How "deep" can you be with low Wisdom?

[Fable Wright]

I was looking at some Eberron books recently, and I noticed an odd trend: the races with the lowest natural Wisdom scores are at times described as some of the most introspective and 'wisest' races out there. For example, here's (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmark-31914-orcs-mean-streets-and-more/) Keith Baker's take on Orcs:

To me, a key thing is that the orcs are a very primal race. Their emotions and instincts run deep, and they are very passionate. While they are often known for their fierce rages, this passion is just as powerful when in manifests as love or grief. They engage with the world around them more fully than many humans do. It’s easy to look back at their shared history with the Dhakaani and portray the orcs as savages who lived in the woods while the goblins built empires, but the key to me is that the orcs never wanted the civilization the goblins adored. It’s not that orcs are stupid or brutish; it’s that they don’t feel the same need to impose their will on the world that many other races do.
Despite taking penalties to all of the mental ability scores, they engage with the world more than humans do. Throughout the rest of the article, Keith shows that Orcs tend to be very insightful; both being spiritual, which is usually tied to high wisdom, and their willingness to accept other races, especially humans and half-orcs.

Meanwhile, Warforged are repeatedly called out as wrestling with deep existential questions, especially the pressing one of "why am I here?" They also have a number of deep thinkers, as shown by Faiths of Eberron (p. 119):

A very small number of awakened warforged, however, are still exploring the ramifications of this event. They have not yet broken with mundane life but contemplate the decision in the long hours while the fleshmade sleep. Such individuals are prone to slow and careful examination of issues, and they make the most convincing Architects when they finally join or create their own assemblage. Those who remain undecided serve as conduits of the faith to others, as they discuss the idea and solicit opinions.
While it is only a minority of Warforged, their racial penalty tends to make them far less 'wise' than their demihuman peers. The highest Wisdom a Warforged could get with the Elite array is 13; the highest with the standard NPC array, 11. Yet they display far more introspective behavior than most PCs (or NPCs, for that matter; consider the Archierophant of Sharn who has 18 Wisdom, but displays incredibly shallow behavior).

So my question to you is: Is there any correlation between deep, insightful philosophy and D&D Wisdom? Or is there something I'm missing?

[VoxRationis]

There should be such a correlation, but Wisdom, I find, is often one of the least-roleplayed attributes. Many a cleric I have seen has a high Wisdom score, but acts like a myopic zealot, with little regard for prudence, tolerance, or practicality.

[deuxhero]

The Warforged have plenty of questions but how many answers do they have? I can only think of Lord of Blades, and Lord of Blades isn't really a philosophy (LoB has 11 wisdom) so much as it is a personality cult (but 18 charisma) that preaches Warforged superiority to meatbags.

[dascarletm]

The thing about wisdom is that it represents a suite of traits an individual can have.

Just a few:
Perception
Willpower
Intuition
Connection to the Divine

It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this character is perceptive and has a strong willpower, but isn't intuitive and weakly connected to the divine.

As far as this reverse trend, it is probably because the writer wanted to make the races more interesting. Or perhaps the wisest of us are characters like The Comedian from Watchmen or Ford Prefect from A Hitchhiker's Guide. It's better not to think about these things.

[Fable Wright]

The Warforged have plenty of questions but how many answers do they have? I can only think of Lord of Blades, and Lord of Blades isn't really a philosophy (LoB has 11 wisdom) so much as it is a personality cult (but 18 charisma) that preaches Warforged superiority to meatbags.

So far, Warforged have the Lord of Blades, the Becoming God (and all the heterodoxy associated with the different assemblages), the Scions of the Forge, and the Reforged all as Warforged-only religious paths. That's pretty impressive for a species that's existed for 30 years, and has only been encouraged to cultivate free will for 2.

[Dornith]

There should be such a correlation, but Wisdom, I find, is often one of the least-roleplayed attributes. Many a cleric I have seen has a high Wisdom score, but acts like a myopic zealot, with little regard for prudence, tolerance, or practicality.

I find that all too often that Wisdom is just disregarded for all but divine spells and perception checks, and intelligence becomes the catch-all mental ability score.

