| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed that no-one has made the distinction between Sociopathy and psychopathy.
Sociopaths are capable of forming genuine attachment to a few select people (Sherlock Holmes from the most recent british TV run: Sherlock cared enough about Dr Watson, and Mrs Hudson to get thrown off by their endangerment, but would almost always blunder when it comes to observing social protocol. He was unaware of how to work society beyond being brash and cutting.
Consider instead a Psychopath. They observe their environment, smile, act polite, and steadily work themselves up their social ladder. Because of the tactical advantages of being on top of the heap. Psychopaths, if they are genuine psychopaths would also never want to be found out, not even for the emotional release of being recognized as superior or different. Because they don't get reward from that.
So, ask yourself; do you want to play a Sociopath, or a Psychopath?
A Psychopath is shamelessly Chaotic Evil; they do EVERYTHING, because it gives them an advantage, and only do good to cultivate favor, or debts.
If you want to play a Sociopath, that gives a lot more grey zone; and is far more likely to work, because you can declare your adventuring party your "Dr Watson, and Ms Hudson." to actually explain befriending them.
I would say actions matter. If someone lacks natural empathy, but generally struggles to do the right thing by applying ethical reasoning and/or following a strict code, then they are making a genuine effort to be good despite their limitations.This is part of the problem with alignment. I think alignment means motivations. The rulebook says alignment means effects.
No, the rules are pretty darn big on motivation. The random backstory generator in Ultimate Campaign (which is rather annoying in how it kinda treats good/law and evil/chaos interchangeably, but still) lets you get yourself to just about any alignment from the same circumstances, based entirely on why you did what you did and how you felt about it after.
There's also the whole concept of attonement, the mandate for chaotic evil characters to act in a self-serving fashion but otherwise no real restriction on what they can do, etc. etc.
Google, you'd be surprised at the amount of inconsistency across books.
I've noticed that no-one has made the distinction between Sociopathy and psychopathy.
Sociopaths are capable of forming genuine attachment to a few select people (Sherlock Holmes from the most recent british TV run: Sherlock cared enough about Dr Watson, and Mrs Hudson to get thrown off by their endangerment, but would almost always blunder when it comes to observing social protocol. He was unaware of how to work society beyond being brash and cutting.
I made the difference! Read my damn posts :3
Also, what you mention is not sociopathy either, you just described British people. Sociopathy means inability to form empathy of any kind, not Asperger's syndrome or an aloof, awkward personality.
Sociopathy is a serious disorder that renders those people who suffer from it unable to form ANY bonds. It's not a thing about "OH I'VE LEARNED ABOUT THE VALUE OF FRIENDSHIP NOW", it's a mental impairment.
If you then come and say that you don't believe in mental disorders, and that they are just being willfully douchey, and if they tried really hard, they could be nice, then you don't believe such a thing as a sociopath exists. And, also, you should try reading some more about mental disorders.
actually I believe psycopaths are the ones with the mental impairment(physical), sociopaths are the ones with a cognitive disorder(mental) and thus can be treated and is more of an attitude than a disorder.
as I mentioned Sociopaths are people with Antisocial personality disorder, which is largely caused by genetics and the environment, not mental impairment. psychopaths are the people with unusual brain structures or outright damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would generally say no, since he does not have others' wellbeing in mind. He just procedurally follows his code, which sounds lawful neutral to me.
Marcus Robert Hosler kind of brought up an important point- He is ethical, but not necessarily moral. Ethics are how we act for the good of society, while morals define one's personal character.
Except that a sociopath is perfectly capable of really meaning it. Of having a code that he personally believes in and respects that isn't 'imposed' from anywhere. It won't be a code based on the feeling of compassion or caring, on a gut level, about other people...but a reasoned code of conduct that holds people's life and well-being in high regard is very possible. Now, it's not gonna be common, but that wasn't the question asked.
It's psychopath, actually.
Well, actually, clinically it's neither. Psychology has stopped using both terms entirely in any formal sense due to precisely this sort of confusion (which mostly arises because Psychology used sociopath to mean what we're talking about here while Socioogy used psychopath...and both used the opposite for a very different disorder). So we're going with the pop culture meanings here (since that's what we've got) and by those, sociopath means more or less what I said it did in my first post. It's dulled emotions, an absence of inherent empathy for other people, and a complete absence of guilt.
