The Issue With "Insane" Characters (**13+)

[Wyldercat]

People making characters with bad backstories and of poor quality is something that's been happening since before FeralHeart was even thought of.


Taking action against this will only alienate players, since if we can't have characters that have mental issues being portrayed as bad in any regard, that's gonna cut off a lot of people.
I say just shake your head and ignore it or maybe try to teach the person respectfully what the illness actually does. Or just show them some sources so they can do proper research.

A good example of this is that not too long ago I had a character who was a former heroin addict. I researched like a madman to keep it accurate but I didn't sugarcoat what the addiction had done.

Sure, addiction isn't the same as a mental illness but there's no reason to have it be exclusively a bright side.
Mentall illness does terrible things to the human mind, and those who love that human mind.
Sometimes that illness will drive people to do terrible things, sometimes it won't. It all depends on that person's character.



Let the kids have their fun, it's not going to do much in the long run.

Again, I never mentioned not letting people create mentally ill characters. I quite welcome the idea, and myself have several characters with mental ailments. I never intended to have this as a "you can't do this thing" type of thread, but rather to state my opinion on the matter and encourage people to do their research. As described in previous responses, the topics discussed, with the thread itself being 13+, was never meant for younger audiences at all. Kids should be allowed to make OCs as they please so long as it respectful. I'm not expecting a 12 year old to read up on psychosis for their wolf rp character. I don't wish to retype my statements, but a quick view up can quickly clarify this.

[Jango_Fett]

People making characters with bad backstories and of poor quality is something that's been happening since before FeralHeart was even thought of.


Taking action against this will only alienate players, since if we can't have characters that have mental issues being portrayed as bad in any regard, that's gonna cut off a lot of people.
I say just shake your head and ignore it or maybe try to teach the person respectfully what the illness actually does. Or just show them some sources so they can do proper research.

A good example of this is that not too long ago I had a character who was a former heroin addict. I researched like a madman to keep it accurate but I didn't sugarcoat what the addiction had done.

Sure, addiction isn't the same as a mental illness but there's no reason to have it be exclusively a bright side.
Mentall illness does terrible things to the human mind, and those who love that human mind.
Sometimes that illness will drive people to do terrible things, sometimes it won't. It all depends on that person's character.



Let the kids have their fun, it's not going to do much in the long run.

Again, I never mentioned not letting people create mentally ill characters. I quite welcome the idea, and myself have several characters with mental ailments. I never intended to have this as a "you can't do this thing" type of thread, but rather to state my opinion on the matter and encourage people to do their research. As described in previous responses, the topics discussed, with the thread itself being 13+, was never meant for younger audiences at all. Kids should be allowed to make OCs as they please so long as it respectful. I'm not expecting a 12 year old to read up on psychosis for their wolf rp character. I don't wish to retype my statements, but a quick view up can quickly clarify this.

I was just expressing my own interpretation of the situation at hand.

Not entirely sure why the 13+ was brought up but I won't question it.

Respectfulness is a fairly subjective thing, but I understand why you think the way you do. I just happen to disagree.

[Lucius]

Mental illnesses... quite the topic. I'll start by saying that I'm not a psychologist, nor do I have any professional experience with this. I just enjoy learning about things like these from books and studies I've read, so take that as you will.

First, let me say that I agree with you about the representation of neurologically divergent people. The media often over sensationalizes crimes committed by people with mental illnesses, which subsequently leads about a third of the american population to believe that these people are dangerous (statistics vary depending on which study you read. About 60-80% of people believe that schizophrenics are violent, while 45% believe that people with major depression are dangerous).

To jump to the point, many villains are undoubtedly coded as, or explicitly stated as having some kind of neurological ailment or neurodivergent characteristics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coded", but in this context, I'll assume it means "presented as". While that may be true for some villains, we also see the hero with a savior complex quite often (which in of itself might be another neurological divergence, yet nobody seems to have a problem with that).

In storytelling, the hero always ends up meeting their shadow (the villain), which embodies characteristics opposite of them. The shadow serves to show what the hero could have become had they taken a different path / been subject to different circumstances / had a different perspective on life. Because they're usually the opposite of the hero, they tend to embody opposite roles. The hero may be the golden boy, the good sibling, the favorite, the kind, etc. while the shadow ends up as the problem child, the troublemaker, the misunderstood, the excommunicated and so on.

Because conventional storytelling follows this formula, it's not uncommon to see the above roles played out. And usually it's not with the intent of mental illness behind it either.

I am also curious as to why people automatically see stereotypical behaviors and assume that "presented as" = "is". Doesn't that speak volumes to one's own assumptions? There is a theory that proposes that when engaging with others, there are 3 "people" present in a person. One is the person as others see him, the second is the person as he sees himself, the third is the person as he really is. Therefore, "person as others see him" =/= "person as he really is", unless it's a flat character.

