a filler for things you want to put in a game but you really don't bother explaining.
Why can't you climb the tower and start from the top? It's magic.
Why is the bad guy trying to destroy the world? It's madness.
Personally I can think about 2 good reasons why someone may be willing to worship Rovagug.
1) they are misguided and don't really understand what Rovagug is all about. They may be thinking about a destructive force that is going to destroy everything they don't like. That he will destroy everything but his worshipers, or that at least after he destroys everything they will have some sort of afterlife where they are rewarded for their services.
2) They see Rovagug as an extreme form of suicide-homicide.
People with nothing to lose, willing to end their lives and with a huge resentment for the world may indeed find Rovagug appealing.
I usually use the "madness" card with characters that have distinctive mental disorders, rather than a all-purpose term for someone acting outside any possible logic on a whim.
Itkinda reminds me the people who used to play Malkavians all the time in vampire.
The manual says you have a mental disorder, not all of them put on a blender with a couple of ice cubes.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
I feel like this is battle of semantics that will lead us nowhere. I don't think anyone is saying that mentally ill people are violent. On the other hand, what is a mass murderer if not mentally ill. It's not something a reasonable person does, certainly. Or we going by narrow medical definitions here? I'm just not seeing the other side, because literally no one claimed that mentally ill people are violent. There's a lot of extrapolation here.
Yes...I generally believe that most serial and spree killers are crazy or otherwise suffer mental impairments. Because such actions are not by any means rational.
I don't know, what is a mass murderer if not mentally ill? It's certainly not "reasonable," but what does that have to do with mental illness? What I'm hearing is that mass murderers must be mentally ill. And of course we know that not all people who are mentally ill are violent, but this link between mental illness and rampant murder--the idea that a mass murderer must be mentally ill, or is extremely likely to be--is inaccurate as well as based on and contributing to the harmful stigma against all mental illness.
Honestly it seems like the most common link between serial killers and mass shooters (to say nothing of killings performed by military or police) is less frequently mental illness and much more often that they tend to be white guys.
The same is actually true of the term 'crazy' in most fiction, or again in life in general. People certainly use both as derogatory terms for those with mental illnesses, but that's not their only (or even original) definition. They are used far more often to refer to extreme or unreasonable behavior than they are to someone with a mental illness. And...violence is both extreme and unreasonable.
Look, I get what you're saying. I understand that words can mean several, even exclusive, things. But there's a social stigma that conflates certain types of violence with "madness," and we can't pretend like dictionary definitions exist in a vacuum, or like they aren't descriptive, arbitrary, and subject to change. The way we talk about things affects how we think about them, and to say that violence shares many things in common with being "crazy" hurts people with mental illness. I would call the latest violence against the citizens of Ferguson by their own police force "extreme and unreasonable," but the cops aren't being presented in the mainstream media as "insane."
@ Graeme Lewis: Thank you for sharing your experiences, and I'm glad that it sounds like your struggles with depression are largely in the past tense. That said, I think you've shown exactly what I was trying to get at. You've listed a bunch of deities that you would find appealing in a fantasy pantheon, and none of them have anything to do with worshiping or glorifying your relationship to mental illness. They seem to me to be more defined by your actual interests. I really doubt someone who was depressed would actively worship or glorify something that causes such pain and hatred for them. That said, there is a minor god of "romantic" suicides, but such a following would be more troubling than anything.
I always had a problem with how madness is used in rpgs.
A lot like magic, has become a filler for things you want to put in a game but you really don't bother explaining.
Yes, this exactly. It's a filler term. But unlike the catch-all "a wizard did it" explanation for magic, "madness" as a catch-all term for inexplicable behaviors feeds off of and back into a stigmatizing view of mental illness as a whole.