And no, psychopaths are completely divorced from empathy and sympathy, making them unwilling to indulge in beneficent actions for anything other than practical or selfish reasons. You CAN have a psychopath who's a mostly reasonably and reliable ally, such as a LE ex-hellknight. All that means is that you need to watch your back with them if the enemy makes them an offer that's better than what they have going with you.
Nope. Or at least not necessarily. Sociopathic behavior is exactly as you describe, but then someone who was born with sociopathic wiring but had a strict code they abided by would probably never be diagnosed with a mental disorder (unless that code was particularly weird).
Mental illness is an interesting thing, because the way the DSM (and our society as a whole) defines mental illness is basically anything psychological (and some varieties of physiological) that actively disrupts one's ability to function in society. The corollary to that fact is that if something doesn't disrupt your functioning in society, it's not technically a mental disorder.
But...we're talking about the way someone's brain is wired, not a mental disorder in that sense. And someone with brain wiring that would make them a sociopath sans strict moral code, who nevertheless has such a code, seems very possible.
Dexter is chaotic evil, plain and simple. His motivations his drives are all self-derived.
Uh...CE and selfish are different things. Dexter is LE because he's a monster with a well-nigh unbreakable code of behavior which he does not violate.
I'd have to conclude that if you're asking that question, you really don't understand the concept of sociopathy. Not that most people do.
No, actually, it's a pretty reasonable question.
I would say actions matter. If someone lacks natural empathy, but generally struggles to do the right thing by applying ethical reasoning and/or following a strict code, then they are making a genuine effort to be good despite their limitations.A person such as you describe is not a sociopath.
Depends on how you define 'sociopath'.
Could you cite the source of your information, Secret Wizard? I'd like to see where it's coming from.
Here you go, but I'm mostly basing my statements on Jon Ronson's book about psychopaths. It's pretty good.
It should do everyone some good to read the link I posted to work with the same terms.
Superego Pathology
The touchstone of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder has been the absence of
conscience, or serious deficits in moral judgment (Cleckley 1941/1976; Hare 1991; Johnson
1949; Robins 1966). Although few controlled studies of moral development in psychopathy
have been done (Hare, 2003; Trevethan and Walker 1989), clinicians agree that this
characteristic is a marker for the character pathology (Kernberg 1984; Meloy 1988; Reid et al.
1986).
So yeah, no Lawful Good sociopaths.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also feel like mentioning that more people than you'd think have "psychopathy", or the inability to feel emotions or create empathy, but they don't go on murderous rampages or kill people randomly, why? because there is no benefit but harsh repercussions.
I finally get home where I can contribute, and dead man pretty much sums up my argument for me... Well poo.
|
|
Here you go, but I'm mostly basing my statements on Jon Ronson's book about psychopaths. It's pretty good.
Here's the thing: That operationalizes antisocial personality disorder, not what is popularly known as psychopathy or sociopathy (there's a slight difference), and far more importantly it operationalizes it by including a variety of behaviors. So, no, obviously someone who actually does behaviors like pathological lying isn't gonna be LG...but someone whose internal landscape includes that tendency but represses it could be.
In short, someone could easily have a medium-high rating on the scale that paper uses (maxing out things like 'Grandiose sense of self-worth' and 'Shallow affect') and still be LG, and have a very similar internal landscape to someone who's got the full disorder, but they're not gonna quite fulfill the diagnostic criteria due to their code removing most of the behavioral indicators (which is enough to keep them from ever hitting the point on the scale where they'd be said to have the disorder).
It should do everyone some good to read the link I posted to work with the same terms.
Agreed! Operationalizing terms is very important indeed.
Here's the thing: That operationalizes antisocial personality disorder, not what is popularly known as psychopathy or sociopathy (there's a slight difference),
That doesn't advance the conversation. We are not talking about what people call an X, we are talking about the actual psychology of an X.
Antisocial personality disorder is the current nomenclature for the conditions that are popularly called as X.Note that you listed a couple of conditions on the scale and said they can still be LG, but then I quoted a specific part where it says someone that is said to be a psycopath or has an antisocial personality disorder (technical term for sociopathy) CANNOT be lawful.
If you wanna play around semantics or imagine examples that don't fit what the condition is believed to entail, then I can't contribute to this conversation because we are moving goalposts and that bores me.
|
|
That doesn't advance the conversation. We are not talking about what people call an X, we are talking about the actual psychology of an X.
Antisocial personality disorder is the current nomenclature for the conditions that are popularly called as X.
