I was reading another thread and a thought came to me....does the insanity defense works with alignment? Lets look at two cases...
Case 1: A serial killer usualy kills from some unsatible need to do it. They really can't control themselves. The kill for no reason at except to fullfill some emotional need( be it sexual...pleasure...dealing with guilt...their dog told them to do it...) it is clear they don't have control of their actions. Are they evil?
Yet a couple of animals kill for pleasure...grizzly bears...killer whales...yet they are not defined as evil. Mostly because they are just animals and don't have the same control we do...but serial killers also don't have this kind of control...why should they be deemed Evil but these animals get a free pass?
Case 2: Multple Personality Disorder: I mean if somebody has MPD do they suffer smite evil damage? Do the detect as evil? What if only one of their personalities is evil?
I am not looking for a OFFICIAL answear here...in my opinion it does not really need one. I just want to know other peoples thoughts on this...if you ever decided to do a adventure based on the above concepts...because while thinking about this a couple of grat adventures came to my...and not just a cheap way to get around detect evil or remove smite...as I really don't have issues with those...
Anyway please share your ideas and opinions.
Speaking in a purely game sense here.
Case 1: In that a creature that is evil aligned is merely following its nature, I would have to rule this as a yes. The impulses are considered evil by the alignment system, as are the acts. Motive plus act both stemming from the evil alignment sells it as evil to me.
Case 2: I find this really interesting and may have to work it into a campaign one day, if it doesn't come across as exploitative. Personally, I would effectively have them be multiple characters, some evil, some not. Consequently, the evil characters would detect as evil and suffer the damage when they are dominant. If a good character were then to become dominant, they would cease to do so, but the damage would remain.
Those are my thoughts on it.
Speaking in a purely game sense here.
Case 1: In that a creature that is evil aligned is merely following its nature, I would have to rule this as a yes. The impulses are considered evil by the alignment system, as are the acts. Motive plus act both stemming from the evil alignment sells it as evil to me.
Case 2: I find this really interesting and may have to work it into a campaign one day, if it doesn't come across as exploitative. Personally, I would effectively have them be multiple characters, some evil, some not. Consequently, the evil characters would detect as evil and suffer the damage when they are dominant. If a good character were then to become dominant, they would cease to do so, but the damage would remain.
Those are my thoughts on it.
1) What about a killer whale? They kill for pleasuree...yet by the rules of the game they are TN. What exactly is the difference here?
2) Yes I agree with completely the damage done is done and whatever alignment that personality is what alignment that person is.
I was reading another thread and a thought came to me....does the insanity defense works with alignment? Lets look at two cases...
Case 1: A serial killer usualy kills from some unsatible need to do it. They really can't control themselves. The kill for no reason at except to fullfill some emotional need( be it sexual...pleasure...dealing with guilt...their dog told them to do it...) it is clear they don't have control of their actions. Are they evil?
If by "serial killers," you mean sociopaths, they do have control over their actions. They choose to kill to fulfill the emotional void you mentioned, but they know what they are doing is wrong, and they choose to do it anyway. There are many sociopaths out there who never go so far as killing (though most do engage in risky, dangerous, or even cruel behavior in their pursuit of an emotional rush - I know, I dated one for more than three years). Is that evil? Yes, because it is a choice. Intellectually, they are aware of the rules and of the damage what they are doing will cause, yet they continue, just for the jollies. A sociopath is rational, which is why the insanity defense is so often thrown out for them.
In game terms, I have used sociopaths in my games and they are always Evil. Usually Lawful Evil, as they are slaves to their methods.
A true, extreme psychopath might be somebody who has lost his touch on reality, but not always. Sometime they act a lot like sociopaths, but are more immediately aggressive. But, though such a person might be responsible for a death, rarely is such a person a mass killer. That's something you see on Criminal Minds. But usually, they lack the patience and methodical nature to be true serial killers, and get caught quickly.
Psychopathy and Schizophrenia often get mixed up. A schizophrenic is much more the sort of person who could be considered not responsible for his actions, though they typically are not prone to violence. Except maybe against themselves. So, to sum up:
Sociopath = Lawful/Neutral Evil
Psychopath = Chaotic Evil
Schizophrenic: Neutral until cured
Yet a couple of animals kill for pleasure...grizzly bears...killer whales...yet they are not defined as evil. Mostly because they are just animals and don't have the same control we do...but serial killers also don't have this kind of control...why should they be deemed Evil but these animals get a free pass?
I have never heard any evidence of a grizzly bear killing for "pleasure." I would be stunned to find out there was anything approaching real evidence for that.