[madtinker]

Speculation: Maybe Keith is suggesting that you can roleplay wisdom (the ability score) differently for orcs (or warforged) than you would play it for humans. Your average "wise" orc might be much more accepting of outsiders or much more in touch with his primal self than a human with an equal wisdom score. Similarly, warforged characters exhibit wisdom by asking existential questions, not by devoting themselves to a particular deity.

This gives some variety to how you might play a high wisdom score.

[...]

I got it: The difference between a high wisdom score and a low one isn't how philosophical you are, it is your willingness to find, learn, and your mental fortitude. Anyone could sit down and think about deep questions. Only those with high wisdom will take active steps to find out. Basically, intelligence is how much you know, but wisdom is how much you want to find out more. When you know a lot, it's easy to think about what you don't, but someone with wisdom takes initiative.

[VoxRationis]

I respectfully disagree. That interpretation makes it really hard to stat an absentminded professor archetype.

[Elderand]

You can be very deep with low wisdom.

After all, character with low wisdom are the kind to hit bottom and keep digging.

Sadly, character with low charisma have a very hard time getting anywhere because they always have their foot in their mouth.

[nedz]

I got it: The difference between a high wisdom score and a low one isn't how philosophical you are, it is your willingness to find, learn, and your mental fortitude. Anyone could sit down and think about deep questions. Only those with high wisdom will take active steps to find out. Basically, intelligence is how much you know, but wisdom is how much you want to find out more. When you know a lot, it's easy to think about what you don't, but someone with wisdom takes initiative.

Actually I've always viewed Intelligence as academic learning ability — of course the more of this you have, then the more stuff you will know.

Charisma is harder to cast in this light, but not impossible.

D&D has no stat for learning practical skills or common sense.

[Vogonjeltz]

The Warforged have plenty of questions but how many answers do they have? I can only think of Lord of Blades, and Lord of Blades isn't really a philosophy (LoB has 11 wisdom) so much as it is a personality cult (but 18 charisma) that preaches Warforged superiority to meatbags.

Same applies to the Orc description. They feel things deeply, but they are not wise, or deep thinkers of meaning behind meaning.

[Socksy]

D&D has no stat for learning practical skills or common sense.

Yeah it does, Wisdom. Profession skills are based off it (practical) and common sense is obviously Wisdom.

Though to answer the OP, I think low-Wisdom characters often get about this deep (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/10-guy).

[...]

D&D has no stat for learning practical skills or common sense.

Okay, this is a better gap. Wisdom is your common sense and mental quickness, not your desire to know things. You can be as deep as you want, but still be bullheaded and cocky.

[Anlashok]

Presumably the same reason Goblins are usually portrayed as barely more intelligent than a rock despite having the same base int as a human or dwarf.


Charisma is harder to cast in this light, but not impossible.
Here's another one: Why is Charsima often described as "force of will" (that's how Cha based Iajutsu and Cha based UMD are justified) but it doesn't actually improve your Will?

[Socksy]

Here's another one: Why is Charsima often described as "force of will" (that's how Cha based Iajutsu and Cha based UMD are justified) but it doesn't actually improve your Will?

You can take a feat for it if your CHA is above 13.

I think of Charisma as imposing your will upon others and Wisdom as keeping your perfect... mind, uh... clarity...
I think I'm going to sleep, I have very little idea what I 'm actually typing :smalltongue:

[VoxRationis]

Charisma as "force of will" is different from Wisdom as "mental fortitude" as Strength is different from Constitution.

[Shining Wrath]

Hypothesis:

Wisdom is the prime casting ability for divine magic. It is also the ability score for the following skills: Listen & Spot, Sense Motive, and Survival.

Therefore, Wisdom in D&D represents how attuned you are to things other than your own thoughts - deities, your environment, the "tells" someone gives off that let you know they are bluffing.

This is not at all the same thing as cogitating upon the nature of truth and wondering what a Warforged soul might be like. In fact, grabbing a pipe, putting your feet up, and thinking hard is the opposite of being attuned to your deity's promptings or the sound of a ninja creeping down the hall.

However, Orcs are getting the short end of the ability score stick in Eberron, where they are depicted as living in close harmony with nature, i.e., their environment. Eberron orcs ought to have normal wisdom.

[DawnQuixotic]

I think a lot of it is just... inconsistencies.