To some degree, yes. But the thing about the term 'sociopath' is that, in popular culture (the only place the term has been used for a while now) it refers more or less solely to a mentality, not a mentality coupled with behaviors like most actual diagnosable mental disorders. And the OP has repeatedly stated that his question was indeed about the mentality on its own.
Note that you listed a couple of conditions on the scale and said they can still be LG, but then I quoted a specific part where it says someone that is said to be a psycopath or has an antisocial personality disorder (technical term for sociopathy) CANNOT be lawful.
Right...but the way you are a 'psychopath' according to that paper is to score a 20 or higher on the scale. My point is that this is impossible without behavior that makes you, in fact, not LG, especially because it involves breaking laws. So...yeah, by that paper's definition, you can't be a LG person with antisocial personality disorder...but that's due to the fact that antisocial personality disorder is literally defined by unlawful behavior...which sociopathy, as a term in actual use (albeit by the general public and not the psychological community), is not.
In short, you're trying to use the clinical definition of something that isn't even quite the same concept to argue that someone can't be both LG and the mainstream term 'sociopath'.
If you wanna play around semantics or imagine examples that don't fit what the condition is believed to entail, then I can't contribute to this conversation because we are moving goalposts and that bores me.
Uh...I stated my definition of sociopath in my first post. It hasn't changed. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't constitute moving any goal posts.
Here's the thing: That operationalizes antisocial personality disorder, not what is popularly known as psychopathy or sociopathy (there's a slight difference),That doesn't advance the conversation. We are not talking about what people call an X, we are talking about the actual psychology of an X.
Antisocial personality disorder is the current nomenclature for the conditions that are popularly called as X.Note that you listed a couple of conditions on the scale and said they can still be LG, but then I quoted a specific part where it says someone that is said to be a psycopath or has an antisocial personality disorder (technical term for sociopathy) CANNOT be lawful.
If you wanna play around semantics or imagine examples that don't fit what the condition is believed to entail, then I can't contribute to this conversation because we are moving goalposts and that bores me.
I think it is fair to point out that psychological disorders can be a bit inexact. It's not like every single person with antisocial peronality disorder is exactly the same: the APA and WHO both diagnose the illness on the basis of meeting 3 out of 6/7 criteria.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has trouble with social interaction let me put my two cents in.
I'm pretty sure that Sherlock Holmes is not a Sociopath. He's lacking in social skills. That is he's unable to understand social norms and the like, because something doesn't click. He's an Aspie. I can give you a long list as to why he is. That's why he needs Watson around. Because if he didn't his manner would alienate the people he's trying to help.
Now that does not mean that he's a sociopath. He's formed clear bonds with at least two people.
And no, Aspergers does NOT equal sociopathy or psycopathy. Myself and one of my close friends who live with the condition are quite able to pick up on people's emotions, and are very empathetic. We just don't pick up on social cues. We care, and nearly everyone on the Autism spectrum I've met is a honest, open person who is caring. Sure we come of as abrasive.
Part of our unwillingness to interact comes from others treating us poorly. Part of it comes from the stress of being around other people.
Anyway, sorry for the rant.
But to put it quickly Sherlock Holmes is not a sociopath and therefore not a good example.
For your choice of Lawful Good people with autism, check out The Curious Incident of the Dog at Midnight!
|
|
For your choice of Lawful Good people with autism, check out The Curious Incident of the Dog at Midnight!
Yes, I agree.
However Autism Spectrum is more than just what's portrayed in that book. The character was smart and whatnot. But he wasn't super high functioning.
An example of a rather high functioning ASD Lawful Good. Bones from the show Bones is a VERY good example.
Im am going to say no and go as far as to say a Sociopath would not even be able to be a Anti Paladin.
Sociopath tend to have very high self esteem to the point to where they think they are the grandest and smartest thing in the Universe.
They are not going to accept that there is a God or an Idea that is superior to them and that they should follow it.
Even an Anti Paladin has to admit there a Evil Deity or Demon that is superior to him, although he might be working on getting enough power to replace it, and a sociopath would never admit there is some thing bigger and badder then themselves.
A sociopath makes a good Graveknight but not a Paladin.
...
Batman is Lawful Good.
...That is, for me, the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Batman is Lawful Good.
Unless of course I'm missing sarcasm. Commissioner Gordon? Superman? Sure. Batman, Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Neutral who is honestly self-deluded in thinking he's Good, granted, but still VERY far from Lawful Good.