Two, many people may not realize this, but several mental illnesses or neurotypes have an issue with touch. To be more specific, it is often associated with autism, which is treated with an awful stigma even by well-meaning people. As someone who is mildly present on, and knows many people on the spectrum, I know firsthand that many people are not ok with being touched by strangers, or without permission. Reactions to this are usually a request to remove the touching body part, or a withdrawal/wince away from it, but in some more severe cases, a more physical reaction, such as hitting a hand away.

Hitting a hand away is a far cry from snapping and killing someone over a touch. I highly doubt anyone associates that with autism. I think that when most people say "They're / You're insane" they picture someone who's out of their mind, acting violent and erratic, instead of pinpointing to a specific disorder.

Similarly, LGBT or racially coding villains or tyrants also presents a huge issue if they're the only character of that demographic in a plot or group, but that's a rant for another day.

If someone is roleplaying a villain character and that character happens to be trans, why is that bad? Minorities are not devoid of any wrongdoings just because they're a minority. This shouldn't even be an issue; what matters about a character is who they are, not what they are.

For instance, instead of a "psycho XD murderer who turned evil bc hes crazy," perhaps a respectful young character was possessed by some sort of foul entity that used its vessel to carry out it's wicked desires. Maybe they had lived their whole lives in desperate isolation, knowing only to kill or be killed and have a hard time shaking off their instincts among others. Maybe they're just a selfish sadist with no concern for life. There's tons of tasteful archetypes for villains and antiheroes without bringing in harmful stereotypes.

By your own standards, wouldn't a demon possessing someone end up somehow depicting people with dissociative identity disorder in a bad light? Why are sadists any more tasteful to use for villains? Most sadists are unlikely to act in a way that would be criminal or dangerous where such behavior is met with social disapproval or punishment, unless they suffer from co-morbidity with another disorder.

Over-using psychopathy to fuel violent characters is also distasteful, if we're going to look at this in the same way as the rest. Contrary to what many people think, most psychopaths aren't criminals. In fact, many of them are successful businessmen, firefighters, surgeons, etc.

What about most of the cluster B personality disorders? Antisocial, Borderline and Narcissistic are all usually seen as villainous traits. Not to mention how often someone with narcissistic traits is shown as an abuser, tyrant, buffoon or with their head up their -you know where-.

If we start limiting how somebody can act with a character in order to avoid offending specific groups, then we'll soon end up with very restrictive rules. People can't be shielded away from negative representation forever. On top of that, I think that someone's intentions should be judged, instead of what other people interpret those intentions as.

I fully support the idea of getting the news media to stop sensationalizing mental illnesses when reporting on crime cases, but I cannot agree that people creating fictional works or characters begin sidestepping to unspoken rules in order to avoid offending others when that wasn't their intention in the first place.

Pardon for this rather long post, but I felt like I should voice my thoughts on this. An interesting topic to be sure, and there are definitely bound to be disagreements.

Edit: The theory of 3 people present in one had nothing to do with Cooley's looking glass self theory. I mixed up two different things. Changed the text to reflect that.

[papayatoot]

I agree. people use mental illnesses and disorders as a  sort of one-and-done with their characters. Not only is it a problem of ignorance, it's often a product of lazy character creation. SO many times have I seen a character whose entire essence is just "evil" or "insane" or "depressed/anxious".  Mental illness does NOT define a person, and it should NOT define your characters. I'm not against such traits at all and I'm here for all the creativity, but PLEASE, if you're going to include disorders like this, please do your research and don't treat it like its just a quirk.

[verdict]

I agree with this post. I don't even speak freely about my run-ins with mental health, and yet I feel like some of these people who create these insane, evil characters discuss it way too much, whether in RP or out of character. At this point, I consider it a warning sign of someone who has stereotyped mental illnesses. I believe it to be a harmful thing, because at some point impressionable people are exposed to characters like this, and they end up with this mindset that mentally ill people are violent and/or aggressive. Now, in FH, it seems like an epidemic. Having a mental illness doesn't even make a character evil, as I suspect these kinds of people believe. They just want an evil character. It's possible to have an evil character who isn't mentally ill.

However, I don't want to discourage anyone from having genuinely thought-out characters with accurate portrayal of mental health issues. In fact, I'd support that. Anyone who asks me about my problems in a decent way, because they're curious or for research purposes, will get an answer. My idea is to guide someone who is stereotyping towards a better solution - understanding why the character is the way they are, what contributed to their illness (genetic or environmental), and the more accurate reactions to stimuli.

This is a very interesting post, one which I agree with quite a bit. Thank you for sharing it.