And especially with the Eberron thing... that's his reinterpreted take on Orcs, to make them something different. If we take typical mook orcs from standard D&D, the idea that their more impulsive, more prone to coming under stronger influences, makes more sense.

So I think that's more Keith Baker just reinterpreting Orcs regardless of their game states, which is a good thing. And if you wanted to tweak Eberron Orcs by negating the wisdom penalty and lowering their strength bonus, that might make sense.

On the other hand, you might say the Orcs have this primal impulsiveness... tendency to rage, and go off their instincts... which aren't necessarily all that keen. This makes them unwise. But culturally, in the Eberron setting, they have a history of deferring to outstanding leaders who had high wisdom scores... and these philosophers created the cultural depth and spirituality the Orcs follow.

So an individual Orc may not be very wise, but his culture has taught him this, and so he will seek guidance from his tribe's spiritual leader instead of trying to lean on his own understanding.




For Warforged, it makes sense. You can be deep and philosophical, but still be really foolish, naive, or unattentive.



The real thing that always bugged me about mental stats is Charisma, and why creatures have lower charisma scores. "Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting"

But it makes me wonder what that is actually supposed to mean, if creatures like Orcs, Ogres, and Trolls, do not have "strong personalities". It seems more it's just "these creatures are ugly and brutish by human standards".
Does it mean they're just simpler creatures and don't have as many quirks, and tend to be more alike? i.e. one troll's personality doesn't stand out from another's that much?

Maybe. It kind of makes sense for animals (who seem to have charisma between 2-7). Animals definitely have personality, but since their minds don't deal with a lot of the same concepts as humans, there's less nuance for them to have opinions, quirks, and other personality traits about.
And for creatures like oozes, skeletons, or constructs, they have no personality whatsoever, being mindless.

But when you get to humanlike creatures, it becomes less clear what that low charisma is supposed to really represent.



In the end, I'd say it's something you can nitpick too much. In real life, things like intelligence, wisdom, charisma, and the concepts they represent in-game are much more intertwined.

[Tvtyrant]

The deepest, as high wisdom individuals do not enter deep sea submersibles and test their limits.

That aside I don't think complexity or nuance of thought needs to be wisdom. I cannot give any examples that would be okay on this forum and mutually intelligible to both of us, but I think insight can be as much a function of intelligence or even charisma.

[Duke of Urrel]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#wisdomWis):


Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom.

There's nothing in this description of Wisdom about philosophical "depth" or a concern with existential questions. We associate these things with wisdom in the common, real-world sense of the word, but they may have nothing specifically to do with Wisdom in D&D.

Moreover, I don't think a creature is "wise" merely because it lives simply or leads an austere lifestyle. It may be a great feat of self-control to choose a life of voluntary simplicity in our modern technological civilization, but it's no great feat if you're a born nomad or hunter-gatherer who has never known any other way to live.

I also don't think a creature is "wise" merely because its unnatural origin, like that of Frankenstein's monster, compels it to wonder about the reason for its own existence. Think of the Infinite Improbability Drive in Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which transformed a pair of guided nuclear missiles spontaneously into a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias. If I recall correctly, the sperm whale, which found itself suddenly plummeting toward the surface of the nearest planet, felt compelled to ask questions about its own existence and its relationship to others. (For example, as the planet loomed ever larger, I think the whale wondered whether it wanted to make friends.) Was this whale wise? Somehow, I don't think so. I think we are wise when we discover that even a purely natural existence has a profound, mysterious origin. If your life is so obviously a riddle that nobody in your condition could possibly avoid feeling puzzled about it, I don't think doing so makes you especially wise.

[jiriku]

However, the bowl of petunias, which merely thought to itself, "Oh no, not again" was quite wise.

[Optimator]

I wouldn't hesitate to call a character with 15 Int and 22 Wis a genius. I always imagines Intelligence is knowing 1 plus 1 is 2, but wisdom is knowing 2 + 2 is 4.

Like, maybe Int is how well you lay new neurons down, but Wis is like how many dendrites you spread out or whatever. Wis is like synthesizing information and being "with it".

[nedz]

Yeah it does, Wisdom. Profession skills are based off it (practical) and common sense is obviously Wisdom.

