Fictional Wizards of "High Intelligence, low wisdom" variety

[Man on Fire]

Reading John Morresy's A Voice for Princess I realized that main character is perfect example of what D&D players would call "High INT, low WIS". Kedrigern is powerful wizard who can turn dozen of barbarians into dogs with wave of his hand and survive dragon's attack without a scratch, but is quite naive, especially when flattered, which leads to him falling for simple traps and tricks (through nto so as his collagues who got manipulated by an alchemist), prone to anger and often acting recklessly, and later sufferign the consequences. Thinking of him made me realize that, for all the pressumed popularity of D&D stereotype of wizards as exactly that kid of people, I don't know that many of them. The only other example I know is Lina Inverse from Slayers, who is clearly a genius wizard, but short-tempered and infamous for her thendency to blow everything around her into kingdom come. There i also V from Order of the Stick, who is all but expictly stated to be one.

Other than that, however, I don't think of any other character who actually fits that stereotype.

[Otomodachi]

Well, there was this one fella named Dr. Faustus...

One thing to be aware of is that most settings with wizards also have dark powers. Intelligent wizard + low wisdom will frequently equal antagonist.

[The Glyphstone]

Numair Salmalin, from Tamora Pierce's Tortall universe, is brilliant and immensely powerful but notably scatterbrained.

[Mordar]

I seem to recall a lot of cartoon wizards fitting this "ideal" - the Merlin stand-in for Sword in the Stone, perhaps? I guess that's more of the "absent minded professor", but still kind of applies.

- M

[Otomodachi]

OK, also, Ged from Earthsea if noone mentioned it. He puts lots of effort into fixing his mistakes, but generally, low wisdom.

[Traab]

I seem to recall a lot of cartoon wizards fitting this "ideal" - the Merlin stand-in for Sword in the Stone, perhaps? I guess that's more of the "absent minded professor", but still kind of applies.

- M

This, I honestly cant think of other specific examples, but the scatterbrained scholar wizard. Phenomenal cosmic power, but will spend 5 minutes blinking at you in bewilderment when he notices you entered his study. Can give you the answer to the most obscure bits of lore, but couldnt tell you how to apply it without a plan with so many holes you could pitch a tent in the gaps. Can see that that lever will open the door, but isnt clever enough to realize its a trap until its too late.

Actually, now that I think about it, Cadderly during the Canticle book. He was incredibly smart. He was just naive and didnt think about the consequences of his actions. He needed a picture of a weapon for his dwarven buddies to make, so he stole an ancient tapestry from the headmistress of the library instead of asking first.

[Man on Fire]

OK, also, Ged from Earthsea if noone mentioned it. He puts lots of effort into fixing his mistakes, but generally, low wisdom.

I've read only first two books in the series and while he does seems like low wisdom guy in first, he learns from his mistakes. In second book he is much wiser.

[Anderlith]

Harry Dresden

[Grinner]

Victor Frankenstein, perhaps?

[Drakeburn]

The only wizard I can think that fits that field is Fizban from the Dragonlance Chronicles.

[Gavinfoxx]

Harry Dresden isn't low wis! He's ton observant of his surroundings. He's a freaking detective! :P

[Salbazier]

Harry Dresden isn't low wis! He's ton observant of his surroundings. He's a freaking detective! :P

Harry Dresden is a wiseass, in fact. :smallbiggrin:

[Philistine]

Not a wizard as such, but: Sir Bedivere from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. "If we built a large wooden badger..."

[Bastian Weaver]

The only wizard I can think that fits that field is Fizban from the Dragonlance Chronicles.

Fizban would be quite the opposite - huge Wisdom, low Intelligence. Not to mention that he just pretended to be that way and was really Paladine in disguise.

[Anderlith]

Harry Dresden isn't low wis! He's ton observant of his surroundings. He's a freaking detective! :P

Profession: Detective rolls, with some really good Search ranks. Wisdom helps but isn't needed

[Drakeburn]

Fizban would be quite the opposite - huge Wisdom, low Intelligence. Not to mention that he just pretended to be that way and was really Paladine in disguise.

1. Good point there.

2. Way to spoil it for all the folks out there who HAVEN'T read the books. :smallannoyed:

[Forum Explorer]

How about Harple Harkle?

[Slayer Lord]

Declan Avari from the Pathfinder novel Winter Witch counts. Cartography requires a ton of brain work, he's a pretty decent mage and we find out he's pretty good at strategizing on the fly, but he's a bit of a romantic. And sometimes he's a little slow on the uptake, which caused hilarity to ensue during his confrontation with the big bad in her true form.

[Weezer]

I've read only first two books in the series and while he does seems like low wisdom guy in first, he learns from his mistakes. In second book he is much wiser.

And that trend continues in the later books. He definitely steps into the archetype of wise, intelligent arch-mage. It's some nice character development and he definitely starts off as the stereotypical intelligent but foolish sorcerer's apprentice. Speaking of a sorcerer's apprentice, but the titular apprentice from Goethe's poem "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (as popularized in Disney's Fantasia) definitely fits the bill.

[Starwulf]

This, I honestly cant think of other specific examples, but the scatterbrained scholar wizard. Phenomenal cosmic power, but will spend 5 minutes blinking at you in bewilderment when he notices you entered his study. Can give you the answer to the most obscure bits of lore, but couldnt tell you how to apply it without a plan with so many holes you could pitch a tent in the gaps. Can see that that lever will open the door, but isnt clever enough to realize its a trap until its too late.

Actually, now that I think about it, Cadderly during the Canticle book. He was incredibly smart. He was just naive and didnt think about the consequences of his actions. He needed a picture of a weapon for his dwarven buddies to make, so he stole an ancient tapestry from the headmistress of the library instead of asking first.

By the end of the Canticle series though, when he gave his life-force to create the Spirit Soaring, he had become much, much wiser(and at peace). He was like the perfect blend of intelligence and wisdom by that point.

For my contribution: Ardaz, The Silver Mage, from "Echoes of the Fourth Magic" trilogy by Salvatore ^^

Also, Elminster often "plays" at being a traditional High-Int, Low-Wis Wizard, but he is actually an extremely deep character who is often looking many many years into the future when he gets involved into anything. He's never much about the short-term, and always about the long-term(Please note, this is after the initial set of books where he becomes one of Mystra's Chosen).

[DiscipleofBob]

The entire Harry Potter universe.

[Bastian Weaver]

1. Good point there.

2. Way to spoil it for all the folks out there who HAVEN'T read the books. :smallannoyed:

Good point. Spoilertag, activate!

[DiscipleofBob]

Fizban would be quite the opposite - huge Wisdom, low Intelligence. Not to mention that he just pretended to be that way and was really Paladine in disguise.

Can we count Zifnab then as well? :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

The entire Harry Potter universe.

Yeah, that about covers it. Except most are low int/low wis.

[Radar]

How about Harple Harkle?
Him and at least most of his family certainly qualify as that and also as the wizards who did it.

His strategy for fighting mind flayers? Transform his body, to move the brain out of the his head into his butt. It's insane, but works.

[industrious]

Nearly every wizard in Discworld that isn't Rincewind, Ridcully, or Ponder Stibbons.

[Pokonic]

The entire Harry Potter universe.

I wondered how long I needed to scroll before this was mentioned. :smallbiggrin:

[GloatingSwine]

Harry Dresden isn't low wis! He's ton observant of his surroundings. He's a freaking detective! :P

Have you read the Dresden Files?

About half of what happens is "Harry does amazingly dumb and shortsighted thing, has to clean up after himself". The entire last two books have been based on that premise alone.

[thubby]

any kind of absentminded wizard/scientist ever. they aren't often major characters for a lot of reasons.

[Socratov]

not exactly low wis, but not high wis is Alex Verus. yes he's intelligent, but he frequently does things that could be categorized as unhealthy. Also he's failry obliviouos sometimes.

[Kitten Champion]

A talented and intelligent magic-user with limited life experience is sent on a journey to befriend others and gain wisdom in the process is the whole premise of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic series.

I don't know if they're still following that premise, but that's the pilot.

I'd also include any and all magic users in The Sword of Truth series, who are like Discworld Wizards if they were played completely straight by a paranoid and humourless Objectivist. Come to think of it, many of the books are morality plays that end in some vital epiphany which is discussed between the protagonist and his supposedly wise mentor, framed through that novel's events.

Yes, Twilight Sparkle and Richard Rahl are pretty much the same character.

[Socratov]

A talented and intelligent magic-user with limited life experience is sent on a journey to befriend others and gain wisdom in the process is the whole premise of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic series.

I don't know if they're still following that premise, but that's the pilot.

I'd also include any and all magic users in The Sword of Truth series, who are like Discworld Wizards if they were played completely straight by a paranoid and humourless Objectivist. Come to think of it, many of the books are morality plays that end in some vital epiphany which is discussed between the protagonist and his supposedly wise mentor, framed through that novel's events.

Yes, Twilight Sparkle and Richard Rahl are pretty much the same character.
I disagree, richard Rahl is liek an engineer: he solves problems, even though those solutions become next book's problem generating a never-ending chain of ****storms

[meto30]

Edwin Odesseiron from the Baldur's Gate series, perhaps?

I agree on Twilight Sparkle meeting this category.

[Mauve Shirt]

Have you read the Dresden Files?

About half of what happens is "Harry does amazingly dumb and shortsighted thing, has to clean up after himself". The entire last two books have been based on that premise alone.

Based on my understanding of "Int is book-learning, wis is street-learning" I'd say he's "low int high wis".

[Socratov]

Based on my understanding of "Int is book-learning, wis is street-learning" I'd say he's "low int high wis".

he definately has streetsmarts...

However, I can find myself in the high int, low wis category for Dresden, he often has an idea how it works, and then proceeds to punch (verbally or no) the biggest baddie in the face to test his hypotheses

[GloatingSwine]

Based on my understanding of "Int is book-learning, wis is street-learning" I'd say he's "low int high wis".

Not really, Harry knows a lot of stuff (frequently via Bob), but he very frequently makes amazingly bad life choices because he assumes that his knowledge of a subject gives him some understanding of it.

See: Changes and all points thereafter.

I mean his MO in most of the books is "bark sufficiently energetically up the wrong tree that he gets enough height to see the tree he should have been barking up".

[Anderlith]

A talented and intelligent magic-user with limited life experience is sent on a journey to befriend others and gain wisdom in the process is the whole premise of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic series.

I don't know if they're still following that premise, but that's the pilot.

I'd also include any and all magic users in The Sword of Truth series, who are like Discworld Wizards if they were played completely straight by a paranoid and humourless Objectivist. Come to think of it, many of the books are morality plays that end in some vital epiphany which is discussed between the protagonist and his supposedly wise mentor, framed through that novel's events.

Yes, Twilight Sparkle and Richard Rahl are pretty much the same character.


I disagree, richard Rahl is liek an engineer: he solves problems, even though those solutions become next book's problem generating a never-ending chain of ****storms
We can all agree that the books are terrible though right? :smallbiggrin:

[Kitten Champion]

I disagree, richard Rahl is liek an engineer: he solves problems, even though those solutions become next book's problem generating a never-ending chain of ****storms


We can all agree that the books are terrible though right? :smallbiggrin:


I'm not sure what the disagreement here is to be honest.

[Anderlith]

I'm not sure what the disagreement here is to be honest.

he says he disagrees with what archetype Richard Rahl is.

I just think that the book series is terrible & was just mentioning that fact

[Shyftir]

We can all agree that the books are terrible though right? :smallbiggrin:

Thank God, I finally found someone else who realizes Sword of Truth is a steaming pile. So many talent-less idiots I've seen trying to ape that stuff...
(insert rant about that one guy I couldn't stand in college.)

[Bastian Weaver]

Can we count Zifnab then as well? :smallbiggrin:

We definitely can!

Now, about the Sword of Truth - Wizard's First Rule was a damn good book. Stone of Tears was okay, too. The sequels were getting worse and worse, though. It tends to happen to sequels.

[Kitten Champion]

he says he disagrees with what archetype Richard Rahl is.

I just think that the book series is terrible & was just mentioning that fact

I know, I'm still just not sure why that's disagreeing with what I wrote.


Thank God, I finally found someone else who realizes Sword of Truth is a steaming pile. So many talent-less idiots I've seen trying to ape that stuff...
(insert rant about that one guy I couldn't stand in college.)

As a long time SF reader who kind of fell headfirst into fantasy relatively recently, I got into the Sword of Truth books briefly after reading Tolkien and Jordan. As I was poking around for similar stories it came pretty heavily recommended by some trusted sources. Once I got around to Temple of Winds... it ceased to be mediocre with several disturbing elements and got more and more into cringe inducing territory. After getting to Faith of the Fallen, it was like Mr, Goodkind had ripped out fantasy's spine through its chest with his bare hand.

It basically turned me off the genre entirely for nearly half a year. It was seeing all the same tropes and ideas again from my beloved books, lifted almost directly, but tortured so horribly they were crippled of all enjoyment and life. He then reuses them over and over and over again.

So no, you're not alone.

On the topic and just to point out much better works, the "high int, low wis wizard" could also describe Raven from Teen Titans and Diana Wynn Jones' Howl of Moving Castle fame. I think Howl's my favourite foolish yet inexplicably brilliant Wizard.

[Bastian Weaver]

Kitten Champion, have you read anything by David Gemmell, by the way? The man was awesome with his writing.
Also, I should notice that many magic users in Gemmell's books fall into the category that we discuss, with rare exceptions such as Dardalion (who's an exceptional man).

[Kitten Champion]

Kitten Champion, have you read anything by David Gemmell, by the way? The man was awesome with his writing.
Also, I should notice that many magic users in Gemmell's books fall into the category that we discuss, with rare exceptions such as Dardalion (who's an exceptional man).

