As one of the people that voted for cunning as one trait, I feel like I have to speak up in my defense some. I wasn't interpreting cunning as intelligence; I was interpreting it either as the ability to quickly think out plausable and workable solutions in a pinch, or the ability to out-talk or out-smart a person... thinking of it more in the sense of a con artist rather than a rocket scientist.

With that said, though, I like playing intelligent characters since I like to stretch my mind after that. Like how I created an astrophysicist on OtherSpace after reading a couple books theoretical astrophysics (time travel, dimensions, etc). In that case, my vague knowledge from reading those books let me out-talk just about everyone so that I didn't have to venture into details I didn't know, or have some ability to fudge in a realistic, yet sci-fi, way.

Anyway... I've entirely forgotten my point. ####.

I think you may be confusing slow with deliberate.

Synonyms to slow (adj.), as a description of mental capacity, include dense, dim, dull, dumb, feeble-minded, retarded, stupid, imbecile, and moronic.

I just wanted to say that I believe that text mudders are God's chosen people and that we are destined to inherit the earth, dwell in a land of milk and honey, and generally groove out to the smoove smoove sounds of Isaac Hayes.

--matt

*makes his point on the matter, then runs away* Intelligence is not cumulative. It can't be measured as a number. Take an astrophysicist off the street, ask him to calculate the amount of trace silicon you need in a steel alloy for a heavy-duty spring, and you'll get nothing. The astrophysicist is not a metallurgist. He doesn't know, but does that make him stupid? No.

The same thing can be applied to a warrior, a druid, and a mage. The druid and mage is probably obvious. The druid would have knowledge of herbs, while the mage has knowledge of the arcane. But what about the warrior? Well, a good fighter thinks. He has to make split-second decisions, or his head is split. He is aware of his environment when fighting, and can use it to his advantage. In learning his weapon, any cleverness and intuition is good for learning it faster. But is he smart? He doesn't know how to create a fireball. But he could have just as easily learned herb lore or studied runic texts, and gotten quite far at it.

See what I mean? If a player who happens to be a psychologist wants to play someone smart, he's not going to be a very realistic astrologist unless he does something like it as a side job or hobby. I agree with earlier posts that you should read up on who you want to become. It's fun to do that anyway. But if you can, play characters that compliment your own expertise. You'll find that a lot of players who would be labeled idiots become respected roleplayers with this in mind.

I agree with what others have said that it is possible to act more intelligent than you are. However there are limits to it, and it is difficult. Someone may think you are intelligent from a single conversation, but if they get to know you well it's going to be much harder to convince them.

Also to act intelligent you do need to be at least reasonably intelligent in real life, but I think to roleplay anything well you need to be reasonably intelligent in real life.

The way I would act an intelligent character is as mentioned above, taking the slow and deliberating aproach. Another thing I would do is try and show my character as knowing a lot (especially about academic related subjects). This isn't too hard, just use google to find a few web pages about whatever topic you need to pretend to be clever at.

Perhaps the hardest thing about appearing intelligent (or rather knowlegable) is when faced with someone who really does know about it. Say for example I am pretending to be an expert in medicine, I do a bit of research (which I think is important for any roleplay), to the average person I appear to know about medicine, and if there is something I don't know I can always make it up. However if someone is a doctor they're going to be able to tell I'm not an expert. This is a problem I can't really see a way around.

Personally my main character is a mercenary fighter, he is illiterate and has never had any kind of education. He isn't intelligent, but he isn't totally brainless, he is smart in some respects. He is a pretty good public speaker and a decent leader. Sometimes roleplaying a character who isn't very intelligent is actually not that easy. It is quite difficult not to roleplay him a sterotyped fool, and at the same time show that he isn't all that smart.

Roleplaying something you are not can be hard, and with intelligence it is especially hard. A sign of a good roleplayer is someone who can create a character who is convincing. Research can help with this, and roleplaying something you know about can be easier, but in my opinion a truely great roleplayer can be anything.

Maraz

Intelligent people do not have to be smart.  Thus common sense and "book learning" are often seen as different things.  Being clever is not being intelligent.  If I can slip out of a situation before I get my virtual butt kicked, I was clever.  If I can create a swift comeback when insulted, I was clever.  If I figure out that player X and player Y are dating in-game without being told, then I was clever.

But, why is it an issue of having to live up to intelligence in the first place?  That would be like having a character name Monty and claiming he was the funniest man in the game.  Of course, when in an RP session, old Monty is rather bland.  Thus his PR guy is better than his RP guy.  Claiming intelligence is not the same as having.  This is why I am opposed to player-viewable, player-written bios, because then you have "the bravest hero", "the funniest bard", "the craftiest mage", and "the best looking troll in the land".  This goes back to the first rule of story-telling, "Don't say the lady screams, bring her out and let me hear her" or simply "show don't tell."