There is evidence that killer whales, and some other members of the dolphin family seem to take some enjoyment from teasing their prey, or even hunting for sport. However, as smart as they are, the danger here is in thinking of them as more civilized than they (yet) are. Like cats, and other predators, they still are largely ruled by a hunting instinct. And like your cat, it's possible that instinct can cause predation when the animal is not hungry, thus, they "play" with their food and perhaps then leave it. This is that gray area between instinct and intelligence. I don't think it's done for malice. I think this is what an evolving animal looks like.
Animals? Still animals. Neutral.
Case 2: Multple Personality Disorder: I mean if somebody has MPD do they suffer smite evil damage? Do the detect as evil? What if only one of their personalities is evil?
Though I have long been fascinated with this concept, and some of my favorite films involve it, I am leaning more and more to the camp that says MPD does not exist. However, in D&D terms, I would probably play this as somebody possessed.
But whether you play them as possessed or as a "true" MPD, I would say they are Evil, thus prone to smiting, etc., when the Evil entity is in charge.
|
I don't think we can look at real world animals to make "D&D Animal" Alignment rules -- anymore than we can look at real world people to make "D&D People" Alignment rules.
Cats, bears, killer whales -- I've seen nature videos on TV many times where these and others have "tortured" their prey, "had fun" with their still living prey, etc. But that's real life, not D&D -- a game where Alignment can be fun.
I've heard of murderers being adjudicated legally unable to answer for their crimes because of their mental problems and get committed to asylums. But that's real life, not D&D -- a game where Alignment can be fun.
All that's like trying to use real world stuff in the game where it just trips over its own feet and becomes "unfun."
--------------------
In my Homebrew -- all souls depart to the Incarnum and, like a giant stew pot or kettle, get stirred around and the "good" essence floats to the surface while the evil essence sinks to the bottom. If you were Strongly Aligned one way or the other your soul will more quickly go to Celestia or Hell or wherever; if you were more unaligned or generically good or bad -- even if you are an ANIMAL -- your essence just stews in the Incarnum until it is reincarnated back on the Prime Material. Deities such as Pharasma or Beltine or Anubis would "manage" the Incarnum; there's a Class of arcane caster that taps into magic from the Incarnum, etc.
@Bruuwald: I like your post....and appreciate the opinion and the infomation...this was meant to opne a conversation about it. Thanks for doins so...
1) While I don't dspute anything you say about serial killers....there are many different types of insanities that can lead to serial killers. There are serial killers who know what they are doing is wrong and can't stop themselves. These often actualy provide great insight into cathing other serial killers and are often caught because eventualy they want to be stopped. But they have a instinct to do so...a compulsion.
Speaking about a compulsions what about kelptomaniacs or compulsives liars...they really can't stop themselves.
I am not saying you are wrong...just want your opinion on it.
2) There is some evidence that points to grizzly bears just killing for the sake of killing...though I'll admitt it is not as conclusive as other cases. But I see your point about animals.
@ W E Ray...again your opinion is just as valid...but I disagree about what the game is...like movies and novels a RPG is a escape from RL...but it still is a reflection of RL. What elements of RL you want to use is up to the group. Bring in some RL consideration into a RPG in terms of alignment while might make it more complex does not neccessarily make it unfun. It might make it unfun for you...but I am willing to explore it.
I'm not sure about the animals killing for fun thing. Not the real life evidence for it, I don't know enough about the evidence to comment, but the in game situation. My first thought was that if they are beasts, they can't be considered evil, but are there are fantasy beasts in the setting that are considered evil? Maybe it could be considered the case that some of these animals are evil aligned, some good, but the vast majority are neutral.
In response to your comment in another thread which would seem innappropriate to add now as it has lengthened a lot while I've been away: I was thinking of them as animals used as tools, not strictly tools in the sense of a knife. It's a good point though. However, is a knife neutral? Surely it has no alignment at all? In that a creature, sentient or not, must have an alignment I would still lean towards giving controlled animates the alignment of the controller.
You appear to have no idea what the insanity defense actually is.
It isn't enough to claim that you have a mental disease. (In fact, honestly, many states don't actually require you to have a mental disease - hence what's been termed "temporary insanity").
In the United States (and England, I think), the insanity defense requires a few factors. To simplify, depending on the state you need to show one or more of the following:
1) You are unable to recognize the rightness/wrongness of your action; or
2) You lack the mental capacity to alter your actions to conform to social norms.
So most serial killers (defined of course by "murder of 3 or more individuals") aren't and cannot make use of the insanity defense.
Furthermore, the insanity defense has nothing to do with alignment. Trying to map alignment to insanity is a fool's errand, as the whole point of insanity is that it goes beyond free will or even nature.
|
|
John, it's a good point, that our RPG is a refelction of real life. But I posit that, though we make our game as close to real life as possible, there are elements -- whether for smoothness of play or for sensitivity -- that we make alot different than real life. Thus, just because we see it in real life doesn't mean we wouldn't change how it exists in the game (HP, AC, women warriors, weapons other than swords being any good, etc.)