I still don't know exactly how to move away from that filler, though. I'm basically fine with "a wizard did it" for magical explanations, because magic is often presented as inherently inexplicable. But madness has serious repercussions to a "real life" issue, and perhaps the best thing to do is to drop the filler entirely and try to move toward accurate representations of mental illness when it's necessary to show it.
|
|
Look, I get what you're saying. I understand that words can mean several, even exclusive, things. But there's a social stigma that conflates certain types of violence with "madness," and we can't pretend like dictionary definitions exist in a vacuum, or like they aren't descriptive, arbitrary, and subject to change. The way we talk about things affects how we think about them, and to say that violence shares many things in common with being "crazy" hurts people with mental illness. I would call the latest violence against the citizens of Ferguson by their own police force "extreme and unreasonable," but the cops aren't being presented in the mainstream media as "insane."
I agree that disassociating mental illness from such things is a positive thing, but I'm sorta coming at it from the other side of things, method-wise.
I don't think it's possible, at this point, to disassociate those terms from violent or unreasonable people...so I'd prefer to disassociate them from mental illness. I have never referred to someone as 'crazy' or 'insane' in the context of diagnosable mental illness and don't intend to do so. I instead use them exclusively for the other meaning. People don't usually even notice...which leads me to suspect it's an easier changeover to make.
|
|
I still don't know exactly how to move away from that filler, though. I'm basically fine with "a wizard did it" for magical explanations, because magic is often presented as inherently inexplicable. But madness has serious repercussions to a "real life" issue, and perhaps the best thing to do is to drop the filler entirely and try to move toward accurate representations of mental illness when it's necessary to show it.
I have to say that "a wizard did it" has always been a pet peeve of mine.
I take the role of magic in a fantasy setting pretty seriously.Maybe because I'm exactly one of the people the Anti-D&D craze of the '80 was pointing out. a RPG enthusiast who is also interested into occult traditions.
To me magic is not this "it does it all in an inexplicable way" but rather a method, or rather a collection of methods that allows you to achieve some precise results.
If "a wizard did it" in my game, I know how exactly he did it, what kind of effects are active in that situation and how to dispel or circumvent them.
For example in the game I'm running, sure, I needed the bad guys to be able to track the party in order to create encounters.
But instead of "they know because magic" I had a bad guy board their flying ship in a moment they knew where the ship was.
I had him planting a peculiar object (some sort of ancient figurine)
And I had them use locate object on that figurine in order to follow the party movements.
They had plenty of chances to discover the enemy hen he boarded the ship, or discover the object they planted.
I think is a better approach than opening my hands like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos and say "MAGIC".
On the real life repercussions and offensiveness... I'm not with you.
Don'ìt get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong, you aren't. What I'm saying is that is not usually a concern of mine.
My games are rarely politically correct.
Mainly because the world is not politically correct.
I usually play with people that are not easily offended, and I prefer to play with such people whenever I can.
If I had to care about not offending someone while running a game I would be in a tight spot.
I'm not saying my world is that hostile, but it is a world, there is the good and the bad. not just the parts that are sensitive.
there are the heroes and the positive characters, but there are also the racists, the misogynists, the bigots, sex offenders, necrophiliacs.
I understand if people are put off by that and I respect that. But given the chance I like to deal with a grittier world. So having to show respect towards certain categories or real life issues inside the game, for me, is usually a non issue.
It only becomes an issue when we close our manuals, put aside the dices and start to talk about the real world.
|
|
@Mechapoet You know, I was going to disagree with you, but the more I thought about it, the less I found myself able to.
I think that the problem here is that we don't have a word in our society for someone whose values are so outside of the "norm" that they are willing to or capable of committing truly heinous acts without associating them with mental illness. When we hear about grown adults killing dozens of kids at a camp, our natural instinct is to say that they must have something actually wrong with their brains - mental illness - rather than something wrong with their values - which could be summed up in "good" and "evil" but doesn't really help clarity of language. Especially in a game where evil is an objective thing and evil characters/people aren't necessarily evil in ways that imply that they want to unmake creation.
We've now reached a point where we have non-stigmatizing language for other marginalized groups† but I don't think there is such a thing for those who do things that are unfathomably evil. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, this ends up hurting not just the truly evil elements of our society, but the large group of people who already have to deal with the problems of mental illness and social stigma.