There's an alignment chart someone made with Batman at every alignment. He's versatile like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an alignment chart someone made with Batman at every alignment. He's versatile like that....
Batman is Lawful Good.
...That is, for me, the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Batman is Lawful Good.
Unless of course I'm missing sarcasm. Commissioner Gordon? Superman? Sure. Batman, Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Neutral who is honestly self-deluded in thinking he's Good, granted, but still VERY far from Lawful Good.
To say what he calls a sociopath is or isnt a sociopath is iceskating uphill. Even the experts dont agree on what exactly constitutes a sociopath... The word itself hasnt been clearly defined and is thus as 'subjective' as good and evil ultimately are. One must first have a personal 'subjective' definition of what one refers to as a sociopath. Sherlock the show DOES indeed establish its own rules for what the distinction is... While the degreed community does not in any way agree about where the nuanced lines are drawn on the subject, we might as well try drawing some lines in order for such ideas to serve any framework for us to examine them, so lets have a look at it, shall we?
Me personally, I've always seen alignment as the combination of ethics and morals.
Of course I've always thought that morals is the 'good for the whole' and ethics are the 'justice for the masses', in opposition to some earlier posts.
Ethics to me always seemed like the 'rules we follow for the sake of the appearance of imbalance and impropriety' where morals are the 'internal compass of what is right'.
Thus I've always seen lawful/chaotic as the ethical spectrum
and good/evil as the moral spectrum
Even the experts disagree on what the actual definition of a sociopath is.
If 'sherlock' is your definition of sociopath instead of psychopath then chaotic good or chaotic neutral is indeed a perfect 'home' for it... An interest in good, with no interest in 'social norms'... Sherlock in the show definitely 'has' empathy. He tries to hide it but he's got it. He's *uncomfortable* socially and *less adept* or *willfully knowingly resists employing* social graces.
A psychopath would be sort of the opposite. A complete lack of empathy for humans but possibly an intentional hiding within the conventions of social grace for the purpose of abusing others... Sherlock from the show may abuse others but only on a superfluous level where the show's definition of psychopath may indeed be VERY good at hiding within the confines of social norms while not caring a lick about others.
That wiki post from Marcus sort of forms the foundation of the idea that while Rand might be 'community ethical', she did end up seeing in her own writing the flaw that eithcs is being used to replace morals as it often does. Her ideas only propogate in a system with perfect freedoms and is just as much a failure construct based on a foundation of an unrealistic preconcieved utopia as any other socio-economic philosophical construct. The last line of the wiki entry drives home the fact that ethics does a crap job of replacing morals.
Long story short if 'lawful/chaotic' is the 'spectrum' of adherence to the norms of society then a sociopath or a psycopath following the 'law' would be purely by accident. There is a strong precedent in the professional community that both psychopaths and sociopaths 'coldness' towards others is 'cold and unfeeling' and thus results in either case a 'meanness or cruelty' but I'd be happy with the notion that, as in sherlocks case the difference between psycopaths and sociopaths is the 'end result' of that coldness. Psychopaths inability to share empathy with others results in a shamelessly cold and brutal person, where sociopaths inability to share empathy with others separates itself by ending up with a distinct lack of 'substantive malice' towards others. I'm as charmed by this 'fantasy (not clinically agreed upon in reality)' distinction as others.
But if the laws are 'society's rules' for how to treat each other and good/evil is the spectrum of what is righteous or what each person inherently deserves... A lawful version of Sherlock would somehow be a character with chaotic written on his sheet who just happens to never break the law, but hardly 'lawful'...
If , alternatively, as is often argued on these threads, 'lawful' is also 'subjective'... Lawful referring to a 'personal code' like a knight or paladin or a samurai... then its short work then that a psychopath or sociopath could 'establish their own set of rules which they fervently adhere to. I personally see this as a fallacy since the knightly codes or paladin codes and even the samurai codes arent 'personal codes'... they were 'ethical in nature'... objective codes created by communities ostensibly (subjectively) for the community's benefit. *Non subjective* laws to 'subjectively good ends'.
So it does truly boil down to 'deciding for yourself what the distinction is between a psychopath and a sociopath, since the professionals themselves havent clearly ironed this one out themselves... and also whether lawful and good are subjective... If everyone thinks they've got a good reason for doing what they do then goodness is subjective. If the only rules you follow are your own then lawful is a subjective thing.
