Insanity in Society: Diplomacy or Intimidate?

[BigP4nda]

I am about to begin a game where I am playing a Necromancer who is a few crumbs short of a biscuit (if you know what I mean).

My question is, would freaking somebody out with random bipolar threatening/encouraging call for a Diplomacy check or an Intimidate check?

For a good representation, think of the Joker trying to to haggle.

[Kobold Catgirl]

You're trying to scare them enough that they're amenable to your demands, so I'd say Intimidate. I can't see one-person good-cop-bad-cop working as a means of forging long term friendships.

I would be careful about how you talk about mental illness here, though. Not everyone's going to find it funny. :P

[BigP4nda]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You're trying to scare them enough that they're amenable to your demands, so I'd say Intimidate. I can't see one-person good-cop-bad-cop working as a means of forging long term friendships.

I would be careful about how you talk about mental illness here, though. Not everyone's going to find it funny. :P

Let's keep this within topic and not strew words to mean something that they obviously weren't intended to mean. I made no unsavory remarks towards those with mental illnesses, I simply stated I was playing a crazy necromancer (and yes extreme cases of bipolar syndrome rides alongside that type of personality, its just a fact).

I agree that Intimidate seems to fit the image best, but was wondering if an argument could be made for Diplomacy. If you think about it, if you are just simply talking to the person, but if you talk to yourself, much like Gollum/Smeagol, and squeeze in a maniacal giggle here and there, would it freak them out enough to warrant an Intimidate check? But what if you are trying to scare them, but just because of your personality, it freaks them out? Would you still make the Intimidate check?

[Matthew Downie]

If the ultimate effect is to make someone scared, Intimidate. If the effect is to make them like you and think of you as a (potential) friend, Diplomacy. Intimidate seems like the better answer.

Which isn't to say you couldn't use Diplomacy as well.

[BigP4nda]

But what if, like I said, you try to be friends with them, but they find you too creepy and just do what you want to make you go away? would that be considered rolling a Diplo check and failing with positive results? Succeeding? or the GM just saying "roll an intimidate instead"?

[Matthew Downie]

Probably the latter. There's no rules support for allowing a failed Diplomacy check to provide useful results.

[Mecrutio]

BigP4nda I'm glad to see you acknowledge that mental illness is a sensitive subject to bring into a role playing game and will require some forethought. If you haven't already done so, I would suggest discussing this strong choice of having a character with bipolar disorder with your GM and possibly your table of players. From your post it is clear that your intent isn't to offend and communicating that intent to the people you play with will be very important. After all someone at your table may have bipolar disorder and is managing it very well to where you would never guess they have such a condition. There is also the possibility of people at your table who may have relatives with bipolar disorder. I think it would be a great place to start by first having this discussion of introducing such a character with your GM and then possibly your table of players.

From your post it seems you already know some information about bipolar disorder, but I wanted to share some links from the American Psychological Association (APA) that will give a brief overview about bipolar disorder.

Recognizing the Signs of Bipolar Disorder

Myths and Realities About Bipolar Disorder

One of the best resources I can recommend for an in-depth clinical definition of bipolar disorder would be the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Your local library or university library would most likely have a copy for you to read.

Now to get to your question about how a character with bipolar disorder might interact socially with others when either in a manic or depressive state. If the character is feeling irritable then I think intimidate would be an accurate choice to make with social interactions. They could easily become agitated by the mundane or perceived unnecessary process of haggling with a merchant for goods when all they want is to just buy an item at a reasonable price or a price they find desirable. The merchant wanting to make a profit on the sale could be a source of frustration for the character in that they are preventing your character from obtaining their goal. If your character was feeling overconfident or grandiose then I think you could make diplomacy checks. If your character thought they were a lord from a noble house then I could see them trying to use diplomacy to convince a merchant to give them the good that they want for free or at a significant discount based upon them being an important person. To give a real world example some people in a manic state have thought they were the president of their country, chosen savior of the human race, the smartest person in the world, etc.

One thing you might consider is that your character would try experimenting with self-medicating. If the character is successful with self-medicating from time to time then the symptoms of bipolar disorder could be diminished. This would give the character a bit of a respite from the mental illness and you a break from role playing it. Just a thought you might find interesting.

Best of luck as you continue to develop your character concept.

[Paulicus]

Joker's definitely more of an intimidate type of guy. He's also off his rocker and extremely Chaotic Evil, which would make working with a party difficult.

If you only planning to take some inspiration and play a "Joke-lite," if you will, it all depends on your desired outcome. Your example of someone "doing something you want to get you to go away" would probably be more a twist on a successful diplomacy check. I can image how they might talk about you after you leave. Something along the lines of "He seemed harmless enough, but dang was he strange. Bless his heart." Yada yada.

As long as you don't bring too much reference to "real life" illness into it, I doubt anyone would get very offended. I have a few PFS characters that are a bit mad in their own way (convinced their descendants of Azlanti kings, or arguing with their illusory "twin brother"). Keep it within the realm of fantasy and you should be okay. That said, the suggestion of talking to your fellow players, at least a bit, is a sound one.

