We Should Define Insanity

[FinePoint]

Basically, Madness Manipulation is defined as the "ability to affect the sanity of other beings, usually in a manner that causes them to become insane".
(I mean, first of all, what does it mean usually? If it doesn't drive them insane why is it not just Mind Manipulation?)

This ability then has multiple types, numerous characters and applications, but all hinging on this central theme of making someone 'insane'.

The problem is that the word 'insane' has many different meanings, varying wildly depending on which source you ask, and even in any particular source is without clarification essentially up to interpretation. I propose that we pick a specific definition, and clarify it on the page so that we have a clear standard as to what qualifies as 'insanity' as opposed to other types of Mind Manipulation. Below are several options, but of course you can propose your own definition and/or wording as well.

Option 1, Legal: Being unable to fully comprehend their own actions and/or their consequences.

Option 2, Psychosis: Being unable to distinguish between reality and some delusion or hallucination.

Option 3, Derangement: Being unable to think clearly or control their behavior.

Option 4, Clinical: Suffering from some variety of severe mental disorder.

Option 5, Colloquial: Acting extremely foolishly or unreasonably.

Option 6, All of the Above: Being unable to comprehend their own actions, unable to tell what is real or not, unable to think clearly, suffering from some severe mental disorder, or otherwise acting extremely unreasonably.

Option 7, Undefined: Just continue to call it 'insane' and refuse to specify further.
Option 8, Vaas: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something to change.

Edit: I personally think six is best. It leaves us open to many different interpretations but still specifies enough that people can understand the page and who qualifies without just guessing. Though I think we should axe five for being too vague, and just have 1-4.

 

[Planck69]

Probably 6 or 7. Fiction varies very wildly with whats actual insanity, from the above types to just being catatonic, so I'd rather just keep it broad or flexible than stick to a single fixed label.

 

[FinePoint]

Probably 6 or 7. Fiction varies very wildly with whats actual insanity, from the above types to just being catatonic, so I'd rather just keep it broad or flexible than stick to a single fixed label.

Say that first part again...
Yeah, I was thinking six is probably best. It leaves us open to many different interpretations but still specifies enough that people can understand the page and who qualifies without just guessing.

I would say being completely catatonic would almost always fall under Option 2 or 3.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Realistically the power covers all of these. If a verse defines madness as a legal thing, we would probably accept that. I think the broadest definitions would fall within 3 and 4 but, really, we would probably accept all of these.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

2, 3 and 4 all fit the description that fictional madness tends to follow. For the madness manipulation ability to be potent it basically needs to destroy their ability to function. 1 would qualify too, if they literally can't comprehend their own actions. 6 does seem to fit, with the ability being discussed usually causing something like 3 and 4.

If we're defining insanity here, it might be important to note that lots of villains get called crazy or insane when they're far from it. Writers use it as a lazy excuse. How many times do we see "He's evil because he's crazy", even when the character is clearly fully functional and just choosing to be evil?

 

[KLOL506]

Probably 6 or 7. Fiction varies very wildly with whats actual insanity, from the above types to just being catatonic, so I'd rather just keep it broad or flexible than stick to a single fixed label.

I agree with this.

 

[SomebodyData]

Probably 6 or 7. Fiction varies very wildly with whats actual insanity, from the above types to just being catatonic, so I'd rather just keep it broad or flexible than stick to a single fixed label.

Yeah, I can get behind Planck's decision

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu here.

Meaning that I think that 3 and 4 seem most fitting. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

 

[FinePoint]

Meaning that I think that 3 and 4 seem most fitting. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

So you'd want it to be something like this?:
"Insanity is defined here as a state where someone is unable to think clearly, fully control their behavior, or is otherwise suffering from some severe mental disorder."

If we're defining insanity here, it might be important to note that lots of villains get called crazy or insane when they're far from it. Writers use it as a lazy excuse. How many times do we see "He's evil because he's crazy", even when the character is clearly fully functional and just choosing to be evil?

And yeah, that's sort of the reason why I want us to define it to begin with. I don't want the power to become another Quantum Manipulation where it's defined or applied so vaguely and liberally that it becomes functionally meaningless as a power.

For that reason, I don't think we should just blindly agree with whatever the fiction itself deems insane, but should instead have our own criteria, even if that criteria is very broad like suggested with 6. I'd be fine with discarding 5 though, so I think I'd actually prefer a combination of 1-4.

 

[Antvasima]

So you'd want it to be something like this?:
"Insanity is defined here as a state where someone is unable to think clearly, fully control their behavior, or is otherwise suffering from some severe mental disorder."

Yes.

And yeah, that's sort of the reason why I want us to define it to begin with. I don't want the power to become another Quantum Manipulation where it's defined or applied so vaguely and liberally that it becomes functionally meaningless as a power.

For that reason, I don't think we should just blindly agree with whatever the fiction itself deems insane, but should instead have our own criteria, even if that criteria is very broad like suggested with 6. I'd be fine with discarding 5 though, so I think I'd actually prefer a combination of 1-4.

That would also be perfectly fine for me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Just a Random Butler @Qawsedf234 @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @LephyrTheRevanchist

Are any of you willing to help out here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Realistically the power covers all of these. If a verse defines madness as a legal thing, we would probably accept that. I think the broadest definitions would fall within 3 and 4 but, really, we would probably accept all of these.

Agreed with this take

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/987/277/f4f.jpg

It's not a story the Jedi will tell you

Agreed with Planck

 

[Antvasima]

So are we currently leaning toward either a combination of 3 and 4 or option 6 then?

 

[FinePoint]

So are we currently leaning toward either a combination of 3 and 4 or option 6 then?

Six seems the most popular.

I worry that including 5 in that will lead to issues, though. For example, a vast majority of villains could be considered extremely unreasonable by virtue of wanting to commit mass murder in the first place, but being an egotistical and selfish villain on its own doesn't really feel like it fits the vibe of insanity we're going for.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, strongly agreed.

Would a combination of 1, 2, 3 and 4 be an acceptable compromise solution then?

 

[FinePoint]

Yes, strongly agreed.

Would a combination of 1, 2, 3 and 4 be an acceptable compromise solution then?

That would be my preference.

 

[Antvasima]

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Planck69]

As long as the final definition doesn't leave anything out, I'm largely fine with whatever compromise we settle on.

 

[FinePoint]

As long as the final definition doesn't leave anything out, I'm largely fine with whatever compromise we settle on.

Well we're discussing specifically leaving out "Acting extremely foolishly or unreasonably." So that we don't end up labeling every fictional villain as insane.

 

[Vietthai96]

This is kind of context-based. Like what Random said, so nothing we can do here other than keeping it broad

Well we're discussing specifically leaving out "Acting extremely foolishly or unreasonably." So that we don't end up labeling every fictional villain as insane.

We can make a note about this, some power & ability pages have not on when something is not qualified to get the ability, such as non-qualifying concept in CM page. In case you really want to double down on situation where something isn't qualified as actual madness

 

[Planck69]

Well we're discussing specifically leaving out "Acting extremely foolishly or unreasonably." So that we don't end up labeling every fictional villain as insane.

Oh, well of course. I moreso meant that it doesn't let self-evident insanity (in the proper way) get bogged down by semantics. Since I'd thought that "being unreasonable =/= insanity as we define it" was implied lol.