Personally I dont like subjectiveness on alignments only because doing so removes much of their reason for being. They make for great long threads of introspection and navel gazing with beers after (or god forbid during) the campaign, but I'm in that group of posters who doesnt think 'judge dredd' is a paladin. Lawful neutral no matter how 'good he thinks his lawfulness is'... Sort of the whole point of that movie to show the distinction.
Ethically judge dredd is top notch. He fools himself into thinking his ethics are moral.
|
|
I'll let the professionals answer, in this case the Oxford dictionary. Note the part I bolded.
sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaTH|
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
DERIVATIVES
sociopathic |ˌsōsēōˈpaTHik| adjective.
sociopathy |ˌsōsēˈäpəTHē| noun
The lack of conscience is mostly what we're talking about here, I agree...but what about lacking a conscience necessitates the lack of a code of behavior? Indeed, lacking a conscience, some people might be more inclined to establish such a code, simply to give them some sort of guide on what to do.
To draw an analogy: I have Aspergers syndrome (as mentioned above). This means I have no inherent instinctual understanding of human social interaction (which most people do). But I was interested in why people did what they did, and I simply learned, purely intellectually, the rules that governed their behavior. I've gotten quite good at it over time, and can now 'fake' the instincts I'm lacking well enough that few notice.
In the same way, a sociopath who was aware that other people had something they lacked (and cared...an admittedly rare thing for a sociopath to do, but possible) might intellectually work out a detailed code of behavior that enabled them to 'fake' a conscience well enough that few could tell they lacked one, even on long acquaintance.
Now, many sociopaths who did this would only follow the code on the most superficial level, not actually caring about it, and thus not be likely to be Good-aligned...but while they might not care about people on an emotional level, it would be possible for them to come to care for the code itself, and if they do that, they might easily live their lives never even considering doing anything bad, not because they'd feel bad if they did, but because it would break their rules, and they don't want to do that.
The original derivation of Vampire The Masquerade had an interesting replacement for alignment, the Humanity rating. On a score from 1 to 10, it essentially defined what were the lines you'd cross when it came to setting a limit in your behavior.
This is a pretty good description.
I'm familiar with Vampire (heck, I've played more Vampire than Pathfinder)...but none of what follows means you can't have a sociopath with high Humanity. Indeed, in Vampire, there's even a Conscience stat...and you can have a 1 in it (the human minimum) and a Humanity of 10. Now, if you ever violate your moral code you'll likely lose Humanity rapidly with that low a Conscience...but it's not impossible to maintain, just much harder than it would be for someone with more Conscience. That's a pretty solid analogy for the LG sociopath.
Maintaining a Good alignment is harder when all your instincts are pointing you in another direction...but as redeemed Demons demonstrate, it's not impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here is the DMS V definition of sociopathy which was renamed an anti social personality disorder
DSM-5 Criteria - Revised April 2012
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose antisocial personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:
A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a. Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
b. Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
b. Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
No you can't be lawful Good.
|
I'll try tackling this from a slightly different perspective.
In order for a person to be diagnosed with, or otherwise suffering from, a personality disorder, the disorder must be negatively affecting the person enough to cause extreme difficulty or inability to function in normal society.
For example, I'm considered borderline ADHD. One of the primary factors in my non-diagnosis is the fact that my symptoms do not compromise my ability to function normally. The same would hold true for this imagined character.
Let's say you want to make a "sociopathic" Paladin. IF the condition is strong enough that the symptoms of sociopathy are prevalent to the point of making the Paladin unable to function normally in society, that means he is regularly committing acts which would likely go against the Paladin code, and thus would probably never attain Paladinhood in the first place.
On the other hand, if the character in question has some measure of control of his own actions, and regularly decides against his own thoughts and towards better actions for good, he is overcoming his disability and is acting as a Paladin should, which means that he isn't really a ""sociopath", because it hasn't prevented him from functioning normally. He might have those kinds of thoughts, but so long as he decides to be a Paladin IN SPITE of them, he should be fine.
I'll try tackling this from a slightly different perspective.
In order for a person to be diagnosed with, or otherwise suffering, from a personality disorder, the disorder must be negatively affecting the person enough to cause extreme difficulty or inability to function in normal society.
For example, I'm considered borderline ADHD. One of the primary factors in my non-diagnosis is the fact that my symptoms do not compromise my ability to function normally. The same would hold true for this imagined character.