Things like sick, ill, mentally ill, crazy, insane…these words all imply both that the choices of the evil aren't entirely within their control (and therefore, those who commit them aren't actually evil) and that those who are sick, ill, mentally ill, crazy, or insane are prone to truly depraved acts.
|
|
I understand if people are put off by that and I respect that. But given the chance I like to deal with a grittier world. So having to show respect towards certain categories or real life issues inside the game, for me, is usually a non issue.
It only becomes an issue when we close our manuals, put aside the dices and start to talk about the real world.
I think the problem is that people's hobbies, private lives, socialization, and use of language intrudes, consciously or subconsciously, onto the real world.
As a person who has a lot of PTSD in his family, I can tell you that even highlighted mental illnesses such as that one are not understood by a lot of people, who often seem to think that many members of my family are just a loud noise from murdering everyone around them.
When we have people who think Anders Breivik is a good example of what mental illness is, I can see Mechapoet's point. In a perfect world, where we compartmentalized the game and reality, I would absolutely agree with you.
I don't really feel like I'm making my point well here. I'm sorry if it does't make much sense.
Honestly it seems like the most common link between serial killers and mass shooters (to say nothing of killings performed by military or police) is less frequently mental illness and much more often that they tend to be white guys.
This is interesting. If this is true, I think it could suggest an idea potentially usable for rpgs: the dangers of assumption. That when a certain level of power, influence, or worldview is taken as a given and then significantly thwarted or thrown into question, then that can make people become alienated and bitter without having to be mentally ill. If one's self identity is based on some strongly held but skewed viewpoints and these are subjectively threatened, then this could be a reasonable explanation of motive without having to necessarily include things like mental illness.
Perhaps this might explain the conceptual connection between the paladin, antipaladin, and why the two are so closely linked? Specifically, the paladin is commonly with a fairly limiting, black-and-white code of ethics. The potential trap with black-and-white ethics is that it can involve an "all-or-nothing" style of thinking that doesn't allow for a lot of shades-of-gray in between the black and the white. So you have some paladins that are really, really Good but partially due to an understanding of reality that may be somewhat biased. And when circumstances throw that worldview into question for a significant enough amount of time, some will cope by embracing the opposite of what they formerly knew to be true. So they fall, and they fall hard, turning over fully to the dark side without necessarily having any of the other behaviors associated with mental illness.
Generally speaking, a lot of the time RPG antagonists show a level of rationality and organization that is not strictly in step with their supposed irrationality. I seem to recall reading somewhere that visionary killers (serial killers that are driven by psychotic delusions and impulses such as a deity telling them to kill) can be fairly disorganized and sloppy in the execution of their crimes because their perceptual/cognitive distortions inhibit or prevent their ability to conceal their crimes. OTOH, you have cultists of Lamashtu not only self-organizing in secret but also in co-opting other groups and institutions.
Therefore, my understanding of "madness" within an rpg world is that it's not so much an individual quality but an elaborate social construct, a fabrication on the one hand to explain the inexplicable and on the other to rationalize bad behavior. This is in character, the former viewpoint is held by many of those who don't embrace "madness "as self-identity and the latter is embraced by those who do. Of course, The key part of this is the fabrication part- it's a lie and untruth, people truly functioning well enough to embrace "madness" as a concept aren't truly mad- they're just participating in a more or less consensual social lie. A lie to where metaphysical beings like demonlords, Great Old Ones, etc. can exploit to their advantage (or themselves be exploited).
We don't have a lot of people praising "madness" as a concept to live by in the real world because of the lack of:
a) Entities that represent metaphysical concepts don't exist to grant spells, exist in physical form, or otherwise overtly encourage/exacerbate them like they do in D&D
b) Spells that enable and encourage the spread of such ideologies
C) A cosmology where concepts have a directly observable physical quality to them.
However, in the context of an RPG, "madness" cults can be explainable because of these things. And since "madness" isn't really mental illness but instead buying into a social myth (a lie), it's associated with chaos and evil. (I use "madness" in quotation marks because this is merely pseudo-madness.) Basically these madness cultists are merely grandiose malingerers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand if people are put off by that and I respect that. But given the chance I like to deal with a grittier world. So having to show respect towards certain categories or real life issues inside the game, for me, is usually a non issue.