Sure, the Drenai Series is among my favourites. Druss' story is in particularly moving, but the whole series has at its heart what I love most in fantasy, an uplifting tale of the perseverance and heroism of man in its darkest hour, confronting one's own morality. It also doesn't suffer from the meandering and verbosity of modern fantasy epics, he gets to what's important and why it's important.

Honestly though, I can't remember the magic so much. There were a few evil magicians, it was pretty swords and sorcery-like at times.

[Eurus]

Nearly every wizard in Discworld that isn't Rincewind, Ridcully, or Ponder Stibbons.

I feel like most Discworld wizards are low-Int and low-Wis. And not very charismatic, either. They must wield magic entirely through force of beardliness. Rincewind and Stibbons are a bit better about it, although still not fantastic. Ridcully... seems better relative to his peers, but that's not saying much. This is the man who re-opened a bathroom designed by Bergholt Stuttley Johnson, after all.

[Socratov]

I feel like most Discworld wizards are low-Int and low-Wis. And not very charismatic, either. They must wield magic entirely through force of beardliness. Rincewind and Stibbons are a bit better about it, although still not fantastic. Ridcully... seems better relative to his peers, but that's not saying much. This is the man who re-opened a bathroom designed by Bergholt Stuttley Johnson, after all.

I disagree, the wizards in UU (when they are not eating or blowing each other up) are highly intelligent. they just suck it applying that knowledge in a sensible way (low wis). they are the personification fo this trope IMO.


And yes swords of truth series is bad, I feel indeed that temple of four winds was a tipping point where after it the series stopped being interesting. so, yeah, the books started out fine (not stellar, but good), degressed to acceptable, dove further to mediocre and plunged into no-just-no territory (mostly in the form of monotone rythm: see problem generated by last solution, fix problem while girlie goes beserk form time to time, generate good fix, end of book, rinse and repeat...)

[Traab]

Kitten Champion, have you read anything by David Gemmell, by the way? The man was awesome with his writing.
Also, I should notice that many magic users in Gemmell's books fall into the category that we discuss, with rare exceptions such as Dardalion (who's an exceptional man).

Honestly, it seems like most of the spellcasters in gemmels works tended to be evil shaman and demon summoners and such. Yeah you had the thirty or whatever that group of warrior monks were called, but how bright can you be when your entire purpose in life is to find a battle to die in? :smallbiggrin:

[Radar]

I disagree, the wizards in UU (when they are not eating or blowing each other up) are highly intelligent. they just suck it applying that knowledge in a sensible way (low wis). they are the personification fo this trope IMO.
For the most part, it's very difficult to actually see their mental capabilities, since they are immensly lazy.

Leonard of Quirm on the other hand might not be a wizard, but he is the prime example of a high Int, low Wis character.

[Socratov]

For the most part, it's very difficult to actually see their mental capabilities, since they are immensly lazy.
Well, highly intelligent people often carry a certain degree of lazyness with them stimulating them to do things in a more clever and efficient way. Also it's hinted (can't really recall which book) that the wizards at UU are encouraged to be lazy to stop chaos panic and destruction happing on a regular scale at UU. Also to stop anything but all out war breaking out in UU and keeping hte peace. Nost notably ridcully is a prime example if this being not only clever but quite cunning organising this and often showing he's quite close to the patrician havelock vetinari in cunningness and ruling UU. It's a crouching moron, hidden badass sort of thing really...

Leonard of Quirm on the other hand might not be a wizard, but he is the prime example of a high Int, low Wis character.
Most extreme example woudl be Bloody Stupid Johnson though... Brilliant designs, although usually with a fatal (often to the user) flaw, or quite nonsensical purpose.

[Fjolnir]

Remember, the UU wizards you see that are old and lazy are the ones that managed to LIVE to be old and lazy...

[Man on Fire]

I heard, but have no confirmation ,that protagonist of Rune Soldier Louie might qualify. From Wikipedia:

Muscular and a little on the dumb side; Louie is prone to getting drunk in bars, chasing after girls, and brawling when he should be studying his magic. As a result, he tends to use brute force instead of magic, much to the chagrin of his companions (for example, on his first adventure, Louie lost his temper when a troop of goblins clubbed him on the head and then broke his wand when he used it to club them back). Despite his shortcomings as a wizard, Louie possesses a strong sense of justice and is unfailingly loyal to those he considers his friends. Louie's stupidity mostly results as a lack of planning and forethought, he's actually a lot smarter than he usually appears to be, often figuring things out that others overlook.


On the topic and just to point out much better works, the "high int, low wis wizard" could also describe Raven from Teen Titans

Dunno, going by cartoons she is more of a "High Int, moderate Wis, low Cha" - not exactly good with people. Speking of which, the same could be said about Twillight Sparkle - learning value of friendship strikes me as something to teach a low Cha character.

On the other hand there is season two in which she is really stupid, but so are everybody in season two (at least the episodes I saw).

[Traab]

I heard, but have no confirmation ,that protagonist of Rune Soldier Louie might qualify. From Wikipedia:




Dunno, going by cartoons she is more of a "High Int, moderate Wis, low Cha" - not exactly good with people. Speking of which, the same could be said about Twillight Sparkle - learning value of friendship strikes me as something to teach a low Cha character.

On the other hand there is season two in which she is really stupid, but so are everybody in season two (at least the episodes I saw).


Honestly, the biggest indicator of low wis is lacking common sense. I dont see Raven lacking common sense, but I have never read the comics, only watched the cartoon, so it may be different.

[Spacewolf]

Most of the wizards from the unseen university would probably count, the dean might be the best example.

[GloatingSwine]

I feel like most Discworld wizards are low-Int and low-Wis. And not very charismatic, either. They must wield magic entirely through force of beardliness. Rincewind and Stibbons are a bit better about it, although still not fantastic. Ridcully... seems better relative to his peers, but that's not saying much. This is the man who re-opened a bathroom designed by Bergholt Stuttley Johnson, after all.

The point of wizards (and witches, who are much cleverer about it on the whole) on Discworld is to not do magic, and to not do so as hard as possible. Actually doing magic is a surefire way to attract the attentions of unspeakable whatsits with more tentacles than is strictly necessary.

Keeping them occupied with internecine squabbling, plotting, or simply very very large meals is the mechanism by which this is accomplished.

None of them have ever been particularly wise though.

Except possibly the Librarian.

[Querzis]

Ridcully... seems better relative to his peers, but that's not saying much. This is the man who re-opened a bathroom designed by Bergholt Stuttley Johnson, after all.

Its very, very often pointed out that Ridcully is pretty much fearless. He was perfectly aware of how dangerous it could be and that it could kill him, he just felt it was way too interesting to ignore. Ridcully is extremely wise actually, hes always shown to take the most efficient way to his objective and disregard the danger not because hes not aware of it, hes always shown perfectly aware of all his surroundings but because he, once again, is not really afraid of the possible danger.