Let's say you want to make a "sociopathic" Paladin. IF the condition is strong enough that the symptoms of sociopathy are prevalent to the point of making the Paladin unable to function normally in society, that means he is regularly committing acts which would likely go against the Paladin code, and thus would probably never attain Paladinhood in the first place.
On the other hand, if the character in question has some measure of control of his own actions, and regularly decides against his own thoughts and towards better actions for good, he is overcoming his disability and is acting as a Paladin should, which means that he isn't really a ""sociopath", because it hasn't prevented him from functioning normally. He might have those kinds of thoughts, but so long as he decides to be a Paladin IN SPITE of them, he should be fine.
it wouldnt work this way because ADHD is not functionally similair to anti-social personality disorder. you either have an anti-social personality disorder or you don't. if you are not exhibiting signs of a personality disorder then by definition you don't have a anti-social personality disorder. if you are exhbiting signs enough that you do have an anti-social personality disorder then you by definition you are not a lawful good person.
I'll let the professionals answer, in this case the Oxford dictionary. Note the part I bolded.
sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaTH|
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
DERIVATIVES
sociopathic |ˌsōsēōˈpaTHik| adjective.
sociopathy |ˌsōsēˈäpəTHē| nounThe lack of conscience is mostly what we're talking about here, I agree...but what about lacking a conscience necessitates the lack of a code of behavior? Indeed, lacking a conscience, some people might be more inclined to establish such a code, simply to give them some sort of guide on what to do.
To draw an analogy: I have Aspergers syndrome (as mentioned above). This means I have no inherent instinctual understanding of human social interaction (which most people do). But I was interested in why people did what they did, and I simply learned, purely intellectually, the rules that governed their behavior. I've gotten quite good at it over time, and can now 'fake' the instincts I'm lacking well enough that few notice.
In the same way, a sociopath who was aware that other people had something they lacked (and cared...an admittedly rare thing for a sociopath to do, but possible) might intellectually work out a detailed code of behavior that enabled them to 'fake' a conscience well enough that few could tell they lacked one, even on long acquaintance.
Look. Nobody understands why people do stuff. We all create our own codes. It's not in-built. The real question is why do we create our own codes.
A sociopath that creates a code is not doing to serve others, he's only serving himself. So it's not good.
Further, it's a personal code of his own shaping. So it's not lawful in the same way a Barbarian is not lawful even if he had a personal code, which they generally do.
Discussion over.
A sociopath sees power In paladins.
He wants to be lawful good so he Can get their powers. so he takes a level in wizard and spam casts protection from evil and protection from chaos until he pings as lawful good, because both of those spells are naturally good or lawful actions.
He becomes a paladin for that power he desired, and follows the Code all the time, for he doesn't want to lose his powers.
Sociopaths are entirely based on self-interest, and they are typically insanely smart.
If they see power they want, they will do whatever it takes to get it.
|
|
here is the DMS V definition of sociopathy which was renamed an anti social personality disorder
That's...a gross oversimplification. Also, sociopathy means something very different from antisocial personality disorder in general conversation...which is what we're having. Using them interchangeably is lazy, and doesn't address the OP's question (which, given previous posts, was clearly using the pop culture definition, which I summed up in my first post) properly.
Look. Nobody understands why people do stuff. We all create our own codes. It's not in-built. The real question is why do we create our own codes.
Uh...no, most people don't. Most people have stuff they won't do, but an explicit and detailed personal code? Nope. That's...actually pretty rare.
A sociopath that creates a code is not doing to serve others, he's only serving himself. So it's not good.
Depends on how you define 'sociopath'.
Further, it's a personal code of his own shaping. So it's not lawful in the same way a Barbarian is not lawful even if he had a personal code, which they generally do.
This is one of the really grey areas of the alignment rules, actually. whether personal codes are Lawful or Chaotic seems to have a lot to do with the precise nature of the code.
Discussion over.
This is not, in fact, how discussions work...
I'll let the professionals answer, in this case the Oxford dictionary. Note the part I bolded.
sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaTH|
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
DERIVATIVES
sociopathic |ˌsōsēōˈpaTHik| adjective.
sociopathy |ˌsōsēˈäpəTHē| nounThe lack of conscience is mostly what we're talking about here, I agree...but what about lacking a conscience necessitates the lack of a code of behavior? Indeed, lacking a conscience, some people might be more inclined to establish such a code, simply to give them some sort of guide on what to do.
