|
How about Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III in the play of the same name?
I imagine Richard would have high scores in Intelligence and Charisma. However, if Charisma is also based on appearance, then we would have to penalise Richard for his extreme physical deformities. Let us say, if he was a PC in Pathfinder, that he had Charisma score of 7.
Now, would his appearance alter the reaction of NPCs? Richard might encounter people who find his appearance revolting and so they are hostile. He does, after all, have a penalty to his Charisma (-2). The majority would be indifferent. Is this hostility because of a game mechanic or is it because of the GM deciding that an NPC just finds Richard too revolting?
Richard might have some inherent qualities, represented in his personality and in his physical appearance, that many may consider unsettling. May be he drools a bit when he eats, a lisp or a stammer, a tendency to stare straight into the eyes of whoever he is speaking to or has a surprisingly awkward gait. Anyway, these physical traits are not appealing and are demonstrations of his low Charisma.
However, Richard is extremely manipulative and persuasive. He manages to turn the opinion of people from negative to positive in a short amount of time. In the play, Anne Neville, the widow of the Prince of Wales, has an intense dislike of Richard due to past offences. In their conversation Richard ingratiates himself and woos her. He turns her from (possibly) Hostile to Friendly.
The GM (if the events of the play were set as a game) could use Richard's Charisma (lack of magnetism, poor appearance) against him. May be some people are just too turned off to even try dealing with the man. This does rule out his ability to manipulate the events and the people in the play. So, Richard would have ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive to represent that he was learned how to deal with, and persuade, people.
In game terms, Richard probably would have a high Charisma, but a score of 7 does not mean you can rule out a character giving a PC with "social skills" as their class skills a run for their money. I think you cannot look at Charisma independently and rule that out as a fatal flaw. Richard could have a low Charisma, but a strong score in Intelligence and a bunch of skills that would allow him to turn a person around once he had the chance to speak to him.
Just because a PC has a high Charisma does not guarantee that he will suddenly be accepted wherever he goes. He might find himself in the same position as the low Charisma PC. Also, beauty can often draw unwanted attention. It can make a PC a target where the low Charisma PC is ignored. A GM just needs to be creative in how they deal with any ability score, especially Charisma.
|
As someone who has actually played a low-charisma monk as "pretty but introverted", I think that's a perfectly valid way of combining the numerical necessity of a dump stat with the aesthetic necessity of a good-looking protagonist. And as an introvert in real life, I can tell you that even without opening one's mouth, one can exude an air of insecurity and goofiness that can easily take front stage before whatever objective looks one might have.
You mentioned beauty contests: Actually, an objectively less beautiful person can easily win over the jury with a dazzling smile and a disarming laugh while the more beautiful person sweats, stutters and stares at her feet. Physical beauty only makes up a part of what is perceived as a person's "looks". I had a classmate in school whom I discovered to be very beautiful after having wrongly categorized her as "meh" for weeks on the basis of her reserved impression.
Or if you're using Comeliness, you give Richard a low Comeliness but a high Charisma, toss in some ranks in the appropriate skills, and you have a character who automatically makes a bad first impression but once people get to know him can turn that impression around.
D20 systems are bad for modeling ugly but charismatic figures or beautiful but uncharismatic ones, at least by the RAW, unless you incorporate old rules like Comeliness or do a lot of handwaving.
Or if you're using Comeliness, you give Richard a low Comeliness but a high Charisma, toss in some ranks in the appropriate skills, and you have a character who automatically makes a bad first impression but once people get to know him can turn that impression around.
D20 systems are bad for modeling ugly but charismatic figures or beautiful but uncharismatic ones, at least by the RAW, unless you incorporate old rules like Comeliness or do a lot of handwaving.
Or you not codify it at all because it's a stupid, stupid decision.
Especially in 1e where half-orcs had a penalty and elves had a bonus because pffff skinny white people should clearly get a bonus in wow my eyes just started bleeding funny that.
Why all the beholder hate >.> it's almost as pretty as Shuma-Gorath =)
Ok Shadowlord how long did it take you to become attracted to said low app girls and would you date someone unapealing I bet it took longer than a min.
Your original point was that low CHA = ugly. I gave examples of two women I knew who I did not find physically attractive but who I would still judge to have high CHA in game terms. They both became my friends pretty much instantly. One of them was among my closest friends. That said, low CHA = ugly has been addressed using these real life examples. How long it may have taken for me to become physically attracted to one of them is irrelevant to that point.