[BigP4nda]

So the consensus seems to be either an Intimidate check or an estranged Diplomacy check, depending on how my character is trying to get his point across. I think this'll help, thanks for the fast replies.

Just to put it out there, it really makes no difference to the answer to my questions, but I feel like I need to clarify myself.

I am not playing a Bipolar character, I am playing a sheltered and overprotected Half-drow who never saw the outside world throughout his childhood. His human mother died at a young age, so he has no memory of her whatsoever, and he was raised by his strict drow father (his mother and father were in an illegal relationship per campaign region background etc etc. He was born with powerful necromantic aura and was hidden by his parents to prevent an organization from finding him and taking him.) He grew up with what started off as a minor case of Multiple Personality syndrome, as he would talk to himself as if he was talking to his mother (like Gollum/Smeagol, but him/mom). His father taught him the religion of Urgathoa; while he didn't really agree with the ways of the goddess, he believed in her power and reluctantly obeyed her teachings in fear of her wrath. As he grew older he become more mentally unstable until he one day snapped when his father punished him for something (he doesn't even remember what it was) and he ran away from home. Came across the remains of somebody and (remember he's insane) believed it to be his dead mother, he resurrected the skeleton and began talking for it, much like before but with there being a body now. He was unsatisfied and wanted more of his mother and began a quest to find his mother or her remains.
I am playing a Psychopath who converses with a corpse companion as if it were his mother, has a hard time grasping the rules of society. He wishes to do good and help others, but sees himself as forced to do bad things to escape judgement from Urgathoa. His psychotic behavior is a melding of many things including internal conflict of beliefs and morals, memories of his abusive childhood, emptiness of being motherless, loneliness, mental instability, etc.
I mentioned bipolar disorder to explain an example situation that he may or may not find himself in, he is not a "bipoler character" but a bit of bipolar disorder is included in the package, so to say.

TLDR: He's not bipolar, he's just crazy.

[Matthew Downie]

"Just crazy" can be an offensive characterization to a (fairly small) number of people.

The dialogue tends to go:
Adventure designer: "(Villain) worships a demon who plans to devour the souls of all mankind."
"Why?"
"Uhh... He's crazy bonkers insane."
"Speaking as someone whose (relative) has (chronic mental illness), I find your characterization of people with mental health issues offensive."
"Huh?"
"It's like if you said someone was a terrorist 'because he's a Muslim'. It's not a real reason. You're stigmatizing all the decent law-abiding crazy people who don't want to destroy the world."

[RDM42]

But someone CAN want to do 'bad thing x' because they are insane. Is it the only choice that they can make? Is it the only choice a person with that condition can make? No, and no. Is it the choice most people with that condition make? No again, but it doesn't prevent it from being their prime motivator.

Just like someone CAN want to blow things up due to their version of their Muslim(or other, or lack of) faith. Or a serial killer CAN be a serial killer because of their particular flavor of mental illness, and that no more makes or implies all 'crazy' people do that than someone speeding on the way to the hospital implies that all people going to the hospital are speeders. Or if you say someone killed a man because he abused them as a child does not imply that all abuse victims are murderers. Aren't people or characters allowed to be individuals with their own collections of motivations, merits and flaws rather than as representatives of an entire class, where any negative portrayal of anyone who happens to share that characteristic isn't somehow an indictment of that entire group of people?

This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of people with legitimate gripes, or that you shouldn't be careful treading on ground where it may tend to hurt someone, because that's common courtesy, but it seems many people would live a whole lot happier lives if they didn't get offended on a hair trigger.

The above example isn't a characterization of 'people with mental illness', it's a characterization of THIS person with THIS particular mental illness and how he reacted to it. Just like one person can go on to a life of crime 'because of their poverty' where someone else can 'work very hard to put their child through school so they can live a better life' for the exact same reason.

[Divinitus]

Matthew Downie wrote:

"Just crazy" can be an offensive characterization to a (fairly small) number of people.

The dialogue tends to go:
Adventure designer: "(Villain) worships a demon who plans to devour the souls of all mankind."
"Why?"
"Uhh... He's crazy bonkers insane."
"Speaking as someone whose (relative) has (chronic mental illness), I find your characterization of people with mental health issues offensive."
"Huh?"
"It's like if you said someone was a terrorist 'because he's a Muslim'. It's not a real reason. You're stigmatizing all the decent law-abiding crazy people who don't want to destroy the world."

Meh, that just seems neurotic to compare games and real life. I have heard similar arguments for things like: alcoholic adventurers, NPC demonic rituals ("Look Jimmy! That Gygax fellow is trying to subliminally influence our children become Satanists! I told you that D&D was no good!"), Half-Orcs and Half-Dragons (Or rather, how they came to be,), and a lot of other things.

That sort of argumentation tends to get old real quick, as it seems like people are riding a proverbial high horse and drawing false parallels just so that they can have a chance to vent their frustrations about their real-life circumstances.

Portray things how you want to in your campaign and if people get overly offended, they take more out of the game than is intended and have only themselves to blame for being offended by a fantasy game. My girlfriend plays GTA, but she doesn't get offended by all the sexist jokes and portrayals of most women as bad drivers in that game because, guess what, it's a GAME.