People really have to make the difference between Int/Wis and personality traits. Being lazy or reckless doesnt make you less intelligent or wise.

Every other wizard except Rincewind and the Librarian is indeed high Int/low Wis though. Anyway, even though most Wizards who fit this stereotype are indeed usually background character instead of protagonist, thats just because being a protagonist in an action book or movie (and pretty much all work of fiction with wizard are action-oriented) usually require a lot of wisdom. People without common sense in action genre usually dont live very long.

[Bastian Weaver]

Honestly, it seems like most of the spellcasters in gemmels works tended to be evil shaman and demon summoners and such. Yeah you had the thirty or whatever that group of warrior monks were called, but how bright can you be when your entire purpose in life is to find a battle to die in? :smallbiggrin:

The Thirty, yes. And they all knew that death was not the end. Though they did feel rather stupid sometimes when they thought about all the joys of life that they missed!
And yes again, evil shaman, demon summoners, and the guy who merged himself with the Bloodstone.

[GloatingSwine]

I think we can also add every single Blood Mage in Dragon Age, since despite the fact that consorting with demons ends terribly in 100% of recorded instances, they keep doing it.

This goes double for Jowan, who despite getting away with it the first time goes on to make exactly the same screwup again. I had him put to death because he was too stupid to let live.

[Traab]

The Thirty, yes. And they all knew that death was not the end. Though they did feel rather stupid sometimes when they thought about all the joys of life that they missed!
And yes again, evil shaman, demon summoners, and the guy who merged himself with the Bloodstone.

Oooo! Remember the Joinings? Those things were badass, and some of them were spellcasters as well. Too be honest though, at that stage it started getting a bit overly complex. You had alternate worlds, realities, gods and demons who may or may not actually BE gods or demons, just beings from alternate existences and whatnot, meh. Still good stuff, but I preferred my Druss stories. That there was a man made from badass and win. I always pictured him as if someone had blended sean connery and schwarzeneggar together and given him the mother of all axes.

[Anteros]

Oooo! Remember the Joinings? Those things were badass, and some of them were spellcasters as well. Too be honest though, at that stage it started getting a bit overly complex. You had alternate worlds, realities, gods and demons who may or may not actually BE gods or demons, just beings from alternate existences and whatnot, meh. Still good stuff, but I preferred my Druss stories. That there was a man made from badass and win. I always pictured him as if someone had blended sean connery and schwarzeneggar together and given him the mother of all axes.

Skilgannon and Regnak were always my favorite characters. Druss is more like a force of nature than a character.

[Anderlith]

Does Edward Elric count as a wizard?
Because he is a great case of High-Int Low-Wis

[Kitten Champion]

Honestly, the biggest indicator of low wis is lacking common sense. I dont see Raven lacking common sense, but I have never read the comics, only watched the cartoon, so it may be different.

She was raised in a sheltered, monastic-type environment. Raven was alienated from people most of her life and troubled by her ignorance of human relationships and contemporary American culture after coming here. She possesses a naturally empathetic disposition that extends from her powers and yearns to belong somewhere, but is betrayed by her own inner demons. The cartoon Raven is more of a quirky sympathetic introvert who has a fondness for all things Gothic, comic Raven's more emotionally crippled with deep rooted anxiety issues.

At least that's what I read into her.


Do Jedis count as wizards? Because Anakin.

[Anteros]

She was raised in a sheltered, monastic-type environment. Raven was alienated from people most of her life and troubled by her ignorance of human relationships and contemporary American culture after coming here. She possesses a naturally empathetic disposition that extends from her powers and yearns to belong somewhere, but is betrayed by her own inner demons. The cartoon Raven is more of a quirky sympathetic introvert who has a fondness for all things Gothic, comic Raven's more emotionally crippled with deep rooted anxiety issues.

At least that's what I read into her.


Do Jedis count as wizards? Because Anakin.

Anakin had a high intelligence? I must have missed that part.

[Kitten Champion]

Anakin had a high intelligence? I must have missed that part.

Anakin Skywalker built a droid and fully functional pod racer when he was five, became a renowned General in an interstellar war before he was thirty, and had some of the smoothest pick-up lines this side of George Lucas' ego. I can only assume he was supposed to be quite bright.

I'm going based on the characterization the writers were going for. If I were being ungenerous and based my view on what was actually conveyed, I could pretty much dismiss all intellect and wisdom from the whole saintly Jedi order and for everyone else in the universe while I'm at it.

[Man on Fire]

I think Anakin's problem was he had high Int and Cha and dumped Wis, while Jedi were Wis-based.

[Philistine]

Almost every magic user in David Drake's Isles series probably fits the profile. That probably has something to do with the nature of magic in that setting - it has immense potential power but is difficult to control, and the Law of Unintended Consequences reigns supreme. (A wizard might summon a massive wave to drown an enemy's invasion fleet, for example, only to find that his spell caused that wave by triggering a massive undersea earthquake... so that the hometown the wizard is trying to protect is first knocked flat by the quake, then obliterated by the resulting tsunami.)

[Traab]

Skilgannon and Regnak were always my favorite characters. Druss is more like a force of nature than a character.

I liked Waylander, I thought he was a pretty cool guy in general. As for Druss, thats sort of WHY I liked him. Well, that and the awesome lines he had. "Where you come from the mountains may tremble whenever you break wind, but as far as i am concerned, you are just another pot bellied savage who couldnt find his own arse with both hands and a draenai map tattooed to his thigh!" There is also a phrase of his that I have frequently used to insult people, "look at you with your chin still wet from your mothers milk. . . . " I just love the reaction I get from saying that to people.

[Anteros]

Pretty much everything Anakin ever achieved was more a result of being ridiculously powerful in the force rather than any personal intellect. I will grant that building a droid probably takes some intelligence.

As for Gemmel, I like most of his characters. I was just listing my favorites.

[Dave Halfbreed]

Thomas Marvolo Riddle. Child prodigy who terrorized his world...and then shot himself. Repeatedly.

[Gavinfoxx]

Thomas Marvolo Riddle. Child prodigy who terrorized his world...and then shot himself. Repeatedly.

...Hahahahahah, oh wow...

[Eric Tolle]

You could make an argument that wizard Howl in Howl'sMving Castle is low wisdom. Narcissistic, fickle, womanizer. and cowardly enough that he has to run circles around himself in order to con himself into confronting the main villain.

[Traab]

Thomas Marvolo Riddle. Child prodigy who terrorized his world...and then shot himself. Repeatedly.

I really dont agree with this. His biggest failing was to act upon a partially overheard prophecy that he KNEW wasnt complete. Pretty much everything after that was plot armor induced losses. How could he have known that harrys hands were made of concentrated voldemort acid in harrys first year? Or the stupidly lunatic levels of luck required for him to survive the chamber of secrets? Its hardly HIS fault crouch jr charmed the tri wiz cup to be a 2 way portkey. 5th year was plot armor at its thickest. There is no way in hell any of those kids should have survived long enough for help to arrive. No foot shooting there, just pure, "They are the good guys, so they auto win." It was basically all like that. Very few idiot ball moments on the part of voldemort, very many invulnerability stars being dropped on the heads of harry potter and his amazing friends.