Yap, unatractive people do find happiness, money sometimes comes into play.
Yes it can be, it can also not be. I don't see how this has anything to do with an argument of what CHA represents in a game.
"Would you tell your girlfriend/wife It's what on the inside that counts." "Looks aren't everything." or "I love your personality, it really brings out your mole."
Actually, the major difference between my current relationship and the one prior is in personalities. However, this is not relevant to the low CHA = ugly argument. You are turning this into a contest of sexual attraction to determine highest CHA. Sexual attraction and being Charismatic are not the same thing. There are plenty of published PF examples that would agree with me. If you would like to shift your argument from low CHA = ugly over to sexual attraction = high CHA I can argue that as well, with both game and RL examples.
Game = Night Hag. Very ugly, and very high CHA.
RL = A girl I knew who, while very pretty, had several glaring personality flaws and no ability to command respect or lead people. Very pretty, and low CHA.
I do not know jess, but are you saying she has a 7 app? Not your best diplomacy roll :(
She said CHA 7 not app 7. Specifically she said CHA 7 due to social difficulties. I didn't make any judgment of her, you did. I don't feel I am in any position to judge her overall charisma, due to the fact that I am a stranger on the internet. The only thing I could judge accurately is that I think her posts show creativity.
I also find it interesting that you challenge me on the question I asked about Jess, and answered in the manner you did, but said nothing regarding statement I made about your Mr.Fishy comment.
I'll right shadow, why don't you show me the raw where a 7 isn't fugly.
There are a couple ways for me to attack this argument...
1) In the words of Mr.Fishy "Descriptions are fluff, Cha mods are RAW." So:
CHA 7 ugly Fighter
-2 CHA penalty = RAW
description as ugly = FLUFF
CHA 7 handsome Fighter
-2 CHA penalty = RAW
description as handsome = FLUFF
Now according to your husband, fluff is meaningless and doesn't affect RAW. How you describe your character can therefore not matter. Additionally if that is the case the description of the CHA ability is also fluff and also doesn't affect the numbers; so is ultimately subjective and doesn't matter.
2) Take in all number data and descriptions, as a whole, to determine RAW: I am not going to list examples because I, as well as others, have already posted several example, the list is long. But the fact is, descriptions of looks and CHA score are not directly linked. Published Player Race NPCs with low CHA scores are depicted both artistically and in their descriptions as being beautiful or handsome, while others have a higher CHA score with looks that are bland or even ugly. NPC races show the same pattern as do Monsters.
3) CHA is listed as a "mental ability score" in the aging rules. I would say that is a RAW example. If CHA is purely mental then it cannot have anything to do with looks. It could on the other hand, have a little something to do with general appearance, since appearance is not comprised 100% from your raw looks.
So pick a method of determining RAW (1.RAW includes descriptions. 2.RAW is number data and descriptions are purely FLUFF.) and I will gladly debate you on the subject. I can effectively argue my point either way.
I have read the first few hundred posts & last few, so apologies if this has already been brought up. But is there even a consistant way to describe attractiveness. What would make someone attractive?
As Ash (maybe?) said she does not find Megan Fox attractive, but as a Film Star surely she has a COM score in the high teens. The attractiveness should depend upon the description of the character, not a stat or even an associated stat. A description of a thin blonde with big....prospects, could be attractive to some but in other eras/ cultures/individuals it could be less attractive. I conceed that we need a universal constant that is the campaign world, but not every NPC is going to be overawed by a PC desribed in a particular way.
This is a game of heroic FANTASY, so why not let characters be special if they wish? You don't have to change NPC reactions that much, even if you give the fluff of my fighter is ruggedly hansome. Heck, even being a medium level fighter should allow them to get respect & girls/boys if they try (depending on your game & their actions of course). But allowing PC's to feel special (if they want) should improve their enjoyment and therefore the fun of the game, provided they do not go overboard of course.
Actually, RAW says it effects appearance. So it would "appear" burden of proof falls on you to show that it doesn't.
Yes the description says it affects appearance. Appearance is a subjective word that isn't necessarily synonymous with pure looks. Which you have also admitted:
I have been clear that it isