Character representation

[Mazzle Dazzle]

Anyone find it weird that all of the companion women in this game have 10 or below intelligence?

Alternatively, Wyll has 13, Gale has 17, Astarian has 13. Halsin and Minsc are dummies at 8 int but it's still a more balanced representation.

Now Gale, and Astarian both have mechanical reasons for this such as arcane trickster progression and wizard progression but Wyll doesn't.

I feel like this plays out in the narrative as well in the characters reactions and behaviors which I feel like is kind of insulting. Women can be intelligent too. It seems really weird that there is no representation of that within the companions.

I really only mention this because for a long time men were always portrayed as the dumb warrior type and it pissed me off that they were always portrayed as clueless and made stupid decisions all of the time. I think as a gamer, we all have a bit of a nerdy bent to get pulled into a game of this sort. I also get the push to make women into more physically strong roles for representation in games as its not frequently done but eldritch knights are also a thing as well and we could have had a woman fill that role and be intelligent while also being badass.

I don't know, it might seem weird as so many games portray women in the caster capacity but it seems weird that men are portrayed in a balanced way with some intelligent and some dumb and women are just all average or below average intelligence.

[Mazzle Dazzle]

Originally posted by Vixzian:

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Also why do people think representation matters and simultaneously think it doesn't matter. It's pretty obvious it matters. Have you looked at these forums about people feeling like they are not properly represented. I've seen men complain about how there are no "strong" male characters for sure but honestly I think that is a viewpoint I fundamentally disagree with. There are plenty of strong male characters, just because you don't think well above average strength is strong or having various powers and intellect is strong doesn't make it true. But having a character have low intelligence and act stupid narratively, does absolutely make them average or low intelligence.

So then it sounds like it only matters if you agree with it. Using the "strong" example all you have to do is think of the optics alone and be able to understand why people feel that way.

It's not about breaking something down into the minutia to judge it from whatever position you feel is the right one, it's about being able to understand it from another viewpoint and then determining whether or not (objectivity non-withstanding) there is an argument to be made.

I personally see the argument if I just look without doing anything else at the companions. You have one physically intimidating female barbarian, you have a gith warrior... leaving a mage which obviously isn't physically imposing, a vampire rogue whom just listening to him is clearly not imposing, leaving Wyll who also is clearly not physically imposing. Looking at the NPCs most of the leadership roles are women (Wylls father doesn't count being he's a puppet the entire time) leaving the villains which I feel are represented well enough.

So again by your own logic it either matters or it doesn't. Which is it?

12 strength is well above average in D&D rules as written and based on lore. That is why it doesn't matter. Strong men are represented, stronger women are represented but they also wouldn't succeed in their profession without being so. For every female heroine to be average or below average intelligence is weird and seems intentional though. As I said, Wyll doesn't need 13 int, it is done for narrative purposes, but no woman exist with above average intelligence.

[Janthis]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by cocafire:

Don't you find it weird that not a single male character in this game has above 12 strength?

Halsin and Minsc are physically weaker than Shadowheart, Minthara, Karlach and Lae'zel.

You can be at war with reality all you want, but then at least make the new rules work for both sides. Not that in the end it will make a difference, but as an exercise.

That's objectively incorrect, unless by "male character" you mean "male companion".

TBH, I find it weirder that any player went and compared the stats between men and women to make sure they followed some checklist or whatever.

Geez, you never give up, do you?

Anyway, I think that in RPGs in general, stats are an example of gameplay vs story segregation and not always realistic, but rather done for gameplay reasons. So you could have a mage with 18-19 INT, which is genius level, but they're still written like a normal person. Same for melee characters with STR or DEX that would realistically put them at Olympic athlete level, but in the game they're not treated as anything special. It's just a consequence of how stats work.

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by Johnny_B_80:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

That's objectively incorrect, unless by "male character" you mean "male companion".

TBH, I find it weirder that any player went and compared the stats between men and women to make sure they followed some checklist or whatever.

Geez, you never give up, do you?

What?

[CorwynCorey]

The stats are based on something decent for the classes and skills they have. Like everything in D&D. Don't find many smart clerics... but they are all wise af. Don't find mant wise mages, but all smart as whips. Warlocks sometiimes have decent stats besides Charisma... sometimes not,,, its for flavour. Most Rogues end up having some brains., just not lots... to back up their skills.

Oh... and some of them have genders. But that isnt for function... that is for story.

You see how it works? Mechanics.... and story. Loosely related... but definitely their own thing. Welcome to D&D.

[Zarek]

Originally posted by lamb sauce locator:

Complete misunderstanding of the DnD stats.

10 in any stat makes you a regular human person. Average. Nothing special. If you were put into any universe in DnD right now you'd have 10 in everything. Maybe 9.

Intelligence isn't actually how smart you are. Intelligence isn't an indicator as to how well you know your maths times tables. Intelligence is more about awareness, memory, and critical thinking.

Having higher than I'd say 13 or 14 in any stat makes you a super human by real life standards. Maybe someone like, Stephen Hawking would have 14 intelligence.

