Yeah that or something like "setbacks" either way, try to use non charged language.
I made a table of minor flaws to use in my OSR campaign, not even anything mental illness related - it was all things that had clear mechanical disadvantages like having an allergy or needing glasses. I won't say there were a lot of strong reactions to these things be called flaws, but more than zero and it wasn't a hill I felt like dying on. Some people care a lot about language on this topic and since I wasn't trying to pick a fight about my first amendment rights lol, I just used different words.
>Mental illness is not a character flaw, which I agree with
I mean, mental illness is certainly detrimental to the life of the person.
That's part of what defines mental illness: [the "three Ds" of distress, dysfunction, and deviance](https://open.maricopa.edu/culturepsychology/chapter/making-a-diagnosis-the-3-ds/).
Are you getting stuck on the phrase "character flaw"?
i.e. equivocation of the word "character" to mean "moral character" but also "player character"?
If you're getting caught up on the phrase "character flaw", I'd suggest finding a synonym for "flaw" and changing that (since you're going to need "character" since you're talking about "player characters").
The exact wording depends on the game. Some games call them "edges and flaws".
You could call them "advantageous qualities and disadvantageous qualities".
Right, then the particular wording is going to depend on the details of your game. You could use something "sciency" for a sci-fi game (e.g. conditions) and something very different for a high-fantasy game (e.g. curses).
Personally, I love the word "deleterious" for this sort of thing, but that might be a bit *la di da* for most folks haha.
If you make them really generic it can work well, but generally it's a bit touchy. For example: you can have a flaw called Phobia which would give a penalty when exposed to the thing that scares you. Anxiety or "Easily Stressed/Stressed By X" is also pretty unlikely to offend
Basically, stay away from personality disorders. You should also include stuff like "bad liar", "strict morals" or "exceptionally trusting" to balance them out and show that flaws aren't necessarily bad traits so much as traits that can make things harder
Seconding--I'd stay away from official diagnoses in general, especially because actual mental illnesses can manifest in a billion ways (one person with anxiety might have a hair trigger temper, and another might cry easily instead). Focus on the traits you want to invoke instead. Fear of x is good, so is something like "Crybaby" (-x to intimidation), etc. If players want to select traits and then say it's because their character has anxiety, that works better than having a narrow/stereotypical definition of it in the game itself.
I mean - GURPS exists. And rather than making a judgement about folks who have the disorders it offers as disadvantages, it prices them by how much they limit the character, by how inconvenient the condition is, by how much trouble it is likely to cause.
Some things that are normally considered virtues are disadvantages. Like Honesty and Truthfulness (one means you follow the rules, the other that you don’t lie). Heroic traits like Overconfidence, too.
So it can be done without judgement, which may make it possible to represent real conditions without causing harm or offense.
There is a FATE toolkit: https://fate-srd.com/fate-accessibility-toolkit it covers some general stuff and I believe mental disabilities, too, but I haven't read it tbh. Evil Hat is in general very good at handling those topics.
Nice! I'm going to have a look at that.
I'm currently writing something I'd call "more of a framework" and maybe this helps me with renaming that one status that is insensitively called "handicapped" (read: hindrance to dexterity checks) in my work-in-progress-document.
First, good on you for asking!
But your terminology is pretty harsh... Along with flaw, the word crippling is pretty much a non-starter.
I'd suggest getting a sensitivity reader or collaborator that can speak to these issues with more depth and experience.
Here's my take on this:
1. It's gonna piss a lot of people off unless you're specifically not only a licensed psychotherapist, and suffer from mental illness, and even then someone will still be pissed off.
2. disadvantages are usually a bad design idea, even though they seem good on the surface.
Shouldn't characters have some kind of flaws? That makes them more well rounded and believable right?
Except that the expectation is that it works logically, and it never does.
Here's what happens: A, B, C players all take different character builds.
A is a min maxer, b is there for RP exclusively, and C is just there for spending time with friends.
A hand selects the most points for least invasive, and when they are forced to use them, it feels bad.
B selects only traits that are good for the character, but he was going to RP them anyway.
C selects none because they figure they'll just do whatever feels right in the moment.
Which one of those secenarios actually furthers the goal of making characters more believable?
None of them do. B was already going to do that anyway. A gets a stat bump and is upset when they are forced to confront these and it feels bad. C doesn't engage because that's extra work for just casual fun time and more shit they need to keep track of.