It only becomes an issue when we close our manuals, put aside the dices and start to talk about the real world.I think the problem is that people's hobbies, private lives, socialization, and use of language intrudes, consciously or subconsciously, onto the real world.
As a person who has a lot of PTSD in his family, I can tell you that even highlighted mental illnesses such as that one are not understood by a lot of people, who often seem to think that many members of my family are just a loud noise from murdering everyone around them.
When we have people who think Anders Breivik is a good example of what mental illness is, I can see Mechapoet's point. In a perfect world, where we compartmentalized the game and reality, I would absolutely agree with you.
I don't really feel like I'm making my point well here. I'm sorry if it does't make much sense.
No no I do get it and I do understand perfectly.
What I'm saying is basically "thank god I can compartmentalize game and reality well and I almost always had the chance to play with people who can do it as well"And Yes, almost because it happened that at my table there was someone who was sensitive about a certain topic.
I avoided that topic knowing the problem. I just feel a lot more comfortable when I'm able to go free without boundaries, something that luckily happened a lot to me.
It's not that I play with happy people who had nothing but luck in their lives.
I deal with people who had to deal with some serious crap in their life, and somewhat I had my fair share of misfortunes coming my way.
But luckily the people I use to play with are pretty strong people that manage to not feel defeated by the events of their life.
There is no shame in not being able to cope with events that happen to you, we are just lucky that we have been able to.
|
|
| 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.
If you want a good paradigm shift from the whole "madness is evil" thing Steven Erikson wrote some of the best (IMO) fantasy. The series is titled 'Malazan: Book of the Fallen'
(nobody said you had to have a high Wisdom to be devoted to a god).
This is one of those times where the standard rules for clerics get wonky.
Wisdom is their primary casting attribute, and it's not exactly intuitive to think that a high level priest of Rovagug is a "very wise" yet quite insane at the same time. It would be hard enough to keep a cult of Rovagug from destroying themselves within a week.
My approach would be a group where the members hate the world/universe for personal reasons and Rovagug offers the promise of destruction and suffering. Not just nihilism that destroys all, but where the world will pay again and again for whatever "unforgivable crime" it's done.
It could even give a touch of tragedy to individual members, mostly if ignore the sadistic pleasure they get in accomplishing their goals.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
I like where this discussion has gone so far, y'all. Those other two posts were kind of a doozy, so I'm gonna try to be a bit shorter and more general with this one.
First of all, I want to emphasize that language and representation are extremely important factors in how we conceive of reality. You cannot dismiss fictional representation as "not real" because fiction is a product of the world that creates it. It does not exist in a cultural vacuum. Our fiction is inspired by our culture, and that fiction in turn reflects back on how we conceive of reality. When it comes to marginalized groups, this is a dangerous centripetal/self-reinforcing cycle. The madness of the Rovagug cultist reflects the creator's idea of madness, which informs the reader's view of madness, repeat ad nausea. The problem is that for something as stigmatized as mental illness, portrayals of "madness" are too often based on shaky-at-best understandings of what that means.
One specific response, though:
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.
So, first of all, I'd like to say that I'm not trying to dictate how anyone else should feel about "madness" in the context of Rovagug's worshipers. If I've said or implied that the way I feel about this is the way that EVERYONE should feel about this, then I apologize. For real, if you quote me on something where I'm saying something like "this is how you should feel about this, and no other way!" then I will gladly admit that that was the wrong thing to say. Representation matters, and I find that this representation strikes an unpleasant chord with me personally.
Second of all, I agree that being offended by something doesn't make it offensive in some absolute or "objective" way. However, claiming something to be "inoffensive" because you're not offended by it is exactly the same, but reversed. Neither is a good way to frame the discussion, because things cannot be inherently in/offensive. It takes on those qualities based on how we as an audience interact with them, and I think it's important to pay attention to who is and isn't offended by something. For instance, you said that you're not offended by this representation as someone with a mood disorder. However, just look at what some other people have posted:
As someone who suffers from schizophrenia yet still manages to run games and not attack people, I agree. Sadly, I don't know how the problem can be fixed.