Shadowheart has high Wisdom because Wisdom is more about understanding the actual world, which is what you would get if you were raised in a religious cult like she was. Similarly, Charisma is about understanding people, so a bard who lived a life of performing and cunning would have more charisma than the average human.

I dont entirely agree with your application of the average. It doesn't directly mean the most common human is 10s all the way down (though it could imply thats a very common statblock), it means that 10s are the most common stat. So like, Some farmer might see 11 str and 9 int or something. If you're a nobody guard with a bow, your dex is probably 11 or 12, because that's why you got the bow and not the sword. Because your dex is slightly better than that of the average person which makes you stand out. A mason might have a slight bump in int if he does any architecture, like for cathedrals. Not any human can math that out. So hes smarter than the average bear, but probably still average elsewhere, and maybe weak in something.

My second disagreement, 14 isnt stephen hawking. 14 -15 is genius. Its just enough to get into MENSA. Its a very small group of people. Theres famous people like Lady Gaga, Madonna, Tarantino are all supposedly around that technical genius level. Nameless physicists working at NASA. Etc. You're in a rare category, and several standard deviations beyond normal. Hawkings would be an 17-18, the highest possible stat without magical gear. (maybe 20 I think PHD 5.0 lets you take ability enhancements up to that point)

An 18 strength is this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Records_and_feats_of_strength_by_Haf%C3%BE%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_Bj%C3%B6rnsson

[Mazzle Dazzle]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/81cras/dd_ability_score_ranges_described/

[cocafire]

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Also why do people think representation matters and simultaneously think it doesn't matter. It's pretty obvious it matters. Have you looked at these forums about people feeling like they are not properly represented. I've seen men complain about how there are no "strong" male characters for sure but honestly I think that is a viewpoint I fundamentally disagree with. There are plenty of strong male characters, just because you don't think well above average strength is strong or having various powers supplementing that strength is strong doesn't make it true. But having a character have low intelligence and act stupid narratively, does absolutely make them average or low intelligence.

I don't care about the ability scores of any of the characters or what they represent.

I looked it up because you brought the intelligence up.

I don't think the game needs to change any of the characters, I like all of them as they are right now.

None of the girls need more intelligence for their classes. None of the boys need more strength for what they should be doing. Those points Wyll has in intelligence or Shadowheart has in strength are not useful for either of them.

Now, my issue is that looking it up I'm seeing that there's some "weird" choices with the ability scores.

In the context we are, you have to wonder why though...

[CorwynCorey]

I will quote from the 2nd ed PHB; the difference between wisdom vs intelligence is Edith Bunker vs Richard Nixon.

[Mazzle Dazzle]

Originally posted by cocafire:

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Also why do people think representation matters and simultaneously think it doesn't matter. It's pretty obvious it matters. Have you looked at these forums about people feeling like they are not properly represented. I've seen men complain about how there are no "strong" male characters for sure but honestly I think that is a viewpoint I fundamentally disagree with. There are plenty of strong male characters, just because you don't think well above average strength is strong or having various powers supplementing that strength is strong doesn't make it true. But having a character have low intelligence and act stupid narratively, does absolutely make them average or low intelligence.

I don't care about the ability scores of any of the characters or what they represent.

I looked it up because you brought the intelligence up.

I don't think the game needs to change any of the characters, I like all of them as they are right now.

None of the girls need more intelligence for their classes. None of the boys need more strength for what they should be doing. Those points Wyll has in intelligence or Shadowheart has in strength are not useful for either of them.

Now, my issue is that looking it up I'm seeing that there's some "weird" choices with the ability scores.

In the context we are, you have to wonder why though...

Mostly because narratively certain party member's behavior was what I consider illogical. So I checked their stats to see if their stat blocks influenced their behavior. On the other hand, Gale speaks and reasons significantly differently than the rest of the party. Obviously he's a wizard, he should be smart, but my point is, narratively it was apparent even before checking the stats. That was why I checked. I never even thought about the men's strength because they didn't seem weak other than gale, who coincidentally has 8 strength. I actually believe they did the characters justice narratively with their stat blocks. I was merely saying they could have made at least one woman in the game that was also above average intelligence and made them behave as such.
I absolutely could modify their stats but its not really about that, its about their portrayal in the game.

[lamb sauce locator]

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Originally posted by lamb sauce locator:

Complete misunderstanding of the DnD stats.

10 in any stat makes you a regular human person. Average. Nothing special. If you were put into any universe in DnD right now you'd have 10 in everything. Maybe 9.

Intelligence isn't actually how smart you are. Intelligence isn't an indicator as to how well you know your maths times tables. Intelligence is more about awareness, memory, and critical thinking.

Having higher than I'd say 13 or 14 in any stat makes you a super human by real life standards. Maybe someone like, Stephen Hawking would have 14 intelligence.