I guess what I was trying to say is that it's reasonable that we lump all D&D Animals as Neutral -- even though, for example, the CG Outsiders are more bestial than humanoid, and even though in real life we see animals "do things" with their prey that, while we may not be able to understand or define, sure as hell looks like taking pleasure in torture (Haven't you guys at least ever seen a house cat torture a bird or roach before eating it?!).
Regarding your OP, admittedly I don't have the specialized knowledge to post any statement on an insane person. I think, based on whatever I've seen on TV and the psychology training I do have (educational & child psych), that in D&D we can certainly make some NPCs "not guilty" of whatever evil acts they commit cuz they're "insane."
But, it would be really fun to have an element of a Campaign deal with this: have an NPC who should be Neutral be "clinically" insane (or whatever) and see how the PCs deal with it.
In this case it would all depend on the DM and what the group enjoys. Some Gamers hate Alignment issues. ... Some do not want to play in a game where the "monster" might surrender or have some kind of redeeming quality -- they play the game to kill the Orc and steal the Pie. That's what's fun.
On the other hand, some Gamers, myself included, love this kind of stuff. Does the Paladin need an Atonement after he falls for a Geas that makes him do something "evil"? Should the PCs temporarily help one evil NPC to stop a "greater" evil? What do we do if the kobolds surrender? What if The Devil made him do it?! That's what's fun!
------------------------------
John, if you're the DM and your group likes this kind of thing, put it in an upcoming Campaign and have fun with it. ... If you're playing a PC, ask the DM if you can have a "split personality" or something and find a way to include this stuff in your PC.
To answer the OP, for me as DM I want to have an occassional NPC who can not be held accountable for his evil cuz he's insane, maybe even a serial killer.
I would hold that insanity can certainly change an alignment, the insane power corrupted wizard makes a common appearance in fantasy, how someone acts defines his or her alignment at least in part, but also wether that person really regrets his/her actions.
Multiple personalities, I think I'd treat a person as having a single alignment depending on which personality has the strongest presence in most cases, I had an NPC demon at some point that was CE ofcourse, but occasionaly some human emotions from a semi-forgotten past life would surface and she was moved to perform acts of kindness. This didnt really change her alignment though.
You appear to have no idea what the insanity defense actually is.
It isn't enough to claim that you have a mental disease. (In fact, honestly, many states don't actually require you to have a mental disease - hence what's been termed "temporary insanity").
In the United States (and England, I think), the insanity defense requires a few factors. To simplify, depending on the state you need to show one or more of the following:
1) You are unable to recognize the rightness/wrongness of your action; or
2) You lack the mental capacity to alter your actions to conform to social norms.So most serial killers (defined of course by "murder of 3 or more individuals") aren't and cannot make use of the insanity defense.
Furthermore, the insanity defense has nothing to do with alignment. Trying to map alignment to insanity is a fool's errand, as the whole point of insanity is that it goes beyond free will or even nature.
I do know what leagly the insanity defense(well atleast in America)...the thread title was more of a aa reference to are insane people who kill from compulsion are truely evil? Any alignment can have mental disorders.
As to the alignment system in game...it actualy has everything to do with our(refering to western culture) cultural views on evil and good. So the question is are certain insane people evil? Our culture would say no...as if proven they are incapable of knowing the difference between Right and Wrong, they get treatment instead of punishment..
I find it interesting question...if you do not that is fine...than don't respond.
@H.T.J Munchinkineater: With animals killing for pleasure...is it inconclusive. I mean we can't actualy ask the killer whale why it does what it does to the seal. But their behavior seems to indicate killing for fun.
As to objects and the mindless undead having a alignment. Well it is true the game has a supernatural element to it that a dagger used to sacrifice people to a unholy god would pick up the taint of evil...or vice versa...it does not always happen.(I use the sdame theory sometimes in my game to make items magical...).
I think subscibing alignment to non intelligent things(be it a item...construct...or mindless undead) make no sense to do in general. Really I think they(unless specficaly says something else) should just have a NA for Alignment.
@W E Ray: I agree with you doing this in any game would be up to the players involved. I PC and run games. I know players who would look at it like a cheap trick...and there are some players I know if they bring me as this as a character concept I would say "No" to. There is alot of abuse inherent in this....but with the right DM and the right players I think it could lead to some fun RPing...especialy the MPD kinda of situration. The serial killer I am thinking would be evil with post from Bruuwald. But the 'true MPD might not be.
