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

[MGibster]

A lot of low-IQ people don't do out of their of their way to do stupid things. And plenty of higher-IQ people do do a lot of stupid things, probably because they're able to come up with what seem like plausible justifications.

It's amazing that being smart doesn't necessarily translate into being right. I have a few friends who are extremely intelligent, but a lot of times that intelligence translates into them being able to make arguments very quickly that sound like they have merit but are utter baloney. They're bull%$@ artists. But I really didn't catch on until they started trying to bull#%%# their way through subjects I was fairly knowledgeable about. And I've read that a lot of conspiracy theorist are actually fairly intelligent which is why it's often hard to talk them out of their beliefs. They're good at coming up with arguments to justify their belief. Of course I read this opinion many years ago before so many conspiracy theories went mainstream.

 

[jasper]

Every time someone uses that term, a French chef beats themselves to death with a baguette.

crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...vvvcrossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...crossian'wich...v
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...vcrossian'wich...
crossian'wich...crossian'wich...
crossian'wich...
Can you tell I dislike French Cooking?

 

[Mordhau]

I've always felt D&D Intelligence is best characterised as formal education. Most of the skills lean that way (except Investigation), as do the classes.

The implication that Barbarians, Monks and Paladins are never smart, is, when you think about it, pretty damn obnoxious on it's own.

(And if the game is basically placing limits on my characters intelligence based on whether they're sterotypical nerds or jocks then it's a much worse game then it needs to be.)

Doing, it that way also puts a limit on the stupid characters, which regardless of whether they're actively offensive or not, are usually incredibly tedious to everyone else at the table.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I've always felt D&D Intelligence is best characterised as formal education. Most of the skills lean that way (except Investigation), as do the classes.

The implication that Barbarians, Monks and Paladins are never smart, is, when you think about it, pretty damn obnoxious on it's own.

(And if the game is basically placing limits on my characters intelligence based on whether they're sterotypical nerds or jocks then it's a much worse game then it needs to be.)

Doing, it that way also puts a limit on the stupid characters, which regardless of whether they're actively offensive or not, are usually incredibly tedious to everyone else at the table.

No one is saying that the classes you mentioned have to have a low Int. You want to start with a 16 in your Int for those classes, no one is stopping you. Of course, the game mechanics for those classes indicate your build will not take advantage of the best features of those classes, but you can most certainly design your char that way.

But that is NOT ableist. That is simply required trade-offs in class differentiation. That is simply playing the game as designed.

 

[Mordhau]

No one is saying that the classes you mentioned have to have a low Int. You want to start with a 16 in your Int for those classes, no one is stopping you. Of course, the game mechanics for those classes indicate your build will not take advantage of the best features of those classes, but you can most certainly design your char that way.

And if you want to play a wizard who doesn't cast spells and flails ineffectually with a sword you can do that too, but it's beside the point - I'm suggesting that you could have a smart barbarian that doesn't suck.

But that is NOT ableist. That is simply required trade-offs in class differentiation. That is simply playing the game as designed.

Obviously not. But if you reinterpret intelligence so that it means education, people will feel less like they're supposed to role-play their barbarian in a way that may come across as ableist.

You make a game that's both less likely to faciliate bad stereotypes and gives players more freedom in how they play their character.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest I feel like the OP is borderline trolling and definitely attention-seeking with his title.

It's very clear from what he's describing is that he's not against playing "stupid" characters at all, but rather ones that draw on stereotypes about developmental disabilities and so on.

The idea that calling someone "stupid" is ableist is ignorant and cheap, frankly. The vast majority of people called "stupid" are of average intelligence or above and just behave in a way that is extremely foolish.

It's very reasonable to suggest people avoid nasty stereotypes of developmental disabilities as noted. Using those stereotypes is ignorant and cheap too. Usually the word stupid is not used about them though, rather the r-word. If you're playing a character who seems like they might have been called that in a less enlightened age, probably don't. Tropic Thunder comes to mind with two different things to avoid as an RPer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you could easily rename intelligence and wisdom to knowledge and awareness, and it would make pretty decent sense. Not that I really have a huge problem with their current names.

 

[Faolyn]

To be honest I feel like the OP is borderline trolling and definitely attention-seeking with his title.

Well, it would certainly help if @ad_hoc would come back to engage in the discussion and more fully explain his original post.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

And if you want to play a wizard who doesn't cast spells and flails ineffectually with a sword you can do that to, but it's beside the point - I'm suggesting that you could have a smart barbarian that doesn't suck.


Obviously not. But if you reinterpret intelligence so that it means education, people will feel less like they're supposed to role-play their barbarian in a way that may come across as ableist.

You make a game that's both less likely to faciliate bad stereotypes and gives players more freedom in how they play their character.

You would have to overhaul all the basic tenets of the game, as well as the various real life dictionaries that define intelligence as raw capacity to learn and process information. Look up the real meaning of ignorance, not the modern day slang. "Ignorance" is defined as lack of knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to learn, retain, and use said knowledge.

I am ignorant on how to disassemble and reassemble a car engine, but I am intelligent enough to learn how to do it.

What you are describing, well, you would have to tear up the mechanics of a 5e Barbarian.
Rage is STR focused.
Unarmoured Defense is Dex and Con focused
Reckless Attack is Str focused
Danger Sense is Dex focused.
Feral Instinct is Dex focused.

If you want to play a high Int Barbarian, you have to be prepared to sacrifice in one of the 3 Stats I just laid out. So you are talking to the wrng people. You want to play a high Int Barbarian with no penalties, then talk to WOTC about overhauling the class in 6e.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Tropic Thunder comes to mind with two different things to avoid as an RPer.

That's a pretty good rule in general:
''If your character would fit in Tropic Thunder's scenario, dont play that character. ''