As a person who has a lot of PTSD in his family, I can tell you that even highlighted mental illnesses such as that one are not understood by a lot of people, who often seem to think that many members of my family are just a loud noise from murdering everyone around them.
So I'm going to have to disagree that poorly understood portrayals of what makes someone "mad" don't contribute to social harm. It looks like these people have felt it and seen it. Also, I completely agree that, as you said, "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." However, linking fantasy madness with Chaotic Evil, I think, is part of the reason why people don't recognize or understand the physical and chemical imbalances that can contribute to mental illness. But mental illness isn't portrayed in this context as a a sickness, it is portrayed as a source of evil and destruction.
If I find some material offensive, I may remove it. This doesn't mean that I would run a game without any struggles or injustices--that would be absurd. However, I'd prefer that my games have the players overcome the evils that are reflected in the "real world." For example, I'd rather not include worshipers of Rovagug who destroy stuff because they're "crazy." Because "crazy" people don't actually commit violence more than "sane" people. What I would like to see is something like what one of the distantly upcoming APs will present with Hell's Rebels: a chance to fight back against the bedeviled rule of Cheliax, with the players fighting against institutionalized corruption, slavery, and bigotry. That's just my personal preference, and maybe it's largely because, if we're going to go with the Pathfinder alignment system, I see Lawful Evil as the most evil version of evil. Which isn't to say that Chaotic Evil is desirable, just that I think that negative portrayals of Chaotic Evil that draw on misunderstandings, stereotypes, and stigmas about marginalized and innocent groups are the product of Lawful and Neutral Evil.
Chaotic evil doesn't equal crazy, though it is often conflated with that. Chaotic evil is more about pursuing your own (negative) desires without regard for the safety or well-being of others. A Mafia member who flouts the law while pursuing evil aims and kills people who get in his way could be considered evil, even without having any sort of mental illness.
At any rate, I personally don't see how the portrayal of madness as specifically problematic in regards villains in AP. Maybe if they linked specific bad guys with medical terminology (schizophrenia, etc), I would be concerned.
|
|
Take into account that in a fantasy world like Golarion, they aren't going to have words for paranoid schizophrenics, or those with post traumatic stress disorder, or OCD, or most "mental illnesses." They are simply going to say that all those people are/have gone "mad" or have a sickness of the mind.
heck, WE didn't have words for them until relatively recently in our history, why hold a fantasy world to the same standards? Especially when most clerics aren't going to bother to try to understand it when they can just cast "cure madness" and be done with it.
Because it makes for more interesting characters.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a cleric should examine someone and say "This is clearily a case of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease".But you can give a character a definite mental illness that no one in the setting would recognize and catalog, but you know what it is and how it works.
Actually is not even about picking a real mental disorder, it's just giving a sense to the madness.
It's this character mad? Ok, what does it means? Does he perceives things in a way different than reality? There is a specific thing that is "broken" in his mental pattern? Does he have obsessions? if yes what he is obsessed about? How much he is in control of his actions?
Instead of "He is mad, so he will show up wearing pants on his head and will try to stuff a live chicken with an old boot for no apparent reason. And of course will try to destroy the world because .. why not?"
I've always felt the most interesting worshipers of Rovagug aren't the "mad" CE or NE ones but the deluded CN ones.
Remember, Old Rovie himself spares no thought towards the teachings and management of his church. He very simply doesn't care. Everything that is taught is done so by his followers; followers who are imperfect and can misinterpret things.
The "CN" are generally anarchists who think the destruction of Rovagug could be emulated to bring all forms of government which would free everyone from tyranny.
They're wrong about that and the master they claim to follow but how and why they're wrong can be played differently. My GM played them as using an inflammatory and somewhat sympathetic message to rile the masses into revolting so they could rule instead.
