So, one player is complaining about how I roleplay

[faircoin]

I have a wizard in D&D 3.5e with the following attributes.

STR 8, DEX 14, CON 14, INT 18, WIS 8, CHA 8.

This is fine, right? Not very believable, but the DM said OK, and the players were OK with my obvious min-maxxing. (Actually, I don't think they know I'm min-maxxing, even though I spelled it out very clearly for them. They still think monks and fighters are more OP than wizards. Especially monks with vow of poverty. Oh the horror.)

Often times when ethics gets brought up in character, I have my wizard contribute intellectually to the discussion. This was partially a result of me having studied ethics academically, so I could contribute more than others at the table. Most everyone was fine with this. DM and players.

Except one player, who said that ethics is WIS, and since my WIS was 8, my wizard can't discuss ethics. I definitely wasn't allowed to show up our party cleric, who had a WIS of 16.

:(

What do you think? I could just ignore the player, but since we're all reasonable people, I think I should put more thought into this.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are two reasons to ignore this "advice." Firstly, it's wrong.

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.

There ain't nothing in there about ethics.

Secondly, it's your character, not your friend's. You're the only one who can choose how he thinks and acts. Not even the DM is allowed to take that away from you. Kindly thank you friend for his advice and play your character how you'd like.


If, for some reason, you want to heed his advice, you could have your wizard weigh all the relevant ethical options, but be unable to decide which is correct-- after all, you can argue any side philosophically...

[faircoin]

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.

I agree that ethics is strictly an INT endeavor in real life, but given the vagueness of WIS' definition, some would argue that ethics fits under WIS since it cannot be separated from intuition.

Although, strictly speaking, neither can analytical thought. In which case the INT WIS distinction becomes irrelevant, but since we have word of god that in the D&D universe it's relevant, we must separate INT and WIS. At which point we have to determine whether ethics is more analytical (INT) or more intuition (WIS).

It also makes more sense from a fluff perspective. It's clerics (WIS casters), not wizards (INT), after all, who devote their lives to ethics. Not exactly proof, but very suggestive, I think.

[Alex12]

Keep in mind that in D&D, ethics is to a certain degree empirical.
After all, spells like Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos actually exist.
Now, that's not to say that the Cleric couldn't weigh in on the subject, but that would be due to his own experiences.

Personally, I'd say it would be more Int-based, myself.

If you really have to justify it, argue that with an Int of 18, of course your wizard has read a lot of books and such on the topic. Depending on the cleric's stats, you could point out that he's spent most of his time immersed in a single ethical system (that of his god) while you've been less constrained.

EDIT: Also point out that the Knowledge skills, which this touches on, are Int-based.

[Bulhakov]

High Int and low Wis immediately makes me think of Sheldon Cooper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgjUhEG3U

The way I see it is that your character should be able to discuss ethics theory all he wants, but would probably have very little understanding of the practical consequences of applying that theory in real life.

[faircoin]

If you really have to justify it, argue that with an Int of 18, of course your wizard has read a lot of books and such on the topic. Depending on the cleric's stats, you could point out that he's spent most of his time immersed in a single ethical system (that of his god) while you've been less constrained.

The difference between a theologian and an ethicist, huh? Sounds reasonable.

EDIT: Also point out that the Knowledge skills, which this touches on, are Int-based.

Problematic reasoning, I think. Most learned job skills are very arguably under knowledge, including diplomatic behavior and foreign affairs (inextricably tied; it's about knowing how to engineer incentives). In the D&D universe, however, this is strictly CHA.

High Int and low Wis immediately makes me think of Sheldon Cooper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgjUhEG3U

The way I see it is that your character should be able to discuss ethics theory all he wants, but would probably have very little understanding of the practical consequences of applying that theory in real life.

It's also the case that no really accomplished STEM researcher in real life (none of my professors or colleagues, at least!) behave in this fashion. It seems that INT usually is coupled with WIS in high academia, contrary to popular belief.

The last time I think I saw some STEM person with this kind of behavior was in undergrad. That person didn't last very long.

