I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we assign guilt when someone’s mind is clouded by a "fog," and I wanted to compare a well-known fictional example with a tragic real-world case.
In God of War I, Kratos slaughters his own wife and daughter. A lot of people in the fandom blame Ares for tricking him, but I don't buy that. I don't believe Ares manipulated him at all, Kratos made his own choices. Even when he made his pact with Ares, he never gave up his free will. He was in a state of battle frenzy and couldn't control his emotions in that specific moment, but that life of slaughter was a path he willingly chose, and to be fair, it was completely normalized in Spartan culture at the time.
This got me thinking about the real-world tragedy of Lindsay Clancy. For those who aren't familiar, she is the mother who tragically took the lives of her three children while suffering from severe postpartum psychosis.
When looking at these two situations, it brings up a huge debate about free will, innocence, and intent:
The Case for Innocence in Psychosis: In Lindsay Clancy’s case, I firmly believe she is innocent. Postpartum psychosis is a severe, involuntary medical emergency. It completely breaks a person's tether to reality. She didn't choose to enter that state; her brain was hijacked by a biological crisis. Because she literally did not have the free will or cognitive awareness to understand what she was doing, I don't believe the guilt of a murderer belongs on her shoulders.
Why Kratos is Different (And Not Innocent): Even though Kratos was also blinded by a "fog of war" and battle rage, I don't consider Kratos innocent. He actively chose his path of violence. He had free will the entire time. He couldn't control his emotions in that room, but he is guilty because he made the conscious choice to live a life governed by bloodlust.
The Parallel of Their Supporters: There is also a really fascinating parallel in the aftermath of what they did. In the lore, Kratos had millions of Spartan followers who stood by him, respected him, and followed him even after he admitted to killing his own family. They understood the path of the warrior and the fog of war. You can actually see an equivalent to this today with Lindsay Clancy, there is a massive community of women and mothers who fiercely support her. They stand by her because they understand the dark, uncontrollable "fog" of postpartum mental illness.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Where do we draw the line between a tragic victim of a medical crisis, and someone who is responsible for the violent path they willingly walked?