Shadowheart has high Wisdom because Wisdom is more about understanding the actual world, which is what you would get if you were raised in a religious cult like she was. Similarly, Charisma is about understanding people, so a bard who lived a life of performing and cunning would have more charisma than the average human.

You realize I mentioned that numerous times? Like all of that? My point is, at best they are average. Not above average, average or below average. That is why I expressed my discontent with the representation.

My point was that Intelligence in DnD is not comparable to real life intelligence. Shadowheart isn't dumb. Neither is Jaheira. Its just their stat block based off their background.

Shadowheart's high wisdom allows her high perception and insight, which means she's VERY smart at knowing when someone is lying, or finding hidden things. Its just a different kind of smart compared to what we perceive.

[cocafire]

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Mostly because narratively certain party member's behavior was what I consider illogical. So I checked their stats to see if their stat blocks influenced their behavior. On the other hand, Gale speaks and reasons significantly differently than the rest of the party. Obviously he's a wizard, he should be smart, but my point is, narratively it was apparent even before checking the stats. That was why I checked. I never even thought about the men's strength because they didn't seem weak other than gale, who coincidentally has 8 strength. I actually believe they did the characters justice narratively with their stat blocks. I was merely saying they could have made at least one woman in the game that was also above average intelligence and made them behave as such.
I absolutely could modify their stats but its not really about that, its about their portrayal in the game.

Which was the character that stood out for you?

I think Minsc strength score is very weird. I did not find Minsc during my two playthroughs and I wasn't even aware that he was is a returning character from the previous game.

It is weird because it changes a character that was established before and also because it absolutely does not fit with the character both in terms of portrayal as well or really, in any possible way... His most apparent trait supposed to be his physical strength. He is not "above average", he is very, very physically strong without any ambiguity.

I think this is the one that really stands out. It is a bit egregious to be honest.

[srfrogg23]

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Anyone find it weird that all of the companion women in this game have 10 or below intelligence?

Alternatively, Wyll has 13, Gale has 17, Astarian has 13. Halsin and Minsc are dummies at 8 int but it's still a more balanced representation.

Now Gale, and Astarian both have mechanical reasons for this such as arcane trickster progression and wizard progression but Wyll doesn't.

I feel like this plays out in the narrative as well in the characters reactions and behaviors which I feel like is kind of insulting. Women can be intelligent too. It seems really weird that there is no representation of that within the companions.

I really only mention this because for a long time men were always portrayed as the dumb warrior type and it pissed me off that they were always portrayed as clueless and made stupid decisions all of the time. I think as a gamer, we all have a bit of a nerdy bent to get pulled into a game of this sort. I also get the push to make women into more physically strong roles for representation in games as its not frequently done but eldritch knights are also a thing as well and we could have had a woman fill that role and be intelligent while also being badass.

I don't know, it might seem weird as so many games portray women in the caster capacity but it seems weird that men are portrayed in a balanced way with some intelligent and some dumb and women are just all average or below average intelligence.

Lol, this puts a whole new spin on the whole "reflective of the world we live in today" nonsense that SJWs like to spout. Apparently it's ok to make all the females stupid now.

[:)]

People like you will always find a problem in everything hm?

[Thad Castle]

memes

[Zarek]

Originally posted by cocafire:

Originally posted by Mazzle Dazzle:

Mostly because narratively certain party member's behavior was what I consider illogical. So I checked their stats to see if their stat blocks influenced their behavior. On the other hand, Gale speaks and reasons significantly differently than the rest of the party. Obviously he's a wizard, he should be smart, but my point is, narratively it was apparent even before checking the stats. That was why I checked. I never even thought about the men's strength because they didn't seem weak other than gale, who coincidentally has 8 strength. I actually believe they did the characters justice narratively with their stat blocks. I was merely saying they could have made at least one woman in the game that was also above average intelligence and made them behave as such.
I absolutely could modify their stats but its not really about that, its about their portrayal in the game.

Which was the character that stood out for you?

I think Minsc strength score is very weird. I did not find Minsc during my two playthroughs and I wasn't even aware that he was is a returning character from the previous game.

It is weird because it changes a character that was established before and also because it absolutely does not fit with the character both in terms of portrayal as well or really, in any possible way... His most apparent trait supposed to be his physical strength. He is not "above average", he is very, very physically strong without any ambiguity.

I think this is the one that really stands out. It is a bit egregious to be honest.

This is the kind of stuff that sticks out to me too. I think BG3 is a pretty well made RPG I'm very impressed with a lot of aspects. They really thought of a lot of things a player might do. However, I am increasingly dubious about actually considering it a successor to BG2. Im slightly sympathetic to them that Minsc's class flat doesn't exist. He was a ranger with a rage like feature. If you're going to adopt one of the most popular NPCs from bioware's long RPG history (they even had Minsc references in other games including mass effect). Treat it with absolute respect and make him a special subclass if you have to. Big hearted enthusiastic hero with a kid like love for almost everyone around him. Strong as an Ox.

Its a topic for a different day, but its not the only thing they've done that I feel is notably disrespectful to the franchise they adopted.