I would play a CN Rovagug cult as the next generation of that. It started as an evil man's illusion to gain power but then he died without letting anyone else in on the con. Those who remained now honestly believe in the old leader's lies. this would make them sympathetic and could even lead to them being redeemed.
This would great for a party with a worshiper of Sarenrae. What better way to test their commit to redemption than someone who worships the great evil that their patron fought against all those millennia ago?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going along with Jeven, most who 'worship' Rovagug do so to get the power they want to accomplish other things. I don't worship the Rough Beast so I can free him and destroy the world, I want to slaughter my enemies because they're dicks and/or I want their stuff. Killing them is a good way to get said stuff. A good way to keep said stuff is to destroy my enemies when they try to steal it. Rovagug is good at destroying stuff.
I've always seen Rovagug not some much as a god you pray to, meditate on it's teachings, and it gifts you power so that you may become more enlightened and spread it's message to the world. No, Rovagug is a giant bundle of destructive energy that you tap and hope it doesn't consume/explode you. Like that abandoned mine that had boxes dynamite when you were kids. Sure it may have started out as a just a bit of harmless fun, who doesn't like explosions. But that Timmy, what a jerk. Always going on about his new tree-house. Let's see what he does when he doesn't have tree anymore! Then pretty soon the dynamite is telling you that you really ought to grab a bit more and stick in under his house. Now he doesn't have a tree, or house, or a tree-house! Next thing you know the paladins of Sarenrae are knocking on your door while you gibber in a corner of the ceiling while the new mouth on the back of your head tries to gnaw through the ceiling. And that boys and girls is why friends don't let friends worship the Rough Beast.
Going along with Jeven, most who 'worship' Rovagug do so to get the power they want to accomplish other things. I don't worship the Rough Beast so I can free him and destroy the world, I want to slaughter my enemies because they're dicks and/or I want their stuff. Killing them is a good way to get said stuff. A good way to keep said stuff is to destroy my enemies when they try to steal it. Rovagug is good at destroying stuff.
I've always seen Rovagug not some much as a god you pray to, meditate on it's teachings, and it gifts you power so that you may become more enlightened and spread it's message to the world. No, Rovagug is a giant bundle of destructive energy that you tap and hope it doesn't consume/explode you. Like that abandoned mine that had boxes dynamite when you were kids. Sure it may have started out as a just a bit of harmless fun, who doesn't like explosions. But that Timmy, what a jerk. Always going on about his new tree-house. Let's see what he does when he doesn't have tree anymore! Then pretty soon the dynamite is telling you that you really ought to grab a bit more and stick in under his house. Now he doesn't have a tree, or house, or a tree-house! Next thing you know the paladins of Sarenrae are knocking on your door while you gibber in a corner of the ceiling while the new mouth on the back of your head tries to gnaw through the ceiling. And that boys and girls is why friends don't let friends worship the Rough Beast.
This is an awesome metaphor for why someone might worship Rovagug and why Rovagug might accept worshippers who aren't initially motivated to bring on the apocalypse.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit surprised he hasn't turned up in the discussion, but there is a benign Lawful Good god of Madness in the setting: Tsukiyo, god of the moon, spirits, and jade. He's a bit like a Japanese Osiris in terms of history, what with the importance of his marriage and his death and resurrection. He's also a LG god with the Darkness and Repose domains. Comes across as a darkly romantic figure in his pantheon. Insane, yes, but he's also a functional benevolent god and devoted husband. Big hit with the samsarans.
He's....really neat and totally needs more exposure. :)
I'm a bit surprised he hasn't turned up in the discussion, but there is a benign Lawful Good god of Madness in the setting: Tsukiyo, god of the moon, spirits, and jade. He's a bit like a Japanese Osiris in terms of history, what with the importance of his marriage and his death and resurrection. He's also a LG god with the Darkness and Repose domains. Comes across as a darkly romantic figure in his pantheon. Insane, yes, but he's also a functional benevolent god and devoted husband. Big hit with the samsarans.