To draw an analogy: I have Aspergers syndrome (as mentioned above). This means I have no inherent instinctual understanding of human social interaction (which most people do). But I was interested in why people did what they did, and I simply learned, purely intellectually, the rules that governed their behavior. I've gotten quite good at it over time, and can now 'fake' the instincts I'm lacking well enough that few notice.
In the same way, a sociopath who was aware that other people had something they lacked (and cared...an admittedly rare thing for a sociopath to do, but possible) might intellectually work out a detailed code of behavior that enabled them to 'fake' a conscience well enough that few could tell they lacked one, even on long acquaintance.
Now, many sociopaths who did this would only follow the code on the most superficial level, not actually caring about it, and thus not be likely to be Good-aligned...but while they might not care about people on an emotional level, it would be possible for them to come to care for the code itself, and if they do that, they might easily live their lives never even considering doing anything bad, not because they'd feel bad if they did, but because it would break their rules, and they don't want to do that.
The original derivation of Vampire The Masquerade...
the person you would describe here would not be diagnosed as having an anti-social personality disorder. you must display the traits, meaning to must do bad things. you cannot have an anti social personality disorder in theory, it only exists in fact. it is impossible to be lawful good much less a paladin and be classified as having an anti-social personality disorder
stuff,
Remember, in pathfinder, good and evil are quantifiable forces. You could be a saint, a holy paragon, by sitting in your basement casting protection from evil on rocks.
Actions in pathfinder make alignment, not intent.
here is the DMS V definition of sociopathy which was renamed an anti social personality disorderThat's...a gross oversimplification. Also, sociopathy means something very different from antisocial personality disorder in general conversation...which is what we're having. Using them interchangeably is lazy, and doesn't address the OP's question (which, given previous posts, was clearly using the pop culture definition, which I summed up in my first post) properly.
Look. Nobody understands why people do stuff. We all create our own codes. It's not in-built. The real question is why do we create our own codes.Uh...no, most people don't. Most people have stuff they won't do, but an explicit and detailed personal code? Nope. That's...actually pretty rare.
A sociopath that creates a code is not doing to serve others, he's only serving himself. So it's not good.Depends on how you define 'sociopath'.
Further, it's a personal code of his own shaping. So it's not lawful in the same way a Barbarian is not lawful even if he had a personal code, which they generally do.This is one of the really grey areas of the alignment rules, actually. whether personal codes are Lawful or Chaotic seems to have a lot to do with the precise nature of the code.
Discussion over.This is not, in fact, how discussions work...
What? do you know what the DSM V is? sociapathy has now been defined as a person having an anti social personality disorder, the term sociopath is no longer used by the established medical health care profession, it is now defined and diagonised as i stated.
stuff,Remember, in pathfinder, good and evil are quantifiable forces. You could be a saint, a holy paragon, by sitting in your basement casting protection from evil on rocks.
Actions in pathfinder make alignment, not intent.
Then we should be in agreement. You can't be diagnosed with an anti social personality disorder based on intent. You.have to take actions, which is why you can't have a lawful good alignment and have an anti social personality disorder.
Sociopaths tend to be naturally charming, and sociable, and can often form "friendships".
Note that these friendships are nothing more then the sociopath "owning" you, and wanting to protect, or keep, his valuable object.
A simple way to sum up a sociopath is the following quote-
"I see no difference between things and people."
You can very much be a sociopath and not act like one. Acting like one causes problems for you, and you are the most important thing.
You may very well not want to deal with those problems. They inconvence you more then just acting properly.
things that make a sociopath a sociopath
While, due to the whole "consummate liar" thing they can't be a paladin (because paladins can't lie, ever, or make any mistakes, ever.) they can very well be lawful good, as they can simply act like it. Having a vice (lying) doesn't make you evil, unless any of the following make you evil instantly-
frequent swearing
Insulting others frequently
Frequent jaywalking
Hunting for sport
|
Here, is my take on this, make of it as you will. From a story standpoint, Paladins are chosen, kinda like Oracles, by the Gods...I have my doubts that someone like a sociopath would be given the powers of a Paladin, without first being cured by that deity. IMHO, the god's reputation is on the line and honestly it would look bad having a agent of justice and mercy show up under an affliction that could possibly interupt that dieties wishes.
However, if your group wants to roleplaying something like that, go ahead. I don't want to be part of a bad/wrong fun discussion.