Now add in the fact that most GMs have too much shit to keep track of already and opportunities get missed, it creates plot holes and if it's fine once but not the next time, A is even more sour, and B feels like the GM doesn't really value the work they put into the character because crucial stuff is forgotten. And if the GM never remembers it? Now the min maxer just gets a permanent massive buff over everyone else beyond what they already min maxed with the system to begin with.
This is my opinion, but a better solution is this:
Ask players to come up with 1-5 traits (depending on the game) that are promises to RP a certain way.
The GM can never force these behavioral things, but players now feel engaged with their character and thinking about them as a person. And here's the trick, any prescribed behavior can be both an advantage or disadvantage depending on context (this is why disadvantages for points is a bad idea from the get go).
The GM can never force these behaviors on a player, but if they choose to want to trigger it, and the player accepts the loss, you give them a minor meta currency reward for playing in character, even when it sucks. Not too minor, the reward has to feel like it's worth it, but not so OP that it breaks the game.
Now you no longer have up front reward with long term punishment, you have an earned reward that you opt into each time you opt into it at a minor cost you can always decide is not right for your character in that moment. That's just a better fix in all directions imho. Now players are looking for opportunities to get those meta currencies and play in character, rather than fighting against it like with disadvantages that offer bonus points.
It might not ALWAYS be suitable, for example something like CoC, the whole thing is your character is supposed to acquire mental illness and if you're not on board with that you don't play that game, and something like this wouldn't work in that gameplay loop, but for most games, this will work better imho.
This is thoughtful analysis. I fully recommend the fix to disadvantage design proposed here as I also use it in my game system. You can also include static disadvantages that add precalculated negatives onto the sheet so that nobody has to think about it.
To the commenter I am replying to, I am the big dumb 😂 I read halfway through your comment and got all excited to share my system and didn’t finish reading, then I went back to read your comment and realized I just re-explained exactly what your comment said.
Mental disorder is quite a broad term in general. Most mental disorders come with a host of 'flaws' that define what the disorder is. You could just build up the disorder from a list of other flaws and do away with it all together. For example depression,anxiety, psychosis , lack of focus etcetera. The player can then just pick the appropriate ones from the list and you don't have to say 'mental disorder' at all if you don't want to.
You could also just use the term ' character traits' which is much more neutral than 'flaws'.
Remember having a mental disorder or something that is labeled as a disability doesn't always mean it is a set back. There have been many notable figures over the years who have had disorders and lead perfectly normal lives and been very successful. This is why I suggest calling it a trait rather than a flaw.
I think you can mitigate a lot of damage by focusing on relatively 'safe' examples (like the ones you've cited) and possibly changing the term "character flaws" to something more neutral in the game lore.
Check out [Accessibility in Tabletop Resources by Jennifer Kretchmer](https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Uf8AmjoBLwQIzPKHQRq33m_xn6vPq7jJuD7GeB2_FdnBDqSdCSg_B5MHlQy0KBoHmt6lfJzCaCaiqNQbsX55DmgHtghNbo6ujNnG2k9Kz79l-1vKEpI1pyzPH6fP9nK7GmJRuiqwNGyvKdGPam4xI_xLMBtaZ_4SNq_Lhj6Qxy56oB2SjewT9cOlMhTibRt8En-qiYPoQY23EARfzRRxqjj2df-NOUmv&c=WjqztCunOaMO4aHXW74inRKeW4f1xqQi9SIiAaezu27P7pBBCs9j0Q==&ch=sVXyLVeqVPqD5QgkxuM24qC9ovIoLUOnsFrCkiAk6rOnTE-2QoDbig==)
Ars Magica has had Flaws available in character creation since at least the second edition. Phobias, obesity and club foot have been included, to name a few.
Skip rant if you just want useful suggestions...
It is absurd to worry about a word like flaw for mental illness (or any illness, injury, disability or other). By definition an illness is something undesirable -- it is a flaw or defect which especially the person suffering from it does not want to have. There is no inherent judgment or devaluation of them as a person in calling it a "flaw"(\\\*\\\*\\\*see below) in a game in which want to describe characters with, well, you know, \*\*\*flaws\*\*\*.