He's....really neat and totally needs more exposure. :)
That...is actually something I'm going to need to look into because he sounds pretty freaking awesome.
Since I'm having trouble sleeping and I'm working on getting Carrion Crown prepped, I figured 'why not actually contribute to this topic', so here I go.
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.
See, the thing is here, there seems to be a certain 'hierarchy' of madness...at least where I live. Chemical mood imbalances? Anxiety? Those are generally not what people think of when they think of someone who is 'mad'. They mean people like me. Not to be dismissive (and if I sound this way, I'm truly sorry), but a likely reason you aren't insulted by 'fantasy madness' is because....you know it doesn't refer to you. Before I started having symptoms of schizophrenia, I had major depression. At that time, I wasn't offended either. But once you cross the line into babbling, rocking back and forth, seeing horror terrors coming for you -psychosis-...well, then I realized that people referring to 'those crazy/mad people' meant -me-. I am that. I am the person they are referring to, and I'm not really okay with it. I won't lose my head over it but it does hurt.
I'm probably biased, as I experienced a huge loss of over 80% of my friends once I was diagnosed. This wasn't a loss of friends when I started 'acting crazy' mind you, this loss was only -after- they were able to label my behavior as schizophrenia. When you're just considered weird, it's okay, but when you're schizophrenic? Well, that makes you dangerous. At least, that's the perception I've experienced.
I think a good step towards the right direction would be to have characters in fantasy that have mental stuff, but are still able to find love and support, and are still able to function. Or even characters that -can't- function well but aren't violent or treated as a gag to laugh at. The best non-fantasy example of this that I know of would be the show Perception, whose main character is schizophrenic...but also a neurology professor who helps out the police with cases that could involve people with neurological problems. The professor has problems, we are shown this, but he is also a person. We are shown him both on and off medication. I've only watched the first season and some episodes from the others, but I personally related to the main character when I was in a hard time in my life.
Keep in mind that I'm not going to burn all my paizo books if stuff like this doesn't happen. I just think it would be a step in a better direction. To, you know, not use mentally ill characters for a cheap laugh or a convenient villain. I don't know about mass murderers because I haven't researched into that, but men who attack their spouses aren't usually found to be mentally ill, though mental illness can complicate things in those cases. People can do horrible things and be 'sane'. I know, it's a scary thought, but some people just do horrible things.
The "madness" referenced in Pathfinder/DnD books don't correspond to any real world mental disorders. It's the same type of thing as the more benign "madness" that deities like Zagyg have. I don't see many of them even having stuff like hallucinations. It's a plot device to allow for important NPC's that take irrational actions. Considering it's in a "kitchen sink" fantasy setting, the cause doesn't have to have anything to do with RL mental disorders at all either. You easily call it something different. Would that be alright or is the whole concept something to stay away from?
I completely agree that having more functional/loved/etc actually mentally ill characters would be awesome. I just don't think the fantasy "madness" used as a plot tool has much to do with it.
I'm completely on the bandwagon that finds "madness" as a generic reason to generally be lazy and frustrating. Most people's actions make sense, at least to themselves - if you're looking in from the outside and you can't understand, the problem's generally your perspective rather than the person you're watching (at least in my experience). Most "mad" people from fantasy that I can think of weren't mentally ill; they'd just came to conclusions - either because of grief, anger, bad information, outside influence, or just cold logic divorced from empathy - that were horrific or destructive, or just to perceive reality in a way that differs from what's normally accepted as "right." Some of the best villains I can think of were terrifyingly sane - like HAL-9000, etc. And like it or not, the term "madness" has a LOT of unfortunate historical implications and ties to social prejudice and misunderstanding.
Maybe what we need is a better term, one without the baggage of "madness," to describe that sort of thing? Help us better divorce genuine mental illness and problems from this sort of thing?
I'm also TOTALLY on-board for having more NPCs (and PCs, though that's more a player thing) with real-world problems and have them be across the spectrum of alignments and types. I also think that there's a real chance for Paizo, with its commitment to representing all their players in respectful and real ways, will respond positively to this idea.