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

[Charlaquin]

Offense is not the concern. Normalization of behavior that makes the hobby unwelcoming to marginalized people is.

 

[BRayne]

There’s a lot of daylight between charmingly dim-witted and stereotypically stupid.

I mean your own example from earlier in this thread of Grog Strongjaw is only debated on whether he should be considered a himbo based on whether he qualifies for the "nice" aspect of that archetype and not for being the wrong sort of low intelligence.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Try not to be a jerk to other people" seems like a pretty low bar for etiquette, something that everyone would easily understand and support.
But here we are. Again.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean your own example from earlier in this thread of Grog Strongjaw is only debated on whether he should be considered a himbo based on whether he qualifies for the "nice" aspect of that archetype and not for being the wrong sort of low intelligence.

Touché. I actually didn’t take issue with Grog, I just reached for him as an example because of the size of Critical Role’s platform.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But he's wrong. Unless someone is already the kind of person to act on those stereotypes outside the game where it can hurt someone, nothing is perpetuated.

"If someone already believes in/acts on those stereotypes, it isn't bad if they continue to do so around other people" is a particularly strange stance to take. So, you don't think that if you're playing with your friends, who might not already be predisposed to act in a stereotypically "stupid" manner, your acting that way won't at all influence how they perceive those stereotypes?

People who don't act that way already aren't going to see a stereotype in the game and then suddenly be like, "Hey. I need to be this way in public now." It's not going to leave the game.

No, but the more you are exposed to a concept, the more likely you are to think that it's okay. Gaming doesn't happen in a vacuum. The more that people act that way, the more people are desensitized to acting in a stereotypically "stupid" manner. Violent video games don't make you more violent, but they can desensitize you to violence. The exact same concept applies here.

 

[Oofta]

While the concept of intelligence is nebulous at best, I do play less intelligent (or low wisdom) PCs on occasion. I think you can play a low intelligence PC without making them "stupid", or a caricature.

There are only so many ways to roleplay characteristics and as long as people aren't being ridiculed I don't see the issue. I mentioned Dumb and Dumber earlier, I find the depictions from the movie insulting. I don't find Forest Gump insulting. I wouldn't want someone to play the former, I would have no problem with someone playing the latter if it was done well, although in either case you need to be aware of how other people at the table are going to take it.

As an example I've played PCs with reasonably high intelligence and low wisdom as an absent-minded-professor who just didn't think things through. AKA, my brother-in-law. Great guy, one of the most intelligent people I know, can rattle off facts, incredible at chess, makes really dumb decisions. I've played PCs with low intelligence and decent wisdom as caring, empathetic, good at making decisions if given time, crap at quick analysis and deduction like my cousin.

Have respect for other people and don't play a stereotype should be a given. It doesn't, to me, have much to do with playing intelligence.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

While I acknowledge that some people are playing in public venues, there are a part of us who plays with friends (and engage in other activities than roleplaying with them) and, being part of this demographic, I am offended by any attempt to advise what I do inside my private property, outside of the views of anyone. I am ready to discuss whether there is a problem in anything game-related, including discussion on whether say, playing a Nazi character ingrain Nazi reflexes into the players, but starting by telling "don't do X" isn't the best way to engage with me. It might come as the conclusion of a reasoning on a topic, or be presented as an advice, but in general, any imperative on the behavior I should comply with at home will be seen in a bad view, even if I am amenable to it. Exemple: "Don't blow your nose on your curtains" will elicit an anwers "My curtains, my way" (despite not blowing my nose in them in the first place). I guess I wasn't in the target audience of the OP since he didn't select the appropriate debating technique to engage me.

 

[Scribe]

Offense is not the concern. Normalization of behavior that makes the hobby unwelcoming to marginalized people is.

I disagree. Normalization isn't the issue. If I roleplayed a character similar to my friend, we have trained for almost a decade together, the personal offense would be the issue.

I'm not going to run around town pretending to be 'slow' or unable to grasp new concepts.

I wouldn't do it, because people could be hurt by what would rightly be seen as making a show out of attributes or behaviour which they cannot change.

 

[Faolyn]

No. There's literally nothing to catch. If it doesn't hurt someone, it isn't wrong to do.

Is racist, homophobic, etc., behavior OK if it doesn't hurt someone?

I mean, I'm not going to be thought police and say you're not allowed to say bigoted things in the comfort of your own home and with like-minded people. But I'm also not going that it's OK either. Bigotry is bad even if nobody who hears it is hurt or upset by it.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't the point of a forum to have discussions?

Mod Note:
So, this looks like typical sealioning behavior.

Spoiler: The iconic Wondermark cartoon, by David Maliki

You don't seem to have taken to heart that, after a warning, you should be on best behavior. So, you're done in this thread.