[Kitten Champion]

The wizards and witches of HP are all operating under a certain level of romanticism and anachronistic sensibilities which makes them seem pretty irrational to the "just take him out with a sniper rifle, you idiot" crowd.

It's interesting how the Dresden Wizards are much the same, but Butcher exploits this with modern-thinking and practical characters throwing the wrench into the traditional mindset of the magical world, while Rowling keeps the worlds and their ideas pretty self-contained.

Voldemort is actually pretty clever for someone within that culture, the Batman gambit he pulled on Harry using their telepathic link was inspired.

[dehro]

note to Fizban... you are now spoilered in the original posts but the spoiled survives in the quotes.


some have already been mentioned:

The Dean at UU university in Discworld (well.. ok, former Dean) who may be crafty and powerful but I believe he was explicitly stated as being really really impressionable, which is why he's always the first to react to stuff happening and to start wearing leather trousers or playing instruments.

Most Evil Wizards in pretty much every narrative, on account of how they'd be good guys if they had higher wisdom score, which is the trait that allows good wizards to ultimately beat them. they tend to be high on charisma and intelligence, and the lack of wisdom and understanding of those things that wisdom makes you understand ends up being their downfall.

does Doc Emmet Brown count? he's a mad scientist and not a wizard, but his meddling shows him as being all about the brains and too much of a scientist to resist poking things with a stick and hanging around to watch them go bang.

most HP-verse wizards.

Jeannie the Genie (not sure she qualifies though)

V

Xykon

Richard from Looking For Group

Snowwhite's stepmother

Nathaniel from the Bartimaeus Trilogy

[SouthpawSoldier]

Dresden low WIS? I beg to differ. Having read every book (eagerly awaiting the next collection of short stories to find out what Molls did for the svartalfheim), I consider myself a bit of an expert on the Dresdenverse.

Sure, he misses things sometimes, but the vast majority of his screw-ups are from things that are hidden. When it comes to things that are obvious, he's pretty spot on (Molly in his home after her trial comes to mind). Early books, he was really clueless, but in the last few (Ghost Story and the urchin he helps) he demonstrates a rediculous understnading of how the world works, and epsecially what makes people tick. INT doesn't give you insight in people's motivations. That's WIS all the way. Life experience, etc etc.

Even though he also isn't a caster, why not someone like Monk, or like Dr. Cooper (could argue that they're a Diviner and a Technomage, respectively)?

[Mordar]

does Doc Emmet Brown count? he's a mad scientist and not a wizard, but his meddling shows him as being all about the brains and too much of a scientist to resist poking things with a stick and hanging around to watch them go bang.

Perfect example!


Most Evil Wizards in pretty much every narrative, on account of how they'd be good guys if they had higher wisdom score

Snow White's stepmother

I don't think she is low wisdom, unless you mean in relation to the (as far as I know) Burlew-invented position that one can't be wise and evil. She just falls victim to the age-old green monster (and potentially the similarly aged truth that you can't screw with prophecy, depending on the telling). Snow White has a little "plot armor" in that the Queen never sticks a knife in her, instead trying more subtle options, but that could be seen as wise had it worked out (no one would have connected it to a jealous, murderous queen!).


Dresden low WIS? I beg to differ. Having read every book (eagerly awaiting the next collection of short stories to find out what Molls did for the svartalfheim), I consider myself a bit of an expert on the Dresdenverse.

Sure, he misses things sometimes, but the vast majority of his screw-ups are from things that are hidden. [SNIP] INT doesn't give you insight in people's motivations. That's WIS all the way. Life experience, etc etc.

I agree that he's not the most stereotypical example of H-Int/L-Wis, but it really isn't "wise" of Harry to taunt, mock, or generally irritate entities with power that dwarfs his own...which he does pretty much from book one. If not for his special status (you know, as protagonist of the series) several of them would have long since whacked him. Now, Butcher does a decent job of handwaving why they didn't, but even then, there's only so many times you can pull Superman's cape and not catch a little trouble.

I guess this is more a flaw of the idea of wisdom as a catch all D&D stat...if it were split up a bit into Awareness, Empathy, Common Sense, Decision Making and who-knows-what-else, Dresden would score very well on some and very poorly on others.

- M

[Forum Explorer]

I don't think Harry Dresden is really low wisdom.

He just doesn't respect authority at all, and has no tolerance for bullies/evil

[GloatingSwine]

Sure, he misses things sometimes, but the vast majority of his screw-ups are from things that are hidden. When it comes to things that are obvious, he's pretty spot on (Molly in his home after her trial comes to mind). Early books, he was really clueless, but in the last few (Ghost Story and the urchin he helps) he demonstrates a rediculous understnading of how the world works, and epsecially what makes people tick. INT doesn't give you insight in people's motivations. That's WIS all the way. Life experience, etc etc.


Yeah, and he's still managed to screw up his own life and most of the balance of power in the magical world by making amazingly unwise decisions.

The entire last two books have explicitly been about Harry realising what a colossal tool he's been for the first 14 when it comes to personal life choices and the consequences thereof.

[Dr.Epic]

Every wizard in Harry Potter.

[Anderlith]

Dresden low WIS? I beg to differ. Having read every book (eagerly awaiting the next collection of short stories to find out what Molls did for the svartalfheim), I consider myself a bit of an expert on the Dresdenverse.

Sure, he misses things sometimes, but the vast majority of his screw-ups are from things that are hidden. When it comes to things that are obvious, he's pretty spot on (Molly in his home after her trial comes to mind). Early books, he was really clueless, but in the last few (Ghost Story and the urchin he helps) he demonstrates a rediculous understnading of how the world works, and epsecially what makes people tick. INT doesn't give you insight in people's motivations. That's WIS all the way. Life experience, etc etc.

Even though he also isn't a caster, why not someone like Monk, or like Dr. Cooper (could argue that they're a Diviner and a Technomage, respectively)?
Telling her that he wasn't going to have sex with her was an act of his strong morality not nessesarily wisdom.
Yes it was soooo wise for him to bring his psychically sensitive apprentice to Chichen Itza, or to ask her to endanger her by asking her to break a Law of Magic by blanking his memory of arranging his own death. Or to burn Bianca when he first met her. To dress like a a cartoony vampire to a vampire party. To challenge Cowl into a fight. To take on a werewolf. To deal with Fae. To bring teenage werewolves into a fae fight.

The list goes on.

Harry Dresden doesn't begin to show any real wisdom until after his death.

[Forum Explorer]

Telling her that he wasn't going to have sex with her was an act of his strong morality not nessesarily wisdom.
Yes it was soooo wise for him to bring his psychically sensitive apprentice to Chichen Itza, or to ask her to endanger her by asking her to break a Law of Magic by blanking his memory of arranging his own death. Or to burn Bianca when he first met her. To dress like a a cartoony vampire to a vampire party. To challenge Cowl into a fight. To take on a werewolf. To deal with Fae. To bring teenage werewolves into a fae fight.