Just we are clear on this...this is not a tread that is saying the rules need to be changed to reflect insanities. Because not all groups would consider it fun. But I think it is a interesting area to explore from a philosphy stand point and as a situration that can creat interesting RPing.
I think subscibing alignment to non intelligent things(be it a item...construct...or mindless undead) make no sense to do in general. Really I think they(unless specficaly says something else) should just have a NA for Alignment.
Risking derailing the thread here, so this will be my last comment on the subject. You say you run games, just out of interest do you house rule skeletons and the like as non-aligned? If so, how do you find it affects the game and the reaction of the players? Merely curious on that one.
I think subscibing alignment to non intelligent things(be it a item...construct...or mindless undead) make no sense to do in general. Really I think they(unless specficaly says something else) should just have a NA for Alignment.Risking derailing the thread here, so this will be my last comment on the subject. You say you run games, just out of interest do you house rule skeletons and the like as non-aligned? If so, how do you find it affects the game and the reaction of the players? Merely curious on that one.
Don't worry about 'derailing' this thread. It is like a conservation...sometimes it goes other places.
As to what happens in my game with non-aligned mindless undead. There really is no effect play wise...as I am straight forwared with players that there are not evil in alignment so I never had a situration where I surprise some player during play with "Your Smite Evil does not work." But Turning undead(or channeling positive energy) will still hurt them as the are animated by negative energy.
As to my players' reaction...I never heard any complaints. No one threw a hissy fit about. So it is either they like the change or they 'live with it.' In other words it is not a deal breaker for them.
It is very important as DM to let players know about changes and general things about the campaign before they actualy make characters.
I couldn't agree more. Nothing kills a players enjoyment of the game like feeling cheated. I've actually used good-aligned undead in past games but they've always been sentient. Being a massive undead fanboy I'm always looking for new things to do with them. I've been toying with the idea of running a campaign with good-aligned undead PCs in an undead world at war with the living world. One day...
I couldn't agree more. Nothing kills a players enjoyment of the game like feeling cheated. I've actually used good-aligned undead in past games but they've always been sentient. Being a massive undead fanboy I'm always looking for new things to do with them. I've been toying with the idea of running a campaign with good-aligned undead PCs in an undead world at war with the living world. One day...
That sounds interesting. I am currently running a game that is pretty much a D&D world caught up in a zombie apocalyspe(sp?). Well atleast it starts of that way. But the 'plague zombies' are different from a regular zombie in alignment and abilities. I have already used one scenario with undead that made the PCs debate on what to do...a vampire protecting a bunch of kids...and might have a necromance using regualr mindless zombies to protect a town from the plague zombies.
Being a serial killer doesn't really have anything to do with alignment in fantasy games like this. I'd say 99% of PC in the game are serial killers. They may have code on who they will kill based on their alignment but kill they will and in many case they crave the excitement of the kill (also know as combat). Some might look at it as obtaining wealth but look at what they spend it on, better ways to kill. The wealth just allow them to grow into better killing machines and one man armies.
As for MPD, I'd say you could have two alignments depending on who's in control. I'm think Dr Jeckle and Mr Hide here with the Alchemist. It could be one is highly evil and the other is polar opposite. Smite evil would only apply when the evil personality is in control.
If this were a question about animals in the real world and the alignments of those who kill for fun, that would be one thing. But this is about inside the game. And the game says they're all Neutral. Rather than ruling this means killing for fun is Neutral, I find it easier to remove the 'they kill for fun' observation. Instead, game animals attack PCs for the 'ooo, food!' reason. Game animals attack other game animals only for the reasons Kipling would approve of. They're neutral. But they're Neutral because they act Neutral, because they cannot think to act in any other way.
Real world arguments get messy with experiments finding coordinated baby-hunting in dolphins, oral traditions in crows, premonitions in octopii (well, one anyway), and vengeance killings in elephants.
As for standard insanities...
If alignments can only be had by those mortal beings who can think enough to make a choice, then anything that removes that choice removes the ability to choose an alignment. A sociopath can still choose things. One of my players is a sociopath. I would actually call her true Neutral because she hasn't made that choice. It hasn't occurred to her to make a choice by doing something alignment-defining. It could be argued that she's actually Neutral Evil because she has no emotional qualms with all the things that make normal stomachs turn but that's because she has no emotions to have those qualms with. The choice made is the fact that she has chosen not to do these things because she recognizes society views them as wrong. And that choice, IMO, keeps her Neutral.
As for MPD, that could get fun. Imagine a Paladin/Antipaladin managing to exist because neither of his power sets comes from a god. No GM in the world would allow it but it's a beautiful mental exercise. One single individual who is both villain and hero, who has to martyr himself on both fronts to end the reign of terror/scourge of light. Terrible character, great story.