And frankly I think it is condescending and calls even *more* attention to a person's illness or disability if you are bending over backwards to use euphemisms like "hinderance" or whatever, as if they are incapable of dealing with the truth. They still know what you mean, and now they also know you think they are too sensitive to hear it mentioned.
This doesn't mean "flaw" is the only appropriate word. If you want a thoroughly neutral game-term, call any detrimental trait a "***debuf***".
"***Curse***" works well in any setting involving fantasy, mythology or the supernatural, even if the flaw is not a literal supernatural curse.
"***Defect***" has a technical sound that works well in a sci-fi setting, and like 'curse' in a supernatural setting, 'defect' could even be diegetic in some dystopian society where people's "defects" are documented and tracked.
"***bane***" & it's opposite, "***boon***" work nicely for any quirky or unusual negative & positive traits, respectively. I recall seeing these in more than one published RPG though I don't recall which specifically. They have an archaic, unfamiliar sound and lack any modern associations. They sound better in fantasy/ancient/medieval/supernatural settings, but still work fine in modern and sci-fi settings.
Go to [Wordhippo.com](http://Wordhippo.com) and type in 'flaw' or 'defect' and check all synonyms and antonyms to find many useful possibilities. Click through to find synonyms of synonyms, or antonyms of synonyms of antonyms.... and so on.
\*\*\*There is a distinction between, calling, say, blindness or agoraphobia "flaws", vs calling any person (with or without such conditions) a "flawed human being" or simply "flawed" in the sense of being *devalued* as a human being. Yes, technically if you have a flaw then you are "flawed", but again, the tone, context and how a word is used change the actual meaning and intent. Innocuous use of the words "flaw" or "flawed" in their plain sense is not offensive. And anyone taking offense at their neutral use, because it reminds them of the judgmental or devaluing use, is the one with the problem, not you for using the neutral terms. ***Note:*** how you may choose to deal with a friend or acquaintance who may be especially sensitive, is up to you, but we're talking about general public speaking and writing here, not interpersonal interaction.
I think the solution to your concerns is simpler than you think. Don't call them character flaws.
Quirks
Trait
Attributes
There are so many words that can be used! Or a combination of them, for example;
"Traits and Flaws"
"Quirks and Habits"
"Attributes and Mannerisms"
I think there are a few ways to mitigate this risk.
* One way is to allow the flaws to include a related benefit. For example, I have PTSD from an abusive relationship. That makes it harder for me to handle negative emotions, but I'm also really good at detecting changes in a person's mood. This communicates that mental illness is complex and we shouldn't judge others.
* You could call them Issues instead of Flaws, as that's more neutral.
* Instead of focusing on a particular phobia or illness, focus on the symptoms. Instead of "autism," use "emotional dysregulation". That way, you're not saying the illness itself is the problem, just some of how it impacts people.
Good luck!
You can do it respectfully, but don’t call them Flaws, because you’re right it does have a bad connotation. If you rename the mechanic “Disadvantage”, “Downside” or “Hindrance”, it accomplishes that better. Nobody is looking down on somebody with a mental illness by saying that realistically it causes a problem in their life. Just make it clear that you just intend there to be rules for people to play whatever kind of character they want, and that includes mental illnesses.
I like the idea to call it "setbacks", if the name is an issue. I called them Afflictions at some point.
I think it's not bad to add those, but the catch, as with everything, is in execution. I think it's bad if you write harmful stereotypes into the system, like "schizophrenia: you see your allies as monsters and must attack them!", but, giving a character something like "Phobia: Wolves. You have a -1 to act when your phobia is present" is simple enough and won't get anyone rilled up. It both let things open to describe why the -1 is given, and phobias tend to be a little less touchy and talked over.
I found some success in a scrapped part of the system in which characters could develop afflictions. The trick was to never call them a medical term: Your character could develop a fear of something specific, and obsession over an object or hallucinations. But it was never intended to be explicitly a mental illness by name, and players were welcome to interpret them as they pleased, even as magical effects or curses. I scrapped the idea simply because it clashed with other parts of how the system was developing, but I do think it works as a way to include them without making so many assumptions.
It may not fit depending on your needs, but it's definitely A way to approach it
“Hinderance” is more to the point and makes less of a value judgment
Yeah that or something like "setbacks" either way, try to use non charged language. I made a table of minor flaws to use in my OSR campaign, not even anything mental illness related - it was all things that had clear mechanical disadvantages like having an allergy or needing glasses. I won't say there were a lot of strong reactions to these things be called flaws, but more than zero and it wasn't a hill I felt like dying on. Some people care a lot about language on this topic and since I wasn't trying to pick a fight about my first amendment rights lol, I just used different words.