The list goes on.

Harry Dresden doesn't begin to show any real wisdom until after his death.

It may have been a bad decision, but Harry wasn't exactly in the best state of mind at the time. And lets not forget
being influenced by a demon

As for Bianca she was trying to kill him. What else was he going to do? Let her eat him?

Classic Snark. He hates vampires and isn't afraid to show it. He knows it's a unwise decision, he just doesn't care.

Challanging Cowl? What should he have just given him the book? Or joined him? Again, he knows it's a bad idea from a survival prespective, but that doesn't mean he wiykd have chosen any other way.

Do you mean when he was a kid (and alone, and going up against a wizard with much more experience then him) or crippled? (and about to go up against an army in order to save his daughter.)

Sure he should have just let the werewolf go around killing people instead.

That last one actually turned out really well. I mean bringing reinforcements when the entire world is at stake is pretty reasonable.

So I don't see any unwise decisions there. Harry either knew exactly what he was doing, or in really poor condition to make the choice. That being said I wouldn't call him wise. A good example of wise would be someone like Michael. But he certainly isn't low wisdom. He seems to be pretty medium, perhaps even medium-high.

[Blackmoor]

Every evil wizard that Conan the barbarian fights. If they had any decent wisdom, they wouldn't mess with Conan.

[Kitten Champion]

I'm not sure if Harry Dresden is unwise, rather he ignores the wisdom he does possess when it's inconvenient to the heart he wears on his sleeve. Part of what makes me sympathize with him as a character is that he's not so stubborn and juvenile that he can't acknowledge the validity of other's positions. He may act brashly hostile towards the Merlin for his cold calculating manner or Micheal Carpenter for his inscrutable goodness, but he's aware he's being an ass and they do have a point and the world doesn't revolve around him.

That acknowledgement is what separates him from say, Spider-man.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Holy moly hot Dresden spoilers here. Stars and stones, people. Not everyone has read the books. :smallannoyed:

(I'm just glad that I have.)

[GloatingSwine]

I'm not sure if Harry Dresden is unwise, rather he ignores the wisdom he does possess when it's inconvenient to the heart he wears on his sleeve.

"I know that this is stupid but I'm going to do it anyway" is not a sign of great wisdom. It is, rather, the opposite.

Plus, y'know, the whole "I can make a deal with Mab and welch on it and it will totally work" thing, I mean anyone who's read any fairytales would be able to tell you that **** always goes badly wrong.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I would actually argue that most Harry Potter wizards are the reverse: high WIS, low INT, with a few exceptions. They appear to have more problems applying common logic or using outside aid (as in, "just use a gun already") than lacking common sense. It's just that inside the wizarding world, streetsmarts are not necessarily the same as outside of it.

Let's see: Tom Riddle - sociopathic child prodigy that had a cabal of loyal followers by his mid-teens, successfully waged a guerrilla war of terror against established authorities, is shown to be charismatic and perceptive and even in his post-Horcrux induced madness still comes up with pretty effective plans plot armor aside. All 3 mental stats are high.

Dumbledore - despite heavy opposition from conservatives, almost single-handedly dominates British wizarding politics, plays a long game with Harry, manipulating him into becoming a martyr, successfully leads resistance to Voldemort despite limited resources and government's uselessness and pulls off several major operations. Scenes like Harry's trial? Inspired politics and almost entirely WIS-based. Relies on various gambits/Xanatos roulettes to be effective, is excellent at predicting people's actions. Pulls off some dumb moves, but they either seem dumb in hindsight, or are a part of a larger plan. Same as Voldemort, all of his mental stats are high.

Lucius Malfoy - basically, the opposition to Dumbledore's party, controls much of the government as well as the conservatives, has significant connections, upstages Dumbledore numerous times and is overall an effective male sexual organ that is also the short form of Richard.

Moody - Harry Potter universe version of Harry Dresden, private detective. Paranoid prick that outsmarts almost everyone else when it comes to military/police operations. If I remember correctly, he's the one who came up with the idea of 6 Harry Potter decoys and then sending actual Harry with Tonks. High INT/WIS, low CHA.

Severus Snape - is a successful double agent for Dumbledore. One of the few people to pull one over on Voldemort, and for a significant amount of time. Enough said. High INT/WIS, low charisma and additional charisma penalties for things like greasy hair.

Sirius Black, Draco Malfoy - can be best described as spoiled brats that follow around their friends/family/convictions (choose 2 out of 3 for either character) like a lost puppy. Neither has exceptionally low, nor exceptionally high mental stats.

Hermione - about the only example of high INT, low WIS in the series. Most likely specifically written to be a booksmart nerd with a rule obsession, but little common sense or charisma.

Harry Potter himself - fairly baseline. Nothing special in either department, but probably has higher WIS than average, if only because of his mental fortitude.

Fudge - strawman politico out to save his own butt. Umbridge - strawman "evil bureaucrat lady" with strong mugglophobia.

[jedipilot24]

I would actually argue that most Harry Potter wizards are the reverse: high WIS, low INT, with a few exceptions. They appear to have more problems applying common logic or using outside aid (as in, "just use a gun already") than lacking common sense. It's just that inside the wizarding world, streetsmarts are not necessarily the same as outside of it.

Let's see: Tom Riddle - sociopathic child prodigy that had a cabal of loyal followers by his mid-teens, successfully waged a guerrilla war of terror against established authorities, is shown to be charismatic and perceptive and even in his post-Horcrux induced madness still comes up with pretty effective plans plot armor aside. All 3 mental stats are high.
He also handicaps his followers by insisting that they try to capture Harry alive and acts on a prophecy that he KNOWS is incomplete and also KNOWS is only active because he wants it to be.


Dumbledore - despite heavy opposition from conservatives, almost single-handedly dominates British wizarding politics, plays a long game with Harry, manipulating him into becoming a martyr, successfully leads resistance to Voldemort despite limited resources and government's uselessness and pulls off several major operations. Scenes like Harry's trial? Inspired politics and almost entirely WIS-based. Relies on various gambits/Xanatos roulettes to be effective, is excellent at predicting people's actions. Pulls off some dumb moves, but they either seem dumb in hindsight, or are a part of a larger plan. Same as Voldemort, all of his mental stats are high.
So many things could have gone wrong with Dumbledore's plans, not the least of which is the possibility that the Dursley's could have just dumped Harry at an orphanage (which they almost did). Xanatos Roulettes are NOT good plans because they rely on random events that cannot be predicted, controlled, or manipulated. Even at the Dursley's, Harry could easily have turned out much worse.