Though to answer the OP, I think low-Wisdom characters often get about this deep (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/10-guy).

I was thinking more about the Craft skills — which are Int based for some reason.

[HighWater]

The problem lies in Wisdom (and Intelligence and Charisma) having very real game-mechanical functions, that can get in the way of roleplaying "outlier" characters.

Personally, I find the idea of a rash, unthinking, overzealous, weak-willed Cleric with poor character judgement and perception to be highly interesting, but since a Cleric can't function without a high Wisdom score, this character suddenly becomes at odds with the abilities assigned to wisdom (wise, level-headed, understanding, strong-willed, good character judgements and perception)...

[Hazrond]

However, the bowl of petunias, which merely thought to itself, "Oh no, not again" was quite wise.

I saw what you did there. :smallamused:

[supermonkeyjoe]

I don't necessarily think insightfulness, deepness or spirituality are tied to a particular stat any more than love of music or aggressiveness would be, these are character traits, not attributes.

A low Wis character may be able to form incredibly complex questions and theories about the meaning of life but if a high Cha character comes along and says the answer is toffee then they would be more likely to agree.

The same with warforged, they can ask all these questions about their existence but when the lord of blades comes along and says their meaning is to squash all the meatbags they would be more likely to accept that.

At the end of a day a character is more than the sum of his or her ability scores, a level20 expert with 1 Wisdom could have 23 ranks in profession (philosopher) for a +18 on the check without any other boosts.

[MrBright01]

I view the stats of Intellect and Wisdom as this:

Intellect is knowing how to knock down a wall with weapons or magic.
Wisdom is knowing when it needs to be done.

In this case, i would judge that practical Wisdom (Stat) and navel gazing wisdom (fluff) are two different thing. A Wise (stat) character will act in a wise manner and apply that wisdom to the real world. A wise (fluff) philosopher might be quite thoughtful, but in a manner not applicable to the real world. The warforged are a great example in this regards. They think deep thoughts while others sleep, and when the dawn comes, they pick up their tools and get back to their humdrum work. A wise (f) orc will gather around in their tents and talk elegantly about "What is best in life?" (Google that, it'll make sense, and is a good example.) That does not mean they won't pack up the tent tomorrow and go pick a fight with something they shouldn't as proof of their valor.

Or, alternatively, think of it this way. A Wise (S) monk knows why crickets chirp, and why his foes act, and uses that to avoid them. A wise (f) monk knows why the cricket chirps, but get's smacked around because he's not practically wise.

[...]

However, the bowl of petunias, which merely thought to itself, "Oh no, not again" was quite wise.

Well, of course. Everyone has to agree with that.

[Shining Wrath]

Well, of course. Everyone has to agree with that.

The bowl of petunias had the advantage of the memory of many prior lives to draw upon.

[Synar]

I would like to propose my alternate interpretation : mental stats are stupid.




(I mean, they are necessary abstractions to play d&d, but when you think about them, they encompass too little and too much, are fairly inconsistent and incoherent, interact in strange ways, cover things that are not tied up (especially charisma), are limiting in character concepts and fluff, have a better-and-worse interpretation tied to them that ignore qualitative differences, are in fact poorly defined, and, well, when you think about them, they are simply stupid.)

[Shining Wrath]

I would like to propose my alternate interpretation : mental stats are stupid.




(I mean, they are necessary abstractions to play d&d, but when you think about them, they encompass too little and too much, are fairly inconsistent and incoherent, interact in strange ways, cover things that are not tied up (especially charisma), are limiting in character concepts and fluff, have a better-and-worse interpretation tied to them that ignore qualitative differences, are in fact poorly defined, and, well, when you think about them, they are simply stupid.)

So does this mean Gygax had low Int or low Wis?

[Synar]

So does this mean Gygax had low Int or low Wis?

Don't get me wrong, they are a great thing when you don't think too much about them, but you can't expect them to make sense. It would all fall apart.


(Just like, you know, HPs have some problems when you think about the different incoherent ideas they represent at the same time and the way levels work: but that is a game, not a real life simulator. So obviously some things will not make sense. That is the case of mental stats when applied to complex characters and deep situations. Just like d&d magic and physic don't mesh well.)