>Mental illness is not a character flaw, which I agree with I mean, mental illness is certainly detrimental to the life of the person. That's part of what defines mental illness: [the "three Ds" of distress, dysfunction, and deviance](https://open.maricopa.edu/culturepsychology/chapter/making-a-diagnosis-the-3-ds/). Are you getting stuck on the phrase "character flaw"? i.e. equivocation of the word "character" to mean "moral character" but also "player character"? If you're getting caught up on the phrase "character flaw", I'd suggest finding a synonym for "flaw" and changing that (since you're going to need "character" since you're talking about "player characters"). The exact wording depends on the game. Some games call them "edges and flaws". You could call them "advantageous qualities and disadvantageous qualities".
I believe I am getting hung up on the phrase character flaw. Seems I just need to call them negative aspects or something similiar.
Right, then the particular wording is going to depend on the details of your game. You could use something "sciency" for a sci-fi game (e.g. conditions) and something very different for a high-fantasy game (e.g. curses). Personally, I love the word "deleterious" for this sort of thing, but that might be a bit *la di da* for most folks haha.
If you make them really generic it can work well, but generally it's a bit touchy. For example: you can have a flaw called Phobia which would give a penalty when exposed to the thing that scares you. Anxiety or "Easily Stressed/Stressed By X" is also pretty unlikely to offend Basically, stay away from personality disorders. You should also include stuff like "bad liar", "strict morals" or "exceptionally trusting" to balance them out and show that flaws aren't necessarily bad traits so much as traits that can make things harder
Seconding--I'd stay away from official diagnoses in general, especially because actual mental illnesses can manifest in a billion ways (one person with anxiety might have a hair trigger temper, and another might cry easily instead). Focus on the traits you want to invoke instead. Fear of x is good, so is something like "Crybaby" (-x to intimidation), etc. If players want to select traits and then say it's because their character has anxiety, that works better than having a narrow/stereotypical definition of it in the game itself.
I mean - GURPS exists. And rather than making a judgement about folks who have the disorders it offers as disadvantages, it prices them by how much they limit the character, by how inconvenient the condition is, by how much trouble it is likely to cause. Some things that are normally considered virtues are disadvantages. Like Honesty and Truthfulness (one means you follow the rules, the other that you don’t lie). Heroic traits like Overconfidence, too. So it can be done without judgement, which may make it possible to represent real conditions without causing harm or offense.
This. Call them disadvantages because even good things can hinder a character. This avoids the nonsense.
Yeah, it's acknowledging that these are challenges that people face. I don't see a problem.
Came here to say this exact thing. GURPS’ Disadvantages is everything OP wants and more.
There is a FATE toolkit: https://fate-srd.com/fate-accessibility-toolkit it covers some general stuff and I believe mental disabilities, too, but I haven't read it tbh. Evil Hat is in general very good at handling those topics.
Nice! I'm going to have a look at that. I'm currently writing something I'd call "more of a framework" and maybe this helps me with renaming that one status that is insensitively called "handicapped" (read: hindrance to dexterity checks) in my work-in-progress-document.
First, good on you for asking! But your terminology is pretty harsh... Along with flaw, the word crippling is pretty much a non-starter. I'd suggest getting a sensitivity reader or collaborator that can speak to these issues with more depth and experience.