In general, I don't think my character will be changing his behavior. Who gives a crap about the crunchy attributes. My character will be roleplayed as philosophically fluffy.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A character with a Wis of 8 can still weigh in on matters of Wisdom - they're just a bit shy of average when it comes to said faculty, not completely lacking it. Too, Ethics is a matter which can be approached from several positions, the intuitive and analytical being only two out of many possibilities. I think the issue with your compatriot is one of a false dilemma - they think there's but one approach when in fact there are many, and one needn't exclude the others.

I think it could be the catalyst for some interesting party dynamics, personally - the Cleric may understand ethics from the orthodoxy and practice of their faith or church, whereas your Wizard understands ethics in terms of philosophy and academic study. Another character, having neither the ecclesiastic or academic understanding of Ethics may approach it from the position of Military Courtesy and standards, or a professional code (like that of a guild of blacksmiths, or perhaps a "Thieves' Code"), or even the salt-of-the-earth, common sense approach of a Commoner (in the sense of a person without title or rank, not the class).

In your situation, I would probably point out the false dilemma, and continue to play my character as I wished to.

[Gnome Alone]

very little understanding of the practical consequences of applying that theory in real life

I wouldn't even go that far. 8 WIS is not actually that low. With 8 WIS and CHA I'd say you could just be kinda vapid and surly.

[Rosstin]

you could have your wizard weigh all the relevant ethical options, but be unable to decide which is correct-- after all, you can argue any side philosophically...

The way I see it is that your character should be able to discuss ethics theory all he wants, but would probably have very little understanding of the practical consequences of applying that theory in real life.

These are both good suggestions.

Honestly, I think that you should play up your character's lack of Wisdom and Charisma a little bit. Your wisdom and charisma are a little below average. You have an extremely high int. I think if you develop your character to have some blind spots in his thinking, it will be more interesting and deliberate than if you just play the character like yourself.

[faircoin]

I think it could be the catalyst for some interesting party dynamics, personally - the Cleric may understand ethics from the orthodoxy and practice of their faith or church, whereas your Wizard understands ethics in terms of philosophy and academic study. Another character, having neither the ecclesiastic or academic understanding of Ethics may approach it from the position of Military Courtesy and standards, or a professional code (like that of a guild of blacksmiths, or perhaps a "Thieves' Code"), or even the salt-of-the-earth, common sense approach of a Commoner (in the sense of a person without title or rank, not the class).

I think this is a very good applied analysis.

Let me change the question a little, though. If I was playing a fighter with optimal attribute distribution for spring attack/tripping (16 STR, 13 INT, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, and 8 CHA), could I roleplay as a smarter tactician than our party wizard (18 INT)?

[Alex12]

I think this is a very good applied analysis.

Let me change the question a little, though. If I was playing a fighter with optimal attribute distribution for spring attack/tripping (16 STR, 13 INT, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, and 8 CHA), could I roleplay as a smarter tactician than our party wizard (18 INT)?

Partly it would depend on background and stuff, and if you were actually a better tactician than the guy playing the wizard.
But I'd say it's absolutely plausible. After all, you've got training and experience in tactics and such, and he's presumably an academic-ish. Now, if he's, say, an ex-military warmage (not the class, but a wizard employed by the military for magic blasty type stuff) then it's more problematic.

[denthor]

If you have access to LoGo on Direct tv watch Daria. She has a very high intelligence with a mid range wisdom and a low charisma.

Her sister Quinn has an intelligence and Charisma but even less wisdom.

With 8's that you have (str, wis, cha) I see a wimp that always needs to be right. Not correct.

You cling to thing even in the face of logic until you are proven wrong by books you wizard you. Ethics is how you treat others not what you know or do not know.

You do not say what your world view(alignment) is.

You can see what would work but can not implement or plan the combat in due to lack of patience with fools and the less intelligent.

So yeah tell him sit down and...

But you may also be taking up a lot of time with discussion and he wants to get on to the combat. That happens to and we do not realize so that player is tring to limit the chatter.

[Alejandro]

They still think monks and fighters are more OP than wizards. Especially monks with vow of poverty. Oh the horror.)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, man. Thank you for that.