Lucius Malfoy - basically, the opposition to Dumbledore's party, controls much of the government as well as the conservatives, has significant connections, upstages Dumbledore numerous times and is overall an effective male sexual organ that is also the short form of Richard.
The Malfoy's:
•Got the Basilisk killed.
•Got the Diary Horcrux destroyed
•Lost their House Elf to Potter, which gave him significant aid.
•Failed on NUMEROUS occasions to kill Potter.
•Needed Snape's help to kill Dumbledore, due entirely to a lack of the proper blood lust.
•Let Ollivander, Lovegood, Ron, Granger, Potter and others escape.
•Didn't detect the fake Griffendor Sword.
•Let Harry know where one of the Horcruxes was hidden by throwing a hissy fit over the sword.
•Failed to retrieve, or even HEAR the prophesy


Moody - Harry Potter universe version of Harry Dresden, private detective. Paranoid prick that outsmarts almost everyone else when it comes to military/police operations. If I remember correctly, he's the one who came up with the idea of 6 Harry Potter decoys and then sending actual Harry with Tonks. High INT/WIS, low CHA.
That whole plan turned out to be a catastrophe and it got Moody killed. A much better plan would have been to simply not go back to the Dursley's at all or, if it was absolutely necessary, Harry could have simply left quietly under his Invisibility Cloak.


Severus Snape - is a successful double agent for Dumbledore. One of the few people to pull one over on Voldemort, and for a significant amount of time. Enough said. High INT/WIS, low charisma and additional charisma penalties for things like greasy hair.
Snape carried on a feud with a dead man. For all of his supposed 'love' of Lily, he certainly didn't show it toward Lily's son.


Sirius Black, Draco Malfoy - can be best described as spoiled brats that follow around their friends/family/convictions (choose 2 out of 3 for either character) like a lost puppy. Neither has exceptionally low, nor exceptionally high mental stats.
This at least I partially agree with; in Sirius case it would be high Int, high Cha, low Wis; this is because Sirius and James were described by their teachers as the two most brilliant students in their year. Malfoy, however, would be no more than average for pretty much everything.


Hermione - about the only example of high INT, low WIS in the series. Most likely specifically written to be a booksmart nerd with a rule obsession, but little common sense or charisma.
I agree.


Harry Potter himself - fairly baseline. Nothing special in either department, but probably has higher WIS than average, if only because of his mental fortitude.
I would rather give him average Wis but higher Charisma and the 'Force of Personality' feat. Harry wasn't particularly observant and he was very headstrong and stubborn; that was what gave him his mental fortitude.


Fudge - strawman politico out to save his own butt. Umbridge - strawman "evil bureaucrat lady" with strong mugglophobia.
I agree.

[Avilan the Grey]

Anakin Skywalker built a droid and fully functional pod racer when he was five, became a renowned General in an interstellar war before he was thirty, and had some of the smoothest pick-up lines this side of George Lucas' ego.

His problem wasn't low Wis, or High Int. His problem was Lousy Writing. Oh and the inability to ever mature over a 12 year old level.

[Delusion]

I

Moody - Harry Potter universe version of Harry Dresden, private detective. Paranoid prick that outsmarts almost everyone else when it comes to military/police operations. If I remember correctly, he's the one who came up with the idea of 6 Harry Potter decoys and then sending actual Harry with Tonks. High INT/WIS, low CHA.



Dumbledore's idea actually. His painting had Snape make Mundugus (I think) suggest it.

[tbok1992]

Relevant Gunshow comic is relevant (http://gunshowcomic.com/471). Yeahhhhhh, that's some Low WIS right there.

And no, I will never stop finding that comic funny.

[jedipilot24]

Dumbledore's idea actually. His painting had Snape make Mundugus (I think) suggest it.

Even if that is true, that doesn't change the fact that it was a really lousy plan.

[Don Julio Anejo]

So many things could have gone wrong with Dumbledore's plans, not the least of which is the possibility that the Dursley's could have just dumped Harry at an orphanage (which they almost did). Xanatos Roulettes are NOT good plans because they rely on random events that cannot be predicted, controlled, or manipulated. Even at the Dursley's, Harry could easily have turned out much worse.
This actually further supports my point, since you laid out INT criticisms: unreliable, unpredictable, cannot be planned in advance. WIS is more about hunches and people behaving how you expect them.

The Malfoy's:
•Got the Basilisk killed.
•Got the Diary Horcrux destroyed
•Lost their House Elf to Potter, which gave him significant aid.
•Failed on NUMEROUS occasions to kill Potter.
•Needed Snape's help to kill Dumbledore, due entirely to a lack of the proper blood lust.
•Let Ollivander, Lovegood, Ron, Granger, Potter and others escape.
•Didn't detect the fake Griffendor Sword.
•Let Harry know where one of the Horcruxes was hidden by throwing a hissy fit over the sword.
•Failed to retrieve, or even HEAR the prophesy

A few of these are due to plot armor, others could not be predicted, and you got to admit, Lucius was a pretty damn good politician. Also, I'm pretty sure he never tried to actually kill Harry. Dobby was a major WIS fail though.


That whole plan turned out to be a catastrophe and it got Moody killed. A much better plan would have been to simply not go back to the Dursley's at all or, if it was absolutely necessary, Harry could have simply left quietly under his Invisibility Cloak.
It was quite successful at getting Harry out alive and unharmed, and an invisibility cloak can still be tracked through other means. If death eaters were watching the house 24/7, they likely had at least a few wards that would have detected it. Not going to Dursleys was probably smarter, I agree, but at the same time, spending a month there refreshed Harry's anti-Voldemort wards (which, ironically, became ineffective after book 4).

Snape carried on a feud with a dead man. For all of his supposed 'love' of Lily, he certainly didn't show it toward Lily's son.

Shows he's petty and holds a grudge, doesn't mean he had low WIS.


This at least I partially agree with; in Sirius case it would be high Int, high Cha, low Wis; this is because Sirius and James were described by their teachers as the two most brilliant students in their year. Malfoy, however, would be no more than average for pretty much everything.
Agreed on high CHA, but I'm pretty sure James and Sirius were never described as the most brilliant students in their year, that was Remus and Lily. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I would rather give him average Wis but higher Charisma and the 'Force of Personality' feat. Harry wasn't particularly observant and he was very headstrong and stubborn; that was what gave him his mental fortitude.

Actually.. much better interpretation than mine.

[Man on Fire]

Snape carried on a feud with a dead man. For all of his supposed 'love' of Lily, he certainly didn't show it toward Lily's son.

Snape is a classic example of "Nice Guy", except for the lack of Fedora.

[jedipilot24]

Snape is a classic example of "Nice Guy", except for the lack of Fedora.

I take it that's sarcasm.


Agreed on high CHA, but I'm pretty sure James and Sirius were never described as the most brilliant students in their year, that was Remus and Lily. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Chapter 10, Prisoner of Azkaban. Professor McGonagall describes James and Sirius as 'exceptionally bright'. Since James eventually became Head Boy, his grades had to be near the top. And they somehow managed to find the time in between classes to become animagi and notorious troublemakers. This, along with their dialogue in 'Snape's Worst Memory' implies that they were so bright that they found their classes to be almost boring.