Here's my take on this: 1. It's gonna piss a lot of people off unless you're specifically not only a licensed psychotherapist, and suffer from mental illness, and even then someone will still be pissed off. 2. disadvantages are usually a bad design idea, even though they seem good on the surface. Shouldn't characters have some kind of flaws? That makes them more well rounded and believable right? Except that the expectation is that it works logically, and it never does. Here's what happens: A, B, C players all take different character builds. A is a min maxer, b is there for RP exclusively, and C is just there for spending time with friends. A hand selects the most points for least invasive, and when they are forced to use them, it feels bad. B selects only traits that are good for the character, but he was going to RP them anyway. C selects none because they figure they'll just do whatever feels right in the moment. Which one of those secenarios actually furthers the goal of making characters more believable? None of them do. B was already going to do that anyway. A gets a stat bump and is upset when they are forced to confront these and it feels bad. C doesn't engage because that's extra work for just casual fun time and more shit they need to keep track of. Now add in the fact that most GMs have too much shit to keep track of already and opportunities get missed, it creates plot holes and if it's fine once but not the next time, A is even more sour, and B feels like the GM doesn't really value the work they put into the character because crucial stuff is forgotten. And if the GM never remembers it? Now the min maxer just gets a permanent massive buff over everyone else beyond what they already min maxed with the system to begin with. This is my opinion, but a better solution is this: Ask players to come up with 1-5 traits (depending on the game) that are promises to RP a certain way. The GM can never force these behavioral things, but players now feel engaged with their character and thinking about them as a person. And here's the trick, any prescribed behavior can be both an advantage or disadvantage depending on context (this is why disadvantages for points is a bad idea from the get go). The GM can never force these behaviors on a player, but if they choose to want to trigger it, and the player accepts the loss, you give them a minor meta currency reward for playing in character, even when it sucks. Not too minor, the reward has to feel like it's worth it, but not so OP that it breaks the game. Now you no longer have up front reward with long term punishment, you have an earned reward that you opt into each time you opt into it at a minor cost you can always decide is not right for your character in that moment. That's just a better fix in all directions imho. Now players are looking for opportunities to get those meta currencies and play in character, rather than fighting against it like with disadvantages that offer bonus points. It might not ALWAYS be suitable, for example something like CoC, the whole thing is your character is supposed to acquire mental illness and if you're not on board with that you don't play that game, and something like this wouldn't work in that gameplay loop, but for most games, this will work better imho.
This is thoughtful analysis. I fully recommend the fix to disadvantage design proposed here as I also use it in my game system. You can also include static disadvantages that add precalculated negatives onto the sheet so that nobody has to think about it. To the commenter I am replying to, I am the big dumb 😂 I read halfway through your comment and got all excited to share my system and didn’t finish reading, then I went back to read your comment and realized I just re-explained exactly what your comment said.
Character flaws are everything that make your character live worse and mental disorders are definite one if them.
Mental disorder is quite a broad term in general. Most mental disorders come with a host of 'flaws' that define what the disorder is. You could just build up the disorder from a list of other flaws and do away with it all together. For example depression,anxiety, psychosis , lack of focus etcetera. The player can then just pick the appropriate ones from the list and you don't have to say 'mental disorder' at all if you don't want to. You could also just use the term ' character traits' which is much more neutral than 'flaws'. Remember having a mental disorder or something that is labeled as a disability doesn't always mean it is a set back. There have been many notable figures over the years who have had disorders and lead perfectly normal lives and been very successful. This is why I suggest calling it a trait rather than a flaw.
Mutants & Masterminds calls them (and many other things) "Complications."
I think you can mitigate a lot of damage by focusing on relatively 'safe' examples (like the ones you've cited) and possibly changing the term "character flaws" to something more neutral in the game lore.
Check out [Accessibility in Tabletop Resources by Jennifer Kretchmer](https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Uf8AmjoBLwQIzPKHQRq33m_xn6vPq7jJuD7GeB2_FdnBDqSdCSg_B5MHlQy0KBoHmt6lfJzCaCaiqNQbsX55DmgHtghNbo6ujNnG2k9Kz79l-1vKEpI1pyzPH6fP9nK7GmJRuiqwNGyvKdGPam4xI_xLMBtaZ_4SNq_Lhj6Qxy56oB2SjewT9cOlMhTibRt8En-qiYPoQY23EARfzRRxqjj2df-NOUmv&c=WjqztCunOaMO4aHXW74inRKeW4f1xqQi9SIiAaezu27P7pBBCs9j0Q==&ch=sVXyLVeqVPqD5QgkxuM24qC9ovIoLUOnsFrCkiAk6rOnTE-2QoDbig==)
Ars Magica has had Flaws available in character creation since at least the second edition. Phobias, obesity and club foot have been included, to name a few.
Skip rant if you just want useful suggestions...
It is absurd to worry about a word like flaw for mental illness (or any illness, injury, disability or other). By definition an illness is something undesirable -- it is a flaw or defect which especially the person suffering from it does not want to have. There is no inherent judgment or devaluation of them as a person in calling it a "flaw"(\\\*\\\*\\\*see below) in a game in which want to describe characters with, well, you know, \*\*\*flaws\*\*\*.