I hope you are planning on crushing this notion into the dirt, and enjoying it :)

[erikun]

INT would be the measure by which a character can discuss ethics. WIS is the measure by which a character can apply them to a specific setting. As such, I don't see a problem with your character discussing the measure of ethics in an academic setting, although discussing how to apply said ethics to a realistic situation would probably have him lacking.

Of course, this is just the justifications behind the character's actions. You're still free to run your character as you wish, and the other players shouldn't be butting in on how to do so.

[faircoin]

Partly it would depend on background and stuff... Now, if he's, say, an ex-military warmage (not the class, but a wizard employed by the military for magic blasty type stuff) then it's more problematic.

Say the wizard is an ex-general or something, and has all the ranks in profession (military officer) but...

and if you were actually a better tactician than the guy playing the wizard

...I turn out to be a better tactician. How should we resolve this fluff-wise?

I hope you are planning on crushing this notion into the dirt, and enjoying it :)

W-what? Why would I do that? Yes, I am going into dweomerkeeper, but only to wish for stupid things and gate in rubber chickens. Yes, I am in the form of a dire tortoise from a persisted shapechange with moment of prescience and celerity, but only to get my full monologue in before the BBEG can act.

If I actually showed them why wizards are OP, they would never let me play wizards again. (In all seriousness, they're good friends, and I'm optimizing for fun times, hmm?)

[valadil]

Except one player, who said that ethics is WIS, and since my WIS was 8, my wizard can't discuss ethics. I definitely wasn't allowed to show up our party cleric, who had a WIS of 16.

If he wants to argue about whether ethics is int or wis, fine. But telling your your stat means you can't contribute in a discussion isn't. That's the opposite of roleplaying. It kinda makes my head hurt.

Here's how I see it. Keep the ethics discussion in character. Everybody has an opinion. You might respect one character's opinion more than another's. But you don't know that you have stats. You don't know that the other characters have stats. And you certainly don't know what those stats are. Dismissing someone's argument because you imagined that they're bound to a sheet of paper with a fictional number on it just plain doesn't work.

[Alex12]

Say the wizard is an ex-general or something, and has all the ranks in profession (military officer) but...



...I turn out to be a better tactician. How should we resolve this fluff-wise?

Easy: you, OOC, come up with the tactics, then, OOC, run it past the other guy, and then have it be the wizard's idea.
If someone objects, say you're trying to roleplay while maintaining verisimilitude, since the wizard is actually smarter and more skilled in the field than anyone actually playing, and as such it just makes sense for him to be smarter than the player in such areas.

[SimonMoon6]

The problem with "wisdom = ethics":

You can have a CE character with a WIS of 18. Is this character an expert on ethics? Can any CE character be an expert on ethics?

[awa]

There is a difference between understanding ethics and following them. The CE person could easily understand the ethical implications of his action and be able to debate the various methods and implications of different systems of ethics effortlessly and then do the exact opposite becuase hes evil and ethics interferes with what ever his goals happen to be.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The problem with "wisdom = ethics":

You can have a CE character with a WIS of 18. Is this character an expert on ethics? Can any CE character be an expert on ethics?

This borders the issue of Relative and Absolute morality, which can be dangerous territory. I'm pretty sure that, in 3.5, morality is supposed to be somewhat absolute, but even then, the ethics of a CE character can be much neglected or they may simply have a different sort of ethics which allow for or even promote their chaotic, evil alignment. In fact, a CE character may be an expert on ethics and yet have no interest in following them (or may wish to actively subvert them). Or they might just be alien - "Blue and Orange Morality" some call it.

So, yes, a CE character can be an expert on ethics.

[oball]

Easy: you, OOC, come up with the tactics, then, OOC, run it past the other guy, and then have it be the wizard's idea.

This is what my group used to do - the person playing the barbarian with an INT penalty was the most experienced player, so she would regularly suggest plans that her character couldn't have come up with, but the higher intelligence wizard and rogue characters plausibly could have.

[The Fury]

... This player's opinion has some interesting implications. Like how someone with a WIS of 8 can't participate in an ethics discussion, like at all. This seems to suggest that someone with below average WIS cannot come up with an opinion on what's right or wrong, even an erroneous one. I guess if the clerics player wants to contribute more to the ethical discussions, let him/her, but if (s)he doesn't that's not on you.
This is overlooking the notion that ethics is WIS-based seems pretty dubious. Though if the DM doesn't have an issue with what you're doing, gently reminding this player of that is something you could do.

