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

[Mordhau]

Since I fail to see any relation between protective parenting and the things covered by the INT stat, I'll reply to several possibilities.

Hypothesis A: you meant that sheltered upbringing was detrimental to the INT stat and thus part of the explanation of the 6 INT, not only education level.

I'd say that at most it would, at most, explain low WIS, because I don't see how this aspect has any bearing over reasoning, ability to recall facts, logic or education. It illustrate the differing expectations: you'd say think that you're making a character fitting to a stat value since you integrated "sheltered upbringing" to the DM into your background and didn't explain what link you saw there, while he saw none. It illustrate perfectly my point about different expectations.

Hypothesis B : since sheltered childhood evokes staying in a bedroom reading books instead of doing dangerous things like climbing up a tree with other children, you meant that the PC was smart and knowledgeable thank to his self-taught education through bookreading instead of getting a "formal" education (but achieved the same through homeschooled education).

In this case, I'd concur with Lanefan about the bad faith. It's like having a dump stat and trying to mitigate the discomfort of it by ruleslawyering around the meaning of formal education.

Hypothesis C : you meant something else

In this case, feel free to use words to convey your meaning. Just bolding a part of your previous answer didn't help me to understand your point.

I don't know why your examples of sheltered upbringing are all modern ones.

You were suggesting that a low Int character should not know basic facts about society. "I was brought up in a log cabin in the woods and didn't meet another person until I was 16" would pretty much cover that don't you think?

Look I can kind of see how this may be gamed around if a player tries to say they are sheltered and have no education, but then the player has them spouting facts about the setting whener it's convenient. But that's basically covered by not being a dick. You've established in the game your character wouldn't know this stuff. (And if the player suggests that the party go to Candlekeep to research some answer to a mystery it would be entirely within the GM's remit to ask them for a History roll to see if they've heard of Candlekeep).

What I'm really talking about here is the low Int character not having to sit out of planning an ambush or solving a puzzle because their character is supposedly too stupid to participate except by making 'comically' bad suggestions. There are better approaches.

 

[CleverNickName]

That is fun to do! But you do need to pick a background first to do that.

"Need" is a strong word. The traits, bonds, and flaws listed for each background are just suggestions, you can always invent your own. Heck, even the backgrounds themselves are just suggestions, and you are encouraged to work with your DM to invent custom ones to match the character you want to play.

I made an Alchemist background for my homebrew campaign setting (kind of a mash-up of the Sage and Guild Merchant backgrounds, with custom personality traits). And I wrote a Town Guard background for one of my characters a while ago (sort of a combination of Soldier and Outlander, with different starting equipment).

 

[Charlaquin]

"Need" is a strong word. The traits, bonds, and flaws listed for each background are just suggestions, you can always invent your own. Heck, even the backgrounds themselves are just suggestions, and you are encouraged to work with your DM to invent custom ones to match the character you want to play.

Sure, but doesn’t picking them defeat the point of rolling them randomly?

 

[CleverNickName]

Sure, but doesn’t picking them defeat the point of rolling them randomly?

Ah, yes it would. I didn't see that the randomness was part of the process until you mentioned it.

 

[Lanefan]

So, learning disabilities = stupid. Got it. Awesome.

Where did I use the word stupid? That's an equivalence you're jumping to on your own.

That, and there's a big wide range of learning capabilities that don't veer into the learning disability sphere. Simply being slower than some to grasp new concepts doesn't necessarily mean there's any sort of disability, just like being physically weaker than the next person (e.g. in-game Str 8 vs Str 13) doesn't imply any sort of disability in that regard.

 

[Eubani]

Rephrased further down

 

[Mordhau]

It seems that consequences for poor decisions and causing trouble are a thing of the past, now for the cause of moral superiority such people are treated like victims and protected from consequences. Society treated such people as it has as a protection mechanism against their poor judgement and actions. What should we do, allow stupidity to flourish just so some people can feel morally superior?

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

It doesn't really seem to relate to anything under discussion.

 

[Eubani]

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

It doesn't really seem to relate to anything under discussion.

Don't play stupid people is a step into protecting stupid people. There are stupid people in life thus should be reflected in story, not just as entertainment but also as a lesson what happens if such people are not called out and allowed free reign.

 

[Mordhau]

Don't play stupid people is a step into protecting stupid people. There are stupid people in life thus should be reflected in story, not just as entertainment but also as a lesson what happens if such people are not called out and allowed free reign.

Well that's definitely a take!

 

[Faolyn]

Don't play stupid people is a step into protecting stupid people. There are stupid people in life thus should be reflected in story, not just as entertainment but also as a lesson what happens if such people are not called out and allowed free reign.

So... how are you defining stupid here?