(Yeah, I know it was a joke, just like my original post kind of was, but I felt you meant I implied Gygax was an orc and that I disliked the game system, which was not my intention.:smallbiggrin:)

[AvatarVecna]

I would like to propose my alternate interpretation : mental stats are stupid.




(I mean, they are necessary abstractions to play d&d, but when you think about them, they encompass too little and too much, are fairly inconsistent and incoherent, interact in strange ways, cover things that are not tied up (especially charisma), are limiting in character concepts and fluff, have a better-and-worse interpretation tied to them that ignore qualitative differences, are in fact poorly defined, and, well, when you think about them, they are simply stupid.)

Anything with 1 HP left is just as capable/dangerous as one at full HP.

An optimized War Hulking Hurler who throws a mountain at an army kills one guy.

A 20th lvl archer Fighter can fire twice this fast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUix3AASQSs), at twice this distance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N07x9Z6VPW4), with a level of accuracy the Mythbusters proved impossible (with the technology/materials available in medieval times), all in an real-life combat situation (being fired at, targets dodging, etc.).

A 20th lvl Monk, with Str 10 and class features, can jump 9/36 ft vertically/horizontally on average.

D&D doesn't exactly line up with real-world capabilities/possibilities. There's multiple vast threads devoted to the ways RAW fails to mimic the real world perfectly. And in regards to roleplaying? There's 5 NPC classes, 9 alignments, and 16 possibilities (3-18) per attribute. Based solely on that, a total of about 750 million different people can be replicated within the system. IRL, there's billions of people, and their hypothetical alignments and attributes--especially mental attributes--don't always match up with their RL personalities. Surprisingly, D&D can't perfectly replicate real life. Everyone should be shocked and amazed by this.

[Lonely Tylenol]

A cursory browsing through my Facebook wall tells me that a great many people can seem "deep" without actually being wise.

[Duke of Urrel]

A cursory browsing through my Facebook wall tells me that a great many people can seem "deep" without actually being wise.

You make a very good point, Lonely Tylenol. Sometimes, the appearance of "depth" is really only a clever act. As such, it is an achievement of Charisma, not Wisdom. It is pretending to be wiser than you actually are.

[dascarletm]

And in regards to roleplaying? There's 5 NPC classes, 9 alignments, and 16 possibilities (3-18) per attribute. Based solely on that, a total of about 750 different people can be replicated within the system. IRL, there's billions of people, and their hypothetical alignments and attributes--especially mental attributes--don't always match up with their RL personalities. Surprisingly, D&D can't perfectly replicate real life. Everyone should be shocked and amazed by this.

Minor Nitpick:

5 classes, 9 alignments, 16 attributes per each score is more like:

5x9x16^(6) which equals: 754,974,720 possibilities. (since each attribute has 16 possibilities each).

You were close, but off by a factor of 10^6.

[AvatarVecna]

Minor Nitpick:

5 classes, 9 alignments, 16 attributes per each score is more like:

5x9x16^(6) which equals: 754,974,720 possibilities. (since each attribute has 16 possibilities each).

You were close, but off by a factor of 10^6.

Sorry, left out the word million. Fixing it now.

[Zombimode]

Personally, I find the idea of a rash, unthinking, overzealous, weak-willed Cleric with poor character judgement and perception to be highly interesting, but since a Cleric can't function without a high Wisdom score, this character suddenly becomes at odds with the abilities assigned to wisdom (wise, level-headed, understanding, strong-willed, good character judgements and perception)...

Well, a Favored Soul only needs Wis for save DCs and since the cleric spell list is so expansive that you can easily pick your spells from those that don't rely on saves, its quite possible to play a "rash, unthinking, overzealous, weak-willed Cleric with poor character judgement and perception", just one that has "Favored Soul" instead of "Cleric" written on its character sheet.

[Synar]

Anything with 1 HP left is just as capable/dangerous as one at full HP.

An optimized War Hulking Hurler who throws a mountain at an army kills one guy.

A 20th lvl archer Fighter can fire twice this fast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUix3AASQSs), at twice this distance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N07x9Z6VPW4), with a level of accuracy the Mythbusters proved impossible (with the technology/materials available in medieval times), all in an real-life combat situation (being fired at, targets dodging, etc.).