[Mr Beer]

That player sounds annoying and I wouldn't be concerned about their opinion on this matter. In fact I would likely take a relevant skill and discuss ethics at least once a gaming session from now on, that's just me though.

[NichG]

Int-based ethics:

"It is wrong to steal because of the instability of a system in which it is ethically acceptable to steal. In such a system we would have no property rights and this would therefore decrease the motivation towards individual enterprise. Furthermore, we would encounter a tradgedy of the commons type situation in which a number of individuals would parasitize the work of others, without having any disadvantage to themselves for applying this strategy. Therefore, we should apprehend this thief."

Wis-based ethics:

"This thief isn't stealing because he needs to, he's stealing because he wants to. It doesn't look like he's suffering for money given what we've seen of his gear and his targets, so he probably is doing this for attention or the thrill of it. So really, his behavior is just harmful without redeeming qualities and so we should apprehend him (though here are a few ideas to redeem him or direct him towards more useful endeavors, such as employing him as a spy or scout)"

[Tengu_temp]

If low wisdom stopped people from discussing ethics, the internet would be a much quieter place.

Sidenote: 8 in a stat is only slightly below 10, but it's the lowest you can get in most point buy systems, so it's alright to play such a character as more than a bit lacking in that certain department.

[holywhippet]

That same logic suggests if you have one player with a much higher charisma score then the rest of the party the others should almost always follow their lead since charisma is all about force of personality and leadership.

From my point of view, a highly intelligent character could have a working knowledge of ethics through their studies. Coming up with their own take on ethics might be tricky due to their low wisdom though.

[Bulhakov]

I think this is a very good applied analysis.

Let me change the question a little, though. If I was playing a fighter with optimal attribute distribution for spring attack/tripping (16 STR, 13 INT, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, and 8 CHA), could I roleplay as a smarter tactician than our party wizard (18 INT)?

As long as you had character background to back it up (and the wizard doesn), why not. However, I had a very experienced player playing a min-maxed beastmaster from a jungle tribe that I had to frequently remind "your character had no experience with (insert-concept-here) and your INT score is waaay to low to come up with the intrigue/strategy you're suggesting".

It's all part of the roleplay - just like your character can't hit harder just because you're physically strong, so shouldn't he think smarter just because you're smart.

[Coidzor]

Ethics as in the subset of philosophy is very much Int-based as far as understanding it and studying it. For an actual real break through in the field you're probably looking at dumb luck or a mixture of high-ish to high scores in all three mental stats

As far as a person's personal sense of whether a particular action pings as right or wrong to them before they do it, yeah, I could see wisdom playing a role in that, especially since alcohol is portrayed as a wis-damaging substance...

[KacyCrawford]

I agree with Grod_The_Giant.

[prufock]

Let me change the question a little, though. If I was playing a fighter with optimal attribute distribution for spring attack/tripping (16 STR, 13 INT, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, and 8 CHA), could I roleplay as a smarter tactician than our party wizard (18 INT)?

Sure. "Listen, slim - you might be an expert on magical theory, and planar legends, and where to sit on a freaking couch, but this is WAR."

Often times when ethics gets brought up in character, I have my wizard contribute intellectually to the discussion. This was partially a result of me having studied ethics academically, so I could contribute more than others at the table. Most everyone was fine with this. DM and players.

Except one player, who said that ethics is WIS, and since my WIS was 8, my wizard can't discuss ethics. I definitely wasn't allowed to show up our party cleric, who had a WIS of 16.

The other player is being a tremendous ass. Ignore him.

If you want an in-game reason to disregard his ignorance, point out that there is no "ethics" skill, but if there were it would likely be a Knowledge skill, which keys off of intelligence. It could be filed under Religion or Local (which includes laws, customs, traditions). However, you certainly aren't obligated to explain yourself to this clown, who is breaking one of the cardinal rules of roleplaying - don't tell other people how to play their characters.