And again, my opinion, if this was a character I would be imagining, I'd try and find someone who could cast heal on myself ASAP, to remove the impairment. As paragon of faith should keep them selves healthy, pure and ready...(that's my take)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose antisocial personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:
A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a.Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
b.Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a.Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
b.Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
B. Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
1. Antagonism, characterized by:
a. Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve ones ends.
b.Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
c. Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one„s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
d. Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
2. Disinhibition, characterized by:
a. Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
b. Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
c.Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for ones limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger
C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or sociocultural environment.
E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
F. The individual is at least age 18 years.
A few of things:
1. As mentioned elsewhere, that's not what "sociopath" means.
2. Sherlock Holmes isn't a sociopath, that's just nonsense propagated by bad Tumblr fanfiction.
3. By definition, a person who only obeys the law because they're supposed to, rather than doing so out of dedication to the concept of order, is Neutral, not Lawful.
4. By definition, a person who cares *solely* for themselves, with absolutely no thought for anyone else, cannot be Good. You are describing a Neutral or Chaotic Neutral person. Or, perhaps, a Lawful Evil person who uses the law for their own selfish ends.
|
|
What? do you know what the DSM V is? sociapathy has now been defined as a person having an anti social personality disorder, the term sociopath is no longer used by the established medical health care profession, it is now defined and diagonised as i stated.
Not really, no. I'm aware that it's no longer acceptable clinical terminology (indeed, I was the first one to bring that up in this thread)...but that means you use the lay person's definition of the term (since that's the only valid definition left), not that you use clinical terminology that has a different definition. The latter simply results in confusion.
A few of things:
1. As mentioned elsewhere, that's not what "sociopath" means.
2. Sherlock Holmes isn't a sociopath, that's just nonsense propagated by bad Tumblr fanfiction.
3. By definition, a person who only obeys the law because they're supposed to, rather than doing so out of dedication to the concept of order, is Neutral, not Lawful.
4. By definition, a person who cares *solely* for themselves, with absolutely no thought for anyone else, cannot be Good. You are describing a Neutral or Chaotic Neutral person. Or, perhaps, a Lawful Evil person who uses the law for their own selfish ends.
Regarding point 2, Holmes himself states in the series that he's a "high-functioning sociopath". So, bad professional fiction writing instead of fanfiction writing.
|
|
Regarding point 2, Holmes himself states in the series that he's a "high-functioning sociopath". So, bad professional fiction writing instead of fanfiction writing.
Not necessarily. Holmes tosses that off as an insulting correction of what someone else actually means after they call him a psychopath. Jumping to the conclusion that he actually meant that little self diagnosis is...not a huge leap, but also not a necessary one based on his statement.
What? do you know what the DSM V is? sociapathy has now been defined as a person having an anti social personality disorder, the term sociopath is no longer used by the established medical health care profession, it is now defined and diagonised as i stated.Not really, no. I'm aware that it's no longer acceptable clinical terminology (indeed, I was the first one to bring that up in this thread)...but that means you use the lay person's definition of the term (since that's the only valid definition left), not that you use clinical terminology that has a different definition. The latter simply results in confusion.
the DSM V is the bible of mental illness, it is what pretty much every mental health professional use when they are diagnosing whether or not you have a mental illness or disorder. if you want to know what a "sociapath" is that's the book you would use, and in that book, sociopaths are classified as having an "anti-social personality disorder.
|
|
the DSM V is the bible of mental illness, it is what pretty much every mental health professional use when they are diagnosing whether or not you have a mental illness or disorder.
Indeed. Except that's not what we're doing.
if you want to know what a "sociapath" is that's the book you would use, and in that book, sociopaths are classified as having an "anti-social personality disorder.
Y'know what the word f*ggot means? Originally, I mean. It was a bundle of sticks. Nobody uses that definition any more for obvious reasons, because the definition in the minds of most people has shifted. In the same way, the psychological community has stopped using sociopath because what popular culture defined it as and the clinical definition were no longer in-synch.
So...using the DSM-V's stuff on definition of antisocial personality disorder when someone (as confirmed by they themselves) was clearly using the pop culture definition is only slightly more useful than bringing up bundles of sticks in a discussion of homophobic slurs.
Regarding point 2, Holmes himself states in the series that he's a "high-functioning sociopath". So, bad professional fiction writing instead of fanfiction writing.Not necessarily. Holmes tosses that off as an insulting correction of what someone else actually means after they call him a psychopath. Jumping to the conclusion that he actually meant that little self diagnosis is...not a huge leap, but also not a necessary one based on his statement.
I think you're forgetting the end of season 3, sir.