A 20th lvl Monk, with Str 10 and class features, can jump 9/36 ft vertically/horizontally on average.

D&D doesn't exactly line up with real-world capabilities/possibilities. There's multiple vast threads devoted to the ways RAW fails to mimic the real world perfectly. And in regards to roleplaying? There's 5 NPC classes, 9 alignments, and 16 possibilities (3-18) per attribute. Based solely on that, a total of about 750 million different people can be replicated within the system. IRL, there's billions of people, and their hypothetical alignments and attributes--especially mental attributes--don't always match up with their RL personalities. Surprisingly, D&D can't perfectly replicate real life. Everyone should be shocked and amazed by this.

And what I was saying is that there was no point trying to understand the deeper meaning of wisdom compared to int because mental stats will consistently fail to emulate complex and contrasted characters. And by the way something not making sense is different from something being different from reality. For example, iron could be heavier or people could have wings and it would make sense. What happens to referentials and wall of force, however, possess no arbitary and unsatisfying answer because the situation does not make sense and generate contradictions. Point is, being different from our world or disrespecting the laws of our physic on one side, and disrespecting the laws of logic, causality or consistency (or just not making sense) are two very different things. You can talk a lot about things that are false but make sense, but talking about things that don't make sense is an exercise in futility.

[AvatarVecna]

@Synar

Firstly, I'll explain my position better; in hindsight, it's nearly impossible to see without reading my mind.

D&d cannot, does not, and does not attempt to perfectly mimic real life. The mechanics are designed to simplify real-life concepts. The problem is, the oversimplification of things, especially personality, means that it's impossible to perfectly portray every aspect of human thought through a handful of numbers. Any attempt to consistently connect a few numbers to the vast collection of emotions, thoughts, and experiences is inevitably going to contradict itself. I like the roleplaying aspect of the game: I've always been a bit of a dramatic at heart, and with mechanical optimization being so easy, roleplaying's the most interesting part of the game.

The mental stats are fine. They accomplish what they need to: they provide a mechanical separation for various skills and spellcasting. But this thread, and many people, connect these mechanics with personalities that always at least partially conflict. If you try to connect the mental stats to a section of a person's personality, you run into trouble, because people can't be summed up by three numbers and an alignment. There's too much variety.

Mechanics can guide roleplaying, but they should never be a rigid structure for it. A character with low Intelligence could be a genius who devoted all of their brainpower to mastering a single subject; a character with low Charisma might be so capable that leadership is thrust upon them, despite them not being particularly inspiring; a character with low Wisdom might be an idiot with his head in the clouds whose simple life philosophies have never lead him astray.

These are, of course, extreme examples, but they point I'm attempting to make is that the mechanical numbers shouldn't dictate how a character should be played, because then you're allowing the limitations of the game to limit the potential experiences it could bring you. And for me, at least, that would ruin the fun.

Finally, I believe an apology is in order: I'm sorry for my rather tactless words; I should've expressed myself more clearly, or more concisely. Regardless, I should not have been so rude when adding my two cents, nor was it necessary to call you out specifically while doing so. I must admit, I'd been awake far too long at that point for my better judgement to guide me properly; that said, while that serves as an explanation for my behavior, it is by no means an excuse for it. Once again, my deepest apologies.

[1pwny]

I've always thought of it like this:

- Intelligence is your capacity for learning, and your logical thinking. A person with high Int would have a highly developed Frontal Lobe. But mainly, they would be the Einstein of D&D.
- Wisdom is experience (generally). You know, old people are wise, because they have more life experience. The reason Will saves are based off of Wis is because of this. With more experience, you have an easier time realizing when you're under an illusion, or if that burst of fear was entirely natural or not.

As for Divine Casters, their Wis represents their fanaticism. Having a high Wis represents the fact that you can brush off fear or gruesome sights if you are working for your deity.

[toapat]

I would like to propose my alternate interpretation : mental stats are stupid.

