|
My assertion is that being 'charismatic' gives one the ability to attract other people by using one's physical body, regardless of one's personal appearance. Thus, charisma makes one Physically Attractive.
Yes, yes, physically attractive as in "alluring" or "glamorous" (which BTW are synonyms used by the dictionary to define charisma)...
Physical attraction is NOT (necessarily) how handsome or pretty we see someone as, but it can be...
For example...
al·lure
n
highly attractive quality: an attractive or tempting quality
And...
al·lur·ing
adj
attractive and fascinating: extremely attractive, tempting, or glamorous, and able to arouse strong desire in people
Neither definition states that the "attraction" is due to physical appearance (handsomeness/beauty). But rather the "physical attraction" is due to some fascinating or tempting quality of an individual...
So let's look at what the dictionary has to say on "Attractive"...
And pay special attention to definition #2...
at·trac·tive
adj
1. good-looking: good-looking or sexually desirable
2. agreeable: pleasing in appearance or manner
So "attractive" IS beauty, but it is ALSO mannerism...
So, when the Beta says:
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.
I see nothing wrong with that statement…
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
My assertion is that being 'charismatic' gives one the ability to attract other people by using one's physical body, regardless of one's personal appearance. Thus, charisma makes one Physically Attractive.Yes, yes, physically attractive as in "alluring" or "glamorous" (which BTW are synonyms used by the dictionary to define charisma)...
Physical attraction is NOT (necessarily) how handsome or pretty we see someone as, but it can be...
For example...
al·lure
n
highly attractive quality: an attractive or tempting qualityAnd...
al·lur·ing
adj
attractive and fascinating: extremely attractive, tempting, or glamorous, and able to arouse strong desire in people
Neither definition states that the "attraction" is due to physical appearance (handsomeness/beauty). But rather the "physical attraction" is due to some fascinating or tempting quality of an individual...
So let's look at what the dictionary has to say on "Attractive"...
And pay special attention to definition #2...
at·trac·tive
adj
1. good-looking: good-looking or sexually desirable
2. agreeable: pleasing in appearance or mannerSo "attractive" IS beauty, but it is ALSO mannerism...
So, when the Beta says:
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.
I see nothing wrong with that statement…
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I wasn't trying to say physical attractiveness Can't include being beautiful, I was trying to say its not Just being beautiful.
And I agree, I see nothing wrong with the statement, I think it should stay as is.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I wasn't trying to say physical attractiveness Can't include being beautiful...Nor was I actually...
I was trying to say that it could be taken both ways...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm sorry, I must have missunderstood you.
My point was that charisma isn't about the perceptions of others
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 about the qualities one has within oneself.
Thus, a charismatic character has the ability to be "agreeable or pleasing in appearance or manner" regardless of the tastes of the individual they are pleasing with their appearance and manner.
And then I rambled on for several posts about how I think they accomplish this.
...Man, this thread is getting so meta.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
My assertion is that being 'charismatic' gives one the ability to attract other people by using one's physical body, regardless of one's personal appearance. Thus, charisma makes one Physically Attractive.I'm truly sorry, but I find that assertion silly at best.
Sorry to hear that. I wasn't limiting "attraction" to sexual desire, if that helps.
Edit: And of course its not an all or nothing thing. You make checks with charisma based skills, and just plain old charisma checks, to attract people to yourself. Sometimes that involves talking, sometimes that means striking a heroic pose. Either way, more charisma = more attractive.
You're attempting to redefine "physically attractive" into something it doesn't mean, and you're jumping through hoops and abusing semantics to do so.
Exactly. For example, the phrase, "Well, he's really attractive, physically, but he acts like he doesn't know it" is perfectly simple and obvious to understand, because "physical" refers to, well, physicality.
|
Beside the point. You were claiming that physical attractiveness was an action.No, I'm claiming that physical attractiveness is part action. A sword is useless without a man to wield it. I'm saying that physical attractiveness is a PART of your charisma like your +3 sword is PART of your attack roll. Sure, the +3 helps, but only when you can use it.
