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

[Fenris-77]

Who doesn't like a good Hamlock build? Take the Smells Faintly of Apple invocation and a good supply of dried peas and you're golden.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Only if you're going with the boring Pepperoni Fighter build, or the Sausage Cleric.

I had a friend say that he was playing the sausage cleric.

....unfortunately, it was a euphemism.

 

[Ancalagon]

Going back to what the discussion was originally about, I‘d argue that Wisdom is more the “stupid” stat than Intelligence. While someone with a high Intelligence seems very knowledgeable, if they have a 3 Wisdom, they are unable to apply that knowledge to real life and will make “stupid” decisions

Ah, I made my post before reading your reply, I 100% agree...

Yet, now that I have posted, I wonder if this is "useful " for the discussion.

No matter the exact stat, it is challenging to roleplay a character with a mental stat much higher OR lower than your own. My real life wisdom is in the 8-13 range... I like to think that I am a little wise, but I am not sure, I may be in fact rather foolish. How am I supposed to portray a person with a wisdom of 18? I don't know what a very wise person would do!

But how to roleplay someone with a low mental stat? How do you portray these limitations without it veering into mockery?

Maybe discussing that would be more productive?

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Ah, I made my post before reading your reply, I 100% agree...

Yet, now that I have posted, I wonder if this is "useful " for the discussion.

No matter the exact stat, it is challenging to roleplay a character with a mental stat much higher OR lower than your own. My real life wisdom is in the 8-13 range... I like to think that I am a little wise, but I am not sure, I may be in fact rather foolish. How am I supposed to portray a person with a wisdom of 18? I don't know what a very wise person would do!

But how to roleplay someone with a low mental stat? How do you portray these limitations without it veering into mockery?

Maybe discussing that would be more productive?

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

Well, I think the premise of the OP is wrong and flawed but I am can't decide if it's serious or just trolling.

I was having the same internal debate for a bit, especially considering the thread this came from, but I believe the OP is being genuine. I think if you replace the word "stupid" with "the r word" in the first post, it's easier to see the point they were going for. I could be wrong.

But how to roleplay someone with a low mental stat? How do you portray these limitations without it veering into mockery?

Maybe discussing that would be more productive?

I would normally jump at a chance to talk about my character with 7 INT, 10 WIS, 16 CHA, but a thread that opens with name calling and demanding how others should roleplay is the opposite of a safe space to do so.

 

[aco175]

Is there a place for having a 'Forrest Gump' PC that overcomes his challenges and rises from lowly level 1 to a high-level champion of the realms? Would this show that people can overcome challenges, or that I'm acting like a jerk?

I remember having friends' parents having problems letting the kids play when I was in middle-school. D&D promoted devil-worship and killing and such. By having PCs that uphold the law and go around slaying monsters and doing good deeds kind of countered this point. Having knights and Robin Hood or Merlin people defending the weak and such.

Is playing a character in a story different than being a jerk and making fun of people. Is Tom Hanks a jerk for playing Forrest Gump in the first place? I guess I'm ok with playing a character, but there is a point people can cross. That line seems to be different for different people, which is fine.

 

[Cadence]

Striving to treat others with equal dignity while acknowledging and discussing differences is hard.

I wonder what jokes and comedy that's acceptable today will look like the Polish, yo mama, accent based camp songs, and quadriplegic jokes I remember from the 70s and 80s.

Is inane one of the most useful non-ableist, non-obscenity based adjectives?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When you play 'stupid' characters are you are saying that there are stupid people

Observing how people behave during a pandemic, I would say there are an awful lot of stupid people.

 

[Cadence]

Is there a place for having a 'Forrest Gump' PC that overcomes his challenges and rises from lowly level 1 to a high-level champion of the realms? Would this show that people can overcome challenges, or that I'm acting like a jerk?

I remember having friends' parents having problems letting the kids play when I was in middle-school. D&D promoted devil-worship and killing and such. By having PCs that uphold the law and go around slaying monsters and doing good deeds kind of countered this point. Having knights and Robin Hood or Merlin people defending the weak and such.

Is playing a character in a story different than being a jerk and making fun of people. Is Tom Hanks a jerk for playing Forrest Gump in the first place? I guess I'm ok with playing a character, but there is a point people can cross. That line seems to be different for different people, which is fine.

I wonder how much the impression changes from a table where people use voices in character vs. not, and how much of the time is spent speaking with the characters words vs. how much is spent saying what the characters do.

Is the way the character is being portrayed done straight or punching up? Is the disability played as part of the character or played for laughs?

I'm trying to think if the character Finnegan in the old Duffy's Tavern radio show crosses the line. He's certainly played as not bright with a speech pattern that I can see being taken as potentially offensive today, but he's also often the straight man in the act and sometimes deflates the main character.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was having the same internal debate for a bit, especially considering the thread this came from, but I believe the OP is being genuine. I think if you replace the word "stupid" with [REDACTED] in the first post, it's easier to see the point they were going for. I could be wrong.

Oof. I think that wording would probably help better convey the idea OP was trying to express to some of the folks who seem to be misunderstanding, but… I’m not sure that benefit is worth using a slur to achieve.