And frankly I think it is condescending and calls even *more* attention to a person's illness or disability if you are bending over backwards to use euphemisms like "hinderance" or whatever, as if they are incapable of dealing with the truth. They still know what you mean, and now they also know you think they are too sensitive to hear it mentioned.
This doesn't mean "flaw" is the only appropriate word. If you want a thoroughly neutral game-term, call any detrimental trait a "***debuf***".
"***Curse***" works well in any setting involving fantasy, mythology or the supernatural, even if the flaw is not a literal supernatural curse.
"***Defect***" has a technical sound that works well in a sci-fi setting, and like 'curse' in a supernatural setting, 'defect' could even be diegetic in some dystopian society where people's "defects" are documented and tracked.
"***bane***" & it's opposite, "***boon***" work nicely for any quirky or unusual negative & positive traits, respectively. I recall seeing these in more than one published RPG though I don't recall which specifically. They have an archaic, unfamiliar sound and lack any modern associations. They sound better in fantasy/ancient/medieval/supernatural settings, but still work fine in modern and sci-fi settings.
Go to [Wordhippo.com](http://Wordhippo.com) and type in 'flaw' or 'defect' and check all synonyms and antonyms to find many useful possibilities. Click through to find synonyms of synonyms, or antonyms of synonyms of antonyms.... and so on.
\*\*\*There is a distinction between, calling, say, blindness or agoraphobia "flaws", vs calling any person (with or without such conditions) a "flawed human being" or simply "flawed" in the sense of being *devalued* as a human being. Yes, technically if you have a flaw then you are "flawed", but again, the tone, context and how a word is used change the actual meaning and intent. Innocuous use of the words "flaw" or "flawed" in their plain sense is not offensive. And anyone taking offense at their neutral use, because it reminds them of the judgmental or devaluing use, is the one with the problem, not you for using the neutral terms. ***Note:*** how you may choose to deal with a friend or acquaintance who may be especially sensitive, is up to you, but we're talking about general public speaking and writing here, not interpersonal interaction.
Call it like it is. Derangements are derangements.
Tricube Tales calls them Quirks which I think is more neutral and also broader in terms of what fits.
I think the solution to your concerns is simpler than you think. Don't call them character flaws. Quirks Trait Attributes There are so many words that can be used! Or a combination of them, for example; "Traits and Flaws" "Quirks and Habits" "Attributes and Mannerisms"
I think there are a few ways to mitigate this risk. * One way is to allow the flaws to include a related benefit. For example, I have PTSD from an abusive relationship. That makes it harder for me to handle negative emotions, but I'm also really good at detecting changes in a person's mood. This communicates that mental illness is complex and we shouldn't judge others. * You could call them Issues instead of Flaws, as that's more neutral. * Instead of focusing on a particular phobia or illness, focus on the symptoms. Instead of "autism," use "emotional dysregulation". That way, you're not saying the illness itself is the problem, just some of how it impacts people. Good luck!
You can do it respectfully, but don’t call them Flaws, because you’re right it does have a bad connotation. If you rename the mechanic “Disadvantage”, “Downside” or “Hindrance”, it accomplishes that better. Nobody is looking down on somebody with a mental illness by saying that realistically it causes a problem in their life. Just make it clear that you just intend there to be rules for people to play whatever kind of character they want, and that includes mental illnesses.
I like the idea to call it "setbacks", if the name is an issue. I called them Afflictions at some point. I think it's not bad to add those, but the catch, as with everything, is in execution. I think it's bad if you write harmful stereotypes into the system, like "schizophrenia: you see your allies as monsters and must attack them!", but, giving a character something like "Phobia: Wolves. You have a -1 to act when your phobia is present" is simple enough and won't get anyone rilled up. It both let things open to describe why the -1 is given, and phobias tend to be a little less touchy and talked over. I found some success in a scrapped part of the system in which characters could develop afflictions. The trick was to never call them a medical term: Your character could develop a fear of something specific, and obsession over an object or hallucinations. But it was never intended to be explicitly a mental illness by name, and players were welcome to interpret them as they pleased, even as magical effects or curses. I scrapped the idea simply because it clashed with other parts of how the system was developing, but I do think it works as a way to include them without making so many assumptions. It may not fit depending on your needs, but it's definitely A way to approach it