Physical attractiveness effectively increases charisma, and good charisma in other senses helps you to use your physical attractiveness better. Physical attractiveness is both correlative AND part of charisma, just as manual dexterity is both correlative and part of dexterity as a whole. There are some exceptions (like me, with manual dexterity but not dex as a whole, and with relatively high carrying capacity but poor strength-based attack rolls due to an injured arm) but it's all related.
And please, think of any situation in which you might be making a Diplomacy check in person and try and tell me that physical appearance won't affect it at all.
This is probably a lot more of an issue with female characters than with males, I suspect. I think part of the dilemma is in how one defines "physical attractiveness." To me, it's a whole package deal, and the bio-physical aspect is only one part of it. It's not just about looking at someone and appreciating the way they look, it's about desiring to be around that person, to seriously interact them, whether it is on a social or sensual level. Grace and demeanor can overcome a lack of physical assets and make someone want to be around you. By the same token, clumsiness, shrillness, meakness, a sharp tongue or just plain rotten attitude can overcome an abundance of physical assets and make someone not want to be around you. A woman, for instance, can be incredibly attractive when she's just sitting still and not speaking, so that the onlooker has only her physical attributes to go on - nice body, flawless skin, pretty smile, coifed hair. But let's say she she isn't very graceful on her feet, or her voice is raspy, or she's incredibly shy and withdrawn, always seeking to get away when someone tries to talk to her, or she laughs like a seal, or she stutters, or she's extremely haughty and conceited. All those things can bring her Charisma way down, even though she's still quite pretty to look at, you just don't want to be around her that much. TV sitcoms are full of characters who are physically attractive but have the charisma of sandpaper. Remember Fran Drescher in "The Nanny," or Janice from "Friends," or Karen from "Will and Grace?" I'd give any of them a Charisma in single digits, but a Comeliness (since someone brought it up) of 13 or higher. They're "pretty," but they're not "attractive," if that makes any sense. The reverse is also true, you can be butt ugly, inside and out, and have a Charisma that is through the roof (see Adolph Hitler for a real-world example).
|
|
You're attempting to redefine "physically attractive" into something it doesn't mean, and you're jumping through hoops and abusing semantics to do so.
No, I don't believe he was actually...
Look at my post above...
The DICTIONARY, says it can be EITHER way (look it up yourself if you don't trust the dictionary I used, which was both dictionary.com AND the "dictionary" that is an integral part of MS Word)! So you're BOTH correct...
It matters not a single hoot what the "common perception" of a word's definition is, but what the dictionary says it means (otherwise, any fool can "define" any word they like to whatever definition they fancy at any given moment)...
*EDIT*
Sorry if I come across as sounding snarky, as it really isn't my intent. But your comment about "abusing semantics" (to me) was as much of a stretch as you seem to be accusing Nightstalker of...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
You're attempting to redefine "physically attractive" into something it doesn't mean, and you're jumping through hoops and abusing semantics to do so.No, I don't believe he was actually...
Look at my post above...
The DICTIONARY, says it can be EITHER way (look it up yourself if you don't trust the dictionary I used, which was both dictionary.com AND the "dictionary" that is an integral part of MS Word)! So you're BOTH correct...
It matters not a single hoot what the "common perception" of a word's definition is, but what the dictionary says it means (otherwise, any fool can "define" any word they like to whatever definition they fancy at any given moment)...
*EDIT*
Sorry if I come across as sounding snarky, as it really isn't my intent. But your comment about "abusing semantics" (to me) was as much of a stretch as you seem to be accusing Nightstalker of...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Actually, my "abusing semantics" was as much in response to your post as anything else. Your post was pretty much the exemplar of abusing semantics.
|
|
Actually, my "abusing semantics" was as much in response to your post as anything else. Your post was pretty much the exemplar of abusing semantics.
