D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Vince_Snetterton]

Once again, you are failing to misunderstand the basic premise of the original post.

But to use your example: an actor can portray a character however they feel like it. However, the portrayal may be an offensive mockery.

If you literally don't know if something is an offensive mockery, then try to find out.


Are you deliberately trying to make fun of someone or a group of people by mocking how they act or how you think they act? Then you're quite probably being a jerk. This is particularly the case if you're mocking someone for an inborn trait (intelligence) rather than a choice they make (political party).

(Also, you do realize that the Producers is a movie and the audience in it was written to find it funny. From what I've read, the actual movie had mixed reviews upon release but gained popularity later on.)


Everyone has the right to say that to other people. People aren't required to stop the behavior--but on the other hand, if someone is telling you they find your behavior offensive, then it might be a good idea to examine the behavior in question. Maybe that person who told you that is being a jerk themselves. But maybe you are the one being a jerk.

(Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.)

And again, it heavily depends on whether the behavior is an inborn trait. Ones ethnicity, sexuality, gender, raw intelligence, etc. is an inborn trait, and shouldn't be discriminated against. Being a bigot, however, is not inborn.


No. Because you're not making fun of people who aren't smart.

Also, you don't allow low stats? That's a shame. There's a player in one of the games I'm running with a 6 Wis warlock and he's an absolutely awesome character. Tons of fun to DM for.


No, because you're not making fun of people who aren't smart.

Waaay back in the 80s, it was common for the kids at my school to call people stupid by saying their name and making an arm gesture that--although I didn't realize it at the time--mimicked the muscle contractures of a person with cerebral palsy. You know: arm held up with a loose wrist and the fingers curled under. According to this site, about half of people with cerebral palsy have intellectual disabilities, although I'm sure the kids at my school assumed it was always the case, and they probably didn't even know what it actually was, just that "dumb people" held their arms like that.

So if you decided to play a low-Int character and used a gesture like that to indicate when you were speaking in character, I think just about everyone would say you were being offensive. It's unlikely you're that talented an actor to pull it off, and D&D isn't really built to stat out specific disabilities like CP.

In reality, though, I'd bet most people who are going to be playing a "stupid" character are actually doing lolrandom stuff like going out of their way to deliberately trigger traps or pour that full jug of water over the angry archmage the party was negotiating with because "that's what stupid people are like." And this is also offensive, and disruptive to boot.

Actually, I would expect a 6 Wis Warlock far more likely to dump a jug of water over the head of that archmage. But as I have said, trying to equate any real world behaviour and limitations that define the human condition to a game that has 6 highly abstracted stats is a waste of time.

 

[Faolyn]

Actually, I would expect a 6 Wis Warlock far more likely to dump a jug of water over the head of that archmage. But as I have said, trying to equate any real world behaviour and limitations that define the human condition to a game that has 6 highly abstracted stats is a waste of time.

Why? Wis 6 doesn't mean that you go out of your way to do stupid things.

 

[Ancalagon]

Fundamentally, the entire notion of applying the 6 legacy stats in D&D to sum up the entirety of a human's mind and body is impossible. The game, and I emphasize the game, is built around these stats, and it does massive abstraction to do that. To equate the human condition, and any associated negative connotations, like discrimination, of that human condition to just 6 stats is simply not possible, and should not be tried.

I think that thinking about the D&D stats too much in relationship with the OP is not very helpful, as I was trying to convey earlier. This is not a D&D specific problem.

If you have a game, and in this game your PC has mental stats, and they happen to be poor. How do you roleplay that? If your own (the player, not the PC)'s mental capacities are roughly in-line with your PC's mental capacities, it should be fairly easy (although it's hard to determine if this the case due to the Dunning-Kruger effects...). But they aren't, your portrayal may veer into offensive caricature - ie ableism.

So I repeat - the main question, the challenge here, is how to portray such a character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

(although it's hard to determine if this the case due to the Dunning-Kruger effects...).

Really the most awesome portrayal of a low Int would be of somebody who thinks he's smarter than the wizard, and uses impressive-sounding words in subtly incorrect ways.

 

[jgsugden]

Three thread bans. A lot of discomfort being masked with humor. A major threat to ban people for a week if they say the wrong thing ... That tells me one thing: We're not in great shape to address this issue well within our community. Many are uncomfortable.

I would love to see leaders in the industry work with consultants and put together guidance (in the form of articles and other free materials) on how DMs can respectfully consider these issues for NPCs and monsters, and how players can think about and address them for their PCs. This is a matter of social responsibility at this point.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Why? Wis 6 doesn't mean that you go out of your way to do stupid things.

OK, working within the simplistic confines of D&D's 6 stat infrastructure:
Can I solve the riddle to open Pandora's Box? = Int
Should I solve the riddle to open Pandora's Box? = Wis.

You 6 Wis Warlock will not not internally ask and then answer the question "What happens when I anger this archmage we are negotiating with?"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really the most awesome portrayal of a low Int would be of somebody who thinks he's smarter than the wizard, and uses impressive-sounding words in subtly incorrect ways.

Constantly arguing with them and using semantic, rhetorical, and poorly understood logic traps to try and either get the wizard off topic or to give up in exasperation.

 

[Lanefan]

Why? Wis 6 doesn't mean that you go out of your way to do stupid things.

Then what stat and number would you see as reflective of someone who did go out of their way to do stupid things?

To me, low Wisdom is exactly where this fits: the intentional doing of unwise acts.

Best character I've ever had was a high-Int (15, eventually got to 18) low-Wis (7) fluffball of a caster who would think of (what she thought were) great ideas and often just act on them without any further thought and-or without warning anyone else in the party. Not dangerous stuff, just things like "that side hall looks interesting" and heading in there to explore while the rest of the group kept going straight. This happened so often that her still-famous tag line became "Hi guys, what'd I miss?" as that's what she'd say every time she caught up to the party.

And heaven help you - friend or foe - if you ever interrupted her while she was in mid-casting!

Consequences? What are those?

It was a 3e game, and despite having the leadership skills of a shoe she heard in-character about this Leadership thing you could train for, and took it. Fortunately for her the cohort that came with the feat had over double her Wisdom, and was able to keep her out of trouble most of the time thenceforth.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then what stat and number would you see as reflective of someone who did go out of their way to do stupid things?

I’m not convinced that needs to be tied to a stat at all. In 5e, it could be a Flaw. In any edition, it could just be a roleplaying choice the player makes.

 

[Faolyn]

OK, working within the simplistic confines of D&D's 6 stat infrastructure:
Can I solve the riddle to open Pandora's Box? = Int
Should I solve the riddle to open Pandora's Box? = Wis.

Yes.

You 6 Wis Warlock will not not internally ask and then answer the question "What happens when I anger this archmage we are negotiating with?"

No--because there's no reason for a Wis 6 warlock (or anyone) to even consider doing that unless:

1) The character has a good, in-game reason to do so, and "let's see what happens" isn't a good reason. I'm not using "good" here meaning "acceptable" or "justifiable." I'm using "good" here to mean "would even occur to the person." Because people aren't just going to pour water on someone just to see what happens. Even people with low Int or Wis aren't going to do that. Now, for a warlock, "because your patron has told you to mess with the archmage" is a good enough reason, and a warlock with a low Int or Wis may not bother to think of possible ramifications because they were just following orders.

or

2) The player is trying to be lolrandom and/or actively disruptive, or is the type of person who thinks saying "it's just a joke, bro" is a legitimate excuse for this sort of nonsense.