Recent comments have given me an idea that may add to the discussion. A well known literary character in much the the predicament as the victims of narcissists was Hamlet.
Notice that, whenever we see him alone and free to be himself, he rages. It's easy to understand why if you you put yourself in his shoes. To act like it didn't happen is unthinkable. How could he wink at the murder of his father and king? Not to mention the dishonor of his mother and queen. Not to mention stealing the throne from Hamlet as the rightful heir.
Hamlet could choose to do nothing about the throne, but he isn't morally free to act like his father wasn't murdered and his mother dishonored. It would be wrong. Very, very, very immoral. The wicked crime cries out to the top of Heaven for justice, and, as Prince of realm under a usurper, the buck stops at Hamlet to do justice.
He naturally wants to run off like Laertes and rouse the rabble for a revolt or to just murder Claudius. But instead, he bides his time. He waits for an opportunity to expose Claudius before the whole court. That is not only the way to go about it most hazardous to his health, but for all those months it looks like Hamlet is going belly up. What an incredible dishonor! people think he's just taken leave of his senses instead of dealing like a king with what has happened.
That, on top of his natural hurt and anger, is what makes the situation so excruciating for him. It is abjectly humiliating to let people think he's caved in and nuts, to even encourage them to think so, so that he doesn't have to talk any nicer than the average "crazy" court jester did with sarcastic remarks at everyone who spoke to him. So that he can keep yanking a conversation wildly off track every time somebody tries to catch him out saying something treasonous.
We see, in his famous raging soliloquies, that Hamlet is being torn in two. These aren't natural thinking: they are like the speeches people make into a mirror. Which is why they are so contrary to what he actually does in the story.
Shall he just have done with it and do like any other prince would (assassinate Claudius) or take the high road and prove what Claudius is before witnesses?
His self esteem is so assaulted that he doesn't even trust himself. He suspects that his choice to take the high road is just procrastination out of cowardice.
But in the end we see that he is no coward. The moment he has his chance, he seizes it to expose Claudius before the court (which actually was the high court of the land) for the dirty, lowdown, rotten, scheming, venomous snake and TRAITOR that he (Claudius) was, giving his life in the deed of executing justice as an honorable man. Hamlet was dying and had nothing to gain by it any more: he just did it because it was justice (the greatest good people believed in that day).
So, what about all that anger? Was it a sin?
I say no. I say it just makes him more a hero and saint - to be that outraged and that much in pain ... so much in pain that he wished he were dead ... and still risk his life and suffer terrible dishonor and anguish till he had an opportunity to set things right in a principled and honorable way.
What do you think? Were his emotions themselves sinful? Or is he to be judged by his deeds? I won't have time to debate much, but I am interested in a variety of viewpoints.