I see...
at·trac·tive
adj
1. good-looking: good-looking or sexually desirable
2. agreeable: pleasing in appearance OR manner
Hmmm…
”pleasing in appearance or manner”
How is that "abusing semantics"??
I mean, the key word there is "OR"...
Had that word been "AND", I would indeed be "abusing semantics"...
But since the word is indeed "OR"...
Sounds to me that one can be "attractive” in “physical” mannerisms equally as much as how they "physically" appear (without having to possess both attributes)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
And here you're trying to take the words "physically" and "attractive" individually of each other in an attempt to redefine the phrase "physically attractive" to mean something it doesn't. You're playing a word game, but that's all that it is.
I will agree that the phrase has a generally preconceived meaning...
However, its definition is:
physical attraction
noun
a desire for sexual intimacy
Now tell me, where do "looks" or appearance come into that??
You're saying I am separating words from a phrase...
Well, a phrase is made up of individual words (I know, duh, but keep reading)...
And individual words have definitions...
Just because two or more words are strung together to make up a phrase, does not mean that those individual words lose their meanings all of a sudden...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
You guys do realize that the whole concept of dividing a person into six attributes is subjective, right? The attributes are an endless minefield of synonym, metaphor and anecdote. They're the faintest outline of a character and they will never, ever be the exact measure of a person.
It's like you're going to start arguing poetry. Ode to a D Cup.
|
|
You guys do realize that the whole concept of dividing a person into six attributes is subjective, right? The attributes are an endless minefield of synonym, metaphor and anecdote. They're the faintest outline of a character and they will never be exact measures.
It's like you're going to start arguing poetry. Ode to a D Cup.
LOL...
That's my whole point...
Everybody is saying that appearance or "looks" or the phrase "physical attractiveness" don't belong in charisma...
I am arguing that "physical attractiveness" does not (necessarily) mean how handsome or beautiful a character is...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Nor does it mean that it retains every meaning of the individual words.I take it that you missed the definition of "physical attraction" (according to "Dictionary.com") in my post... :-)
No. I ignored it because "physical attraction" (sexual desire) /= "physically attractive" (beautiful/handsome) and not relevant.
|
|
Everybody is saying that appearance or "looks" or the phrase "physical attractiveness" don't belong in charisma...
It has no more right to be there than height or weight.
I am arguing that "physical attractiveness" does not (necessarily) mean how handsome or beautiful a character is...
And you're trying to redefine the phase outside its accepted use to do so.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You know what? I don't really care if you think we're abusing semantics.
Digital Elf quoted dictionaries and I've quoted the RAW to back up our opinion that "Physical Attractiveness" is NOT limited to physical beauty, and in my case, that the entry specifically refers to the NON-beauty related elements.
What have you quoted? Common opinion? Which is of course always right? And then accused us of trying to redefine the phrase by quoting the dictionary?
I say that Charisma is a valid way to represent one's ability to seduce or attract others with ones body (through poise, posture, expression, chemistry, etc. All things that "Have to do with the Body", which fits the Physical definition, and cause Attraction.), just as it is used to measure ones ability to attract people with ones personality. Same ability, different approaches, both fit well with Charisma in my book.
You insist that Physical Attractiveness can only be defined as Physical Beauty.
I guess I'll just have to disagree with you and leave it at that.
We've got two sides here...
"Physical Attractiveness fits with Charisma, because it can mean that what the person is doing (mannerism) that causes a physical reaction from the target. Thus, the target is experiencing a physical response in their attraction."
"Physical Attractiveness doesn't fit with Charisma, because the person doesn't have to have an attractive physique to perform their high Charisma effects. The person with the Charisma isn't physically attractive."
.
I think this is the very definition of semantics.
se·man·tics (sĭ-mān'tĭks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
Quite literally, this is a discussion over the interpretation of a sentence. And there's obviously two ways to look at it.
.
.
