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

[J.Quondam]

Sexiest ooze ever?

Is there something especially convincing about the bubbling sounds coming from that pudding?

Please! Mind the Grandmother rule!

 

[jasper]

Just had to help a friend deal with that recently. First time in over 10 years he’s had to deal with it. The comments that preceded him asking for backup were directly relevant to this thread.

Hmmm "This is the whole “if you let a Nazi stay in your bar, it will become a Nazi bar” phenomenon.."
Could us D&Ders go to bar and turn into to D&D Bar? Maybe. Yes! By the power of D20 and pabst blue ribbon we can take over the bar scene! EVIL GRIN.

I really messed up the quote.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not one person here - not one, has defended portraying someone who is "stupid" for comedic reasons. That is a made-up argument.

Yeah, we've been imagining all the "B-but it's not real! That makes saying, doing and acting out terrible things A-OK!" arguments in defense of such characters.

Though that's par for the course. 'Stereotypes are okay, actually' as a new one I didn't expect.

 

[Umbran]

29 pages now of avoiding the issue in order to discuss the definition of "don't be a douche".

Wheaton's Law is simple to state, sometimes less simple to accept and apply it.

 

[CleverNickName]

The trouble with Wheaton's Law is that everyone agrees it should apply to other people.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The trouble with Wheaton's Law is that everyone agrees it should apply to other people.

That dynamic works fine in person, IME. But online people don't have to look you in the eye.

 

[Umbran]

The trouble with Wheaton's Law is that everyone agrees it should apply to other people.

Yes, well, Wheaton's Law is basically a social traffic law. And we know folks deal with traffic laws.

 

[Umbran]

Please! Mind the Grandmother rule!

You, clearly, have not seen Grandma cook gumbo.

 

[Lanefan]

Right. But the character is probably being played by someone with relatively average IQ who is deliberately acting dumb and isn't differentiating between low Int and low Wis.

Example:

Dumb PC: Huh, I wonder what this lever does. <reaches out to touch the lever>

Other PCs: Don't touch it! If you pull the lever, the sign says it'll summon demons.

Dumb PC #1: Whoops, better not touch it. <this player is playing a not-smart, illiterate character, but isn't being a jerk about it.>

Dumb PC #2: Dur-hurh, I'm so dumb, I'll pull it anyway. <this character is being a jerk about it, by doing the dumb thing deliberately>

More likely IME the dumb (unwise) PC would just pull the lever without saying a word other than, shortly afterward, "oops".

Now, in this case, Dumb PC #2 isn't necessarily making fun of real people who aren't "smart," but they are being disruptive. Even my chaotic neutral, 10 Int character doesn't deliberately do things just to be disruptive. (I swear, she didn't mean to start a riot; it just happened!)

CN Int 10 might not do disruptive things but CN Wis 7 sure will, now and then.

I really feel a lot of things being held out as examples of low Int are in fact low Wis; but then I don't buy into the 5e version of Wisdom where it's mostly about perception.

Now, if they had a good, in-character reason to pull the lever (someone they trusted told them to or said that it summoned candy, etc.) that'd be one thing.

That "trusted" person would be the CN higher-Wisdom character, who has already found the safest place in the room from which to watch the outfall of pulling the lever.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, and mine too (that rogue is based on my own character, although nobody has called her a numbskull; I did get a stern in-character lecture from the cleric though).

I'm not quite seeing that undercurrent, though. What I'm seeing is, especially from folks like Charlaquin, is that if your actions are actually bothering someone else, don't do those actions.

For me it depends on the actions and the bothering. Outright traumatizing someone, no. Mocking a real-world difference, no (unless I know the person is more than capable of giving it right back, in which case all's fair).

But I well remember one guy I played with who got wigged out when my character developed a crush on his character and I roleplayed (voice only) how she was flirting with him; and call me callous if you like but IMO if something like that bothers someone then that person might have some self-examination to do.

And as it turned out I really was on to something in his attitudes without realizing it: a few years later (after he'd left our games not entirely by his own choice) he was had up and convicted on kiddie porn charges.

For me, I asked the DM to tell me if my character was ever getting disruptive, and he swears my character is doing just fine. But I have actual, legitimate in-game reasons for any in-game actions, and I often explain those reasons out of character. I don't do things just because it's funny.

Depending on the situation, there's times where the choice of what I do in-character is made based on what's (potentially) funnier; but our games sometimes tend toward the slapstick anyway so it usually fits in fine.