[Man on Fire]

I take it that's sarcasm.

I was talking about 4chan/tumbrl definition of Nice Guy - that creepy dude who is acting like being nice to girl means she owes him something and, when rejected, will whine that girls only date jerks and it's unfair nobody dates him even through he is "sooo nice" and complain what suffering being "friendzoned" is. Their way of thinking goes pretty much like this:

1) Girl is single: "Me too. Why aren't we naked yet?"
2) Girl isn't interested: "I won't let her friendzone me! She just needs time to make up her mind, I will keep following her and bugging her until she realizes I'm perfect guy for her."
3) Girl has a boyfriend: "Girls always date some jerks! I will hang around her and point flaws in her boyfriend until she realizes how nice and therefore better than him I am."
4) Girl marries her boyfriend, gives birth to a son and dies fighting Voldemort: "Why is my life so horrible?! I will spend rest of my life harassing her orphan son and making his life living hell because I loved her so much and she dared to chose that bastard James over me!"

[Querzis]

I dunno about Snape, it goes back to the «Personnality traits arent a sign of low or high Int/Wis» thing. He does realize hes being petty with Harry, he just cant help it because, well, he is petty and Harry look exactly like his father. He didnt just have a feud with his father, he hated him also as much, if not more, then he loved Lily.

You know though, the big reveal at the end make the books really enjoyable to reread cause everytime Snape decide to cut Harry some slacks, he look directly in his eyes. The eyes everyone said look exactly like Lily. No really, I found that pretty cool.


"I know that this is stupid but I'm going to do it anyway" is not a sign of great wisdom. It is, rather, the opposite.

Depends of the reason. If you decide to let innocent dies or villains escape because trying to stop them is dangerous, that doesnt make you wise, that just make you neutral. Dresden is one of the most moral character ever, once again, personnality traits dont have much to do with Wis or Int. He realize it everytime something he does is unwise and tries to take precaution but that doesnt mean hes going too (or should) let bad guys get away with everything just cause the only way of stopping them is by doing something stupid.

[Anderlith]

Depends of the reason. If you decide to let innocent dies or villains escape because trying to stop them is dangerous, that doesnt make you wise, that just make you neutral. Dresden is one of the most moral character ever, once again, personnality traits dont have much to do with Wis or Int. He realize it everytime something he does is unwise and tries to take precaution but that doesnt mean hes going too (or should) let bad guys get away with everything just cause the only way of stopping them is by doing something stupid.

While I agree with what you say, there are several times that Dresden takes the option of "Overkill it with Fire" instead of "Kill it with Fire". While he is a strong moral character that doesn't mean that he can excuse all dumb actions. Like Seeing the "shagnasty". While there are several good reasons why he did use his Sight, he really shouldn't have. That's just one example, Harry doesn't make amoral choices, but his moral choices follow the vein of "Good is Dumb" more than "Good is Smart"

[GloatingSwine]

Depends of the reason. If you decide to let innocent dies or villains escape because trying to stop them is dangerous, that doesnt make you wise, that just make you neutral. Dresden is one of the most moral character ever, once again, personnality traits dont have much to do with Wis or Int. He realize it everytime something he does is unwise and tries to take precaution but that doesnt mean hes going too (or should) let bad guys get away with everything just cause the only way of stopping them is by doing something stupid.

The trouble is that by "stopping the bad guys" he frequently makes things worse in the long run, for reasons which are eminently predictable but which he doesn't realise until afterwards.

He starts the war with the Red Court, then when he finishes that he upsets the balance of supernatural power to such a degree that the Fomor are able to do far more damage than the Red Court were to far more people, and he thinks he can outsmart Mab and get out of a deal by something as trivial as arranging his own death.

Literally the entirety of Ghost Story and Cold Days are concerned with Harry realising what an enormous idiot he was in Changes in just about every way possible, and how this was actually immediately predictable to everyone except him.

He's not wise, he's frequently very unwise. The whole point of the series is "Harry does dumb thing for noble reason, has to fix it".

[jedipilot24]

You know though, the big reveal at the end make the books really enjoyable to reread cause everytime Snape decide to cut Harry some slacks, he look directly in his eyes. The eyes everyone said look exactly like Lily. No really, I found that pretty cool.


My memory may be a bit fuzzy, but I can't remember any moment in the books where Snape cut Harry any slack.


I was talking about 4chan/tumbrl definition of Nice Guy - that creepy dude who is acting like being nice to girl means she owes him something and, when rejected, will whine that girls only date jerks and it's unfair nobody dates him even through he is "sooo nice" and complain what suffering being "friendzoned" is. Their way of thinking goes pretty much like this:

1) Girl is single: "Me too. Why aren't we naked yet?"
2) Girl isn't interested: "I won't let her friendzone me! She just needs time to make up her mind, I will keep following her and bugging her until she realizes I'm perfect guy for her."
3) Girl has a boyfriend: "Girls always date some jerks! I will hang around her and point flaws in her boyfriend until she realizes how nice and therefore better than him I am."
4) Girl marries her boyfriend, gives birth to a son and dies fighting Voldemort: "Why is my life so horrible?! I will spend rest of my life harassing her orphan son and making his life living hell because I loved her so much and she dared to chose that bastard James over me!"

That does indeed fit Snape.

[Forum Explorer]

The trouble is that by "stopping the bad guys" he frequently makes things worse in the long run, for reasons which are eminently predictable but which he doesn't realise until afterwards.

He starts the war with the Red Court, then when he finishes that he upsets the balance of supernatural power to such a degree that the Fomor are able to do far more damage than the Red Court were to far more people, and he thinks he can outsmart Mab and get out of a deal by something as trivial as arranging his own death.

Literally the entirety of Ghost Story and Cold Days are concerned with Harry realising what an enormous idiot he was in Changes in just about every way possible, and how this was actually immediately predictable to everyone except him.

He's not wise, he's frequently very unwise. The whole point of the series is "Harry does dumb thing for noble reason, has to fix it".

Well I haven't read all of Cold Days (because the bookstore people kicked me out.) but here's my rebuttle

Ghost Story? Really it was showing how big of an impact Harry had in his city. Once he was removed all the nasties came out to play. And for all the damage the Fomor are doing the Red Court was millions times worse. Not to mention the Red Court was planning on annihilating the wizards completely.

It's just that change is messy. It always has side effects and it's almost impossible to forsee all of those side effects. Or should he have let himself, his daughter, and the most deadly wizard in the world all die? Along with countless others every day at the hands of the Red Court.

As for his suicide attempt, well it came damn close to working. It took Mab, Demonreach, and an unknown parasite to save him. Not to mention if he had been shot in the head, or not fallen in the water he would have died anyways. So hiring the top assassin in the world to kill yourself is a pretty good way to break the pact. But not perfect.

TL DR: Harry hasn't always made the right choice. But that doesn't mean he isn't wise. Just not perfectly wise. (Seriously a mistake does not a dullard make.)