And honestly, why argue? If there's a valid interpretation of the words that fits with Charisma while allowing ugly people to be Charismatic, then who cares what other interpretations there are out there... use the one that fits.
If it's got such a bug up your butt, then ask to have it clarified and maybe provide an example of how you'd clarify the term "physically attractive".
But you know what? It's just a guess, but I really REALLY doubt that there'd be much uproar if the wording wasn't changed. Really. There's actual mechanical and mathematical issues in the rules that need fixing. Do we need another 100+ posts on something that's basically a descriptor with literally no in-game mechanical impact?
I agree. I always liked the 1E Comeliness score for this distinction. Maybe I'm in the minority.
|
|
And you're trying to redefine the phase outside its accepted use to do so.
Outside accepted use??
By using words in the English language as they are defined in a dictionary no less??
You're kidding right??
There are so many phrases/words that are incorrectly used by people today because it falls under the umbrella of "accepted use", that it is not even funny (this whole argument aside)...
So, whatever is "accepted use" is always correct? Regardless of what it actually means??
Why then have a dictionary at all??
Let us just use whatever "accepted use" dictates. I mean that's your whole argument right??
Physically attractive has an "accepted use" therefore that (acceptably used definition) is the proper, and ONLY way to define the phrase???
Is that your whole argument?? Did I miss something that you may have said?? Because if that is indeed your argument, then I am going to have to just agree to disagree with you...
That is, unless you can come up with (or care to come up with) a better argument...
*EDIT*
No. I ignored it because "physical attraction" (sexual desire) /= "physically attractive" (beautiful/handsome) and not relevant.
If you change the nouns to adjectives (physical becomes physically, attraction becomes attractive) then the definition changes from "sexual desire" to "sexually desirable". Therefore, perfectly relevant...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Director of Games
|
Hi there everybody,
This topic has really derailed into an argument about semantics and definitions.
Ability scores are meant to be a guideline for what your character can accomplish based off raw talent, intellect, and physical potential. This means that each statistic can mean different things for different characters. A strong character might be really huge and hulking, or he might be lithe and well built. A charismatic character might get by on force of will and persuasiveness or might use his looks to get what he wants. I can certainly see the urge to pull physical attractiveness from Charisma, but this a great stat that can be used in different ways for different characters and I would hate to lose that.
So, if you want to get back on topic and discuss this issue, lets do so. Otherwise I am going to lock this one down if the pointless arguements continue.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
IMHO
This is how I see it.
Go to Fran Drescher.
Fran is what I would call a good looking lady. I realize that beauty is subjective, but that's how I call it. Just to look at her, easy on the eyes.
On the other hand, once she opens her mouth and starts to talk, it's like nails scratching on a chalkboard and to hear her laugh, send me to a the mute button every time.
Most other stats are cut and dry. Strength is Strength. You can be wiry or bulky, but the ultimate test is how much you press.
Charisma is in many ways a balancing act. It is about Physical Attractiveness, Presentation, Confidence, and Speech/Expression.
Speech/Expression example Marlee Matlin is deaf, and doesn't have a typical speaking voice, but I find her to have a very expressive and being attractive while doing it.
There could be other things that go into describing Charisma, but that is what come to my mind.
If you use my examples you could come up with a very good guide for defining a character.
Assign one point to each sub ability category out of the entire pool of points given over to charisma. These sub abilities should only be used for rollplaying uses and not for any real crunchy rules.
0-1 Very poor or no existent sub ability
2 base or common sub ability
3 good or noticeable use of sub ability
4 Strong use of sub ability
5 (or more) Commanding use of sub ability
So Hitler would have:
5 (or more) in speech/expression
4 in confidence
3 in presentation
1 or zero in physical attractiveness.
It gives him about a 13 or more in charisma. You could argue that his score could be higher, but then you would have to discuss propaganda machines and cults of personality. For my example, I think this works.
Fran Drescher
1 in speech/expression
4 in confidence
5 in presentation
4 in physical attractiveness
It gives her about 14 in Charisma.