I think DnD would have been better off if the attributes were called Cunning, Judgement, and Persuasiveness, considering thats about all that is unique and defining about them.

even then, deep questions can be asked by anyone. One of the deepest questions in the world is a pretty commonly asked one by everyone, and no one has an answer to what its the meaning of life

[georgie_leech]

I think DnD would have been better off if the attributes were called Cunning, Judgement, and Persuasiveness, considering thats about all that is unique and defining about them.

even then, deep questions can be asked by anyone. One of the deepest questions in the world is a pretty commonly asked one by everyone, and no one has an answer to what its the meaning of life

I'd like to make a distinction between having an answer with having the answer. Most people will at some point develop some kind of answer to this question, whether it's "love thy neighbour," or "take while the takings good," or "leave the world better than you found it," or seeking personal fame or wealth or knowledge or friends... even the idea that you find meaning in the search, even if you never find the perfect answer.

[dascarletm]

I'm pretty sure we know that the ultimate answer to life and everything is like forty-something...

[Alefiend]

How "deep" can you be with low Wisdom?

For an answer to the OP, watch the Peter Sellers classic Being There (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/).

[Daishain]

However, the bowl of petunias, which merely thought to itself, "Oh no, not again" was quite wise.

Actually, just frustrated

As it turns out in one of the later books, that bowl of petunias was one of many incarnations of a particularly unlucky creature. Every single time this creature started a new life, it ended again shortly afterwards due to events somehow associated with one Authur Dent. Fly that got swatted, rabbit eaten, etc. It had decided to give up on life and just stop reincarnating, only to be forcibly pulled out during the events of Magrathea.

[Synar]

@Synar

Firstly, I'll explain my position better; in hindsight, it's nearly impossible to see without reading my mind.

D&d cannot, does not, and does not attempt to perfectly mimic real life. The mechanics are designed to simplify real-life concepts. The problem is, the oversimplification of things, especially personality, means that it's impossible to perfectly portray every aspect of human thought through a handful of numbers. Any attempt to consistently connect a few numbers to the vast collection of emotions, thoughts, and experiences is inevitably going to contradict itself. I like the roleplaying aspect of the game: I've always been a bit of a dramatic at heart, and with mechanical optimization being so easy, roleplaying's the most interesting part of the game.

The mental stats are fine. They accomplish what they need to: they provide a mechanical separation for various skills and spellcasting. But this thread, and many people, connect these mechanics with personalities that always at least partially conflict. If you try to connect the mental stats to a section of a person's personality, you run into trouble, because people can't be summed up by three numbers and an alignment. There's too much variety.

Mechanics can guide roleplaying, but they should never be a rigid structure for it. A character with low Intelligence could be a genius who devoted all of their brainpower to mastering a single subject; a character with low Charisma might be so capable that leadership is thrust upon them, despite them not being particularly inspiring; a character with low Wisdom might be an idiot with his head in the clouds whose simple life philosophies have never lead him astray.

These are, of course, extreme examples, but they point I'm attempting to make is that the mechanical numbers shouldn't dictate how a character should be played, because then you're allowing the limitations of the game to limit the potential experiences it could bring you. And for me, at least, that would ruin the fun.

Finally, I believe an apology is in order: I'm sorry for my rather tactless words; I should've expressed myself more clearly, or more concisely. Regardless, I should not have been so rude when adding my two cents, nor was it necessary to call you out specifically while doing so. I must admit, I'd been awake far too long at that point for my better judgement to guide me properly; that said, while that serves as an explanation for my behavior, it is by no means an excuse for it. Once again, my deepest apologies.

I must say I completly agree with your position.

[Susano-wo]

Ditto to the mental stats are stupid :smallbiggrin: Hell, I'd rather not have physical stats, and simply have descriptors as to what those stats effect. IF one wants to be strong, he can take traits/feats/whatever to indicate that. But that's hard to do without revamping the way dnd works, especially relating to skills.

Mental stats are worse, though, simply because they hamper RP more. no non-charismatic sorcs, all-wise clerics, etc. Honestly I don't worry a bit about what my mental stats are--I just RP the character based on concept.

[...]

Actually, just frustrated

As it turns out in one of the later books, that bowl of petunias was one of many incarnations of a particularly unlucky creature. Every single time this creature started a new life, it ended again shortly afterwards due to events somehow associated with one Authur Dent. Fly that got swatted, rabbit eaten, etc. It had decided to give up on life and just stop reincarnating, only to be forcibly pulled out during the events of Magrathea.

No, it was very wise to roll that high on spot to notice a guy inside a speeding spaceship.