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

[ad_hoc]

How would you compare this to identifying an 8 str score as weak, 8 dex as clumsy, 8 con as sickly, 8 wis as oblivious, or 8 cha as weak willed? Where is it permitted to play a particular character with flaws?
I understand the desire not to marginalize anyone, but portraying a RPG character as consistent with their ability scores doesn't really seem particularly callous.

A character with 8 strength can carry 120lbs on their back while sprinting.

This isn't about stats.

 

[clearstream]

I 100% agree that mocking disabled people is awful.

I'm not sure that I buy into the mental route this thread is taking to get there.

Did you intend to use the term 'mental' here pejoratively?

 

[clearstream]

I've played some racist (more accurately, species-ist) characters in D&D - and seen others far more so than what I've played - and it wasn't an issue except in the fiction where it belongs.

But then, I'm not often trying to make any of my characters heroic. They just do what they do and any heroism they achieve is purely a side effect, not a goal.

Bear in mind the strong differences between rivalries between those on equal ground, relishing differences, and punching down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How about we eliminate all racial ASI, everyone starts with 6x 11s and gets 8 points to freely assign at 1st level.
That way, everybody's slightly above average in everything, with a few better stats but nothing overpowered. And then everybody gets a participation trophy.

Mod Note:

Sarcasm is fine and all, but how about we refrain from using rhetorical dog whistles like “participation trophies”?

 

[AnotherGuy]

That bit isn't offensive, but it's often disruptive.

Agree.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Did you intend to use the term 'mental' here pejoratively?

Just at a glance, I can tell you that they did not. They used it as an adjective, as in "mental process," not as slang, such as in "you've gone mental." A stronger phrase along similar lines would be "mental gymnastics," and that would have been pejorative, but the operative negativity in the phrase would have been "gymnastics," not "mental." As the comment stands, they are saying that a route was taken to get to a conclusion, that route was a mental one, and that they don't necessarily agree that the route actually goes to the destination being cited.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because, as has been said repeatedly in this thread, offense is not the problem. The problem is that you’re creating an environment where people who think it’s funny to mock people’s intelligence are comfortable, and people who have had their intelligence mocked probably wouldn’t be.

I hear what you are saying. So we should think about this:

By that standard, when a goliath mocks the halfling for being short, that should be avoided too. I feel certain in real life, short people have had to deal with comments like that before. They, most likely, did not find them funny.

Just a thought.

 

[Bolares]

I hear what you are saying. So we should think about this:

By that standard, when a goliath mocks the halfling for being short, that should be avoided too. I feel certain in real life, short people have had to deal with comments like that before. They, most likely, did not find them funny.

Just a thought.

While I think, yes we should avoid making fun of people because o physical traits... Being short is not a good comparison to having a mental disabilitty.

 

[Scott Christian]

While I think, yes we should avoid making fun of people because o physical traits... Being short is not a good comparison to having a mental disabilitty.

I would agree, one harbors greater effects in real life. But the sentiment is the same, no?

 

[Bolares]

But the sentiment is the same, no?

That would be a whole other can of worms, but as I'm neither short or disabled, I'm in no place to say if it's the same. What I can say is that for me, being made fun for being fat or for being bi are really different, even if both suck.