Thanking this further, you could use this guideline to describe your NPCs. As you move towards the beguiling and well dressed sorcerer to ask her some information about your next adventure, you notice that she has a bit of a grating voice.
IMHO
This is how I see it. Fran Drescher
1 in speech/expression
4 in confidence
5 in presentation
4 in physical attractivenessIt gives her about 14 in Charisma.
Sounds about right to me!
|
|
Sounds about right to me!IMHO
This is how I see it. Fran Drescher
1 in speech/expression
4 in confidence
5 in presentation
4 in physical attractivenessIt gives her about 14 in Charisma.
I just whipped that together after reading all the posts. It seems to me a way to walk a fine line between everyones point of view.
What I should have also said is I'm not looking for a 2e version of stats where we sub-divide all of the ability scores. That would get old on me quickly.
Sometimes though a quick and dirty way of describing a NPC is a good thing.
|
|
And you're trying to redefine the phase outside its accepted use to do so.Outside accepted use??
By using words in the English language as they are defined in a dictionary no less??
You're kidding right??
There are so many phrases/words that are incorrectly used by people today because it falls under the umbrella of "accepted use", that it is not even funny (this whole argument aside)...
Actually, language is defined by usage. It's cool that you may not be hip to that fact, but trying to argue against it is kind of lame... If you get my drift.
|
|
Actually, language is defined by usage. It's cool that you may not be hip to that fact, but trying to argue against it is kind of lame... If you get my drift.
Language is indeed defined by its use...
Over time...
While I was in school (back in the 80's), and using terms such as "cool", "hip", and "lame", it was most certainly not cool to use such terms as I was using them back then (at least to my teachers and parents)...
Obviously now, that has changed...
But I argue that "Physically Attractive" equaling "Sexually Desirable", is still a valid definition. Which just means that "sexually desirable" could be defined as either the person is indeed good looking, OR the person, while not all that good looking (or just plain old butt ugly), still has that certain "something" that makes them attractive or desirable...
That's just how I see charisma. Like Jason said, it's a tool to help define your character...
Perhaps either by design or fortuitous circumstance, that tool just so happens to be big and broad enough to allow your strict use and interpretation of it, as well as my more open (as defined by the dictionary) use and interpretation of it...
However...
Neither of our definitions/interpretations are incorrect...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
I wonder how Venture Brothers' Doctor Girlfriend works out with that method.
According to the DVD commentary, some people actually came forward and said they find the voice "kinda hot".
I found Bebe Neuwirth very attractive in Cheers even though they toned her way down to look very cold and aloof.
And on a twisted note, it was hot when she showed that she could fit her whole fist in her mouth. "ahem"
|
|
Charisma, in my opinion, should be thought of as "a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people", or "the special virtue (...) that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like" (Thanks, Random House Unabridged dictionary!).
I understand that is just your take and opinion of charisma, and of course you are 100% entitled to it. However, The definition you site is for the real-world use of the word. It is clear that the designers did not intend for the attribute "Charisma" to mean exactly the same thing as the real-world word "charisma"...
One can see this was not their intent just by merely looking at the Rules As Written:
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.
Again I site, as Jason Bulmahn said above, Charisma (the attribute) is a tool that should be used to help define and flesh out ones character within the game...
But whatever, to each their own...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Everyone has an appearance, but here are two feats you can take if you want to stress yours as especially important to your character:
Extraordinary Appearance [GENERAL]
Your appearance is an especially important part of who you are.
Benefit: Whenever you gain a circumstance bonus because of your appearance, you gain +2 more. Whenever you gain a circumstance penalty because of your appearance, you take an additional -1 penalty. These numbers change to +4 and -2 respectively at 10th level.
Normal: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus or a -2 circumstance penalty based on your appearance.Epic Appearance [GENERAL]
Your appearance is nearly legendary in its beauty or ugliness or whatever else.
Prerequisite: Extraordinary Appearance
Benefit: Whenever you gain a circumstance bonus because of your appearance, you gain +4 more. Whenever you gain a circumstance penalty because of your appearance, you take an additional -2 penalty. These numbers change to +6 and -3 respectively at 10th level and they do not stack with the bonuses and penalties from Extraordinary Appearance.
Normal: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus or a -2 circumstance penalty based on your appearance.----------------
Now, I’m not 100% sure about how good those feats are, but my feeling is that they’re balanced as long as the DM knows what he’s doing (and if he doesn’t, he should generally just ignore appearance anyway and stick to the stuff that hard rules can actually handle). In any case, this is just one alternate idea, certainly not the only one possible, and while it clearly isn’t perfect, at least it makes more sense than lumping it in with Charisma.
These are basically akin to the "Striking Looks" merit available in the NWoD system, which can give you a +2 or +4 bonus, depending which level you wanted to take. But rather than making them Feats, I would make them Traits. Feats are special skills and abilities that are developed over time, whereas your appearance is something you are. I think that if it is going to be separated from Charism, then it should be something that is set at character creation. Of course, minor adjustments can be made along the way, through role-play - if you are doing a lot of heavy adventuring, you might slim down from a chunky 250 pounds to a lithe 180, and the DM might give you some additional circumstance bonuses accordingly. Or maybe your character discovered soap and the concept of bathing, and skin that was once acne-ridden becomes smoother and more supple, again adding some bonuses to your appearance. But these are adjustments that should be made by an astute GM through the course of role-play, not by some arbitrary purchase when you gain a level.
You know my beef with Charisma? It's a highly volatile stat that should be capable of changing much more drastically than it mechanically does.
Here's an example: Balalet Alris, an NPC wizard in my last D&D campaign, had a Charisma of 8. He was incredibly shy and introverted, carried himself incredibly meekly, and hardly ever spoke unless he had to. He dressed as a woman because he felt less pressure to be assertive or confident when people thought of him as a woman. He was easily overlooked and not considered much of anything.
Then, he went away for a few months, shifted his outlook on the world, started carrying himself with more confidence, started using his intellect to manipulate people, started dressing as a male and acting more assertive, and generally being a very different person.
And his Charisma score had to mechanically stay the same, because he couldn't increase it. He shifted his stature, his bearing, and basically his entire persona, but despite this, mechanically, he was still an easily overlooked wallflower who couldn't socialize himself out of a paper bag. Because the stat that all of his social interaction was tied to was not able to shift with him.
The other stats are a lot more prone to remaining "still" as it were. Sure, you can buff yourself up by lifting weights and thereby increase your strength, but it would take longer to accomplish. Changing your outlook and bearing isn't something that is going to take years of training, and it certainly isn't something you would necessarily sacrifice other attributes to accomplish. Balalet should have had a much higher Charisma at the end of the game, but he didn't simply because even putting a +1 from his fourth level (which he barely even hit) would have had such a marginal impact upon his mechanical personality and the increase to his INT was a much more mechanically effective choice. Charisma does sort of cause some problems in that regard. In a way, it's the most fluid of the attributes in the game, but the rules necessitate it remaining unfluid. That's my issue with it.
And on the humorous front, I occasionally joke that Charisma is all about genital size for men or bust size for women. Each +1 of the modifier adds 1" to the man's length or a cup size to the woman. Charisma 18? D-Cup or 10" long. That sort of thing. It's entirely in jest, but this thread reminded me of it a bit. *shrug*
|
|
Charisma isn't any more fluid than the other abilities in that regard. Ability increases are level dependant, and levels are XP dependant. So any activity that doesn't come with XP will not increase your abilities. This unfortunately covers the majority of activities that people would realistically do to improve themselves. It makes for ridiculous scenarios: bodybuilders that never become stronger, dancers that never become more limber, travelers that never become wiser.
Any example of ability changes will need to focus on adventurers, because the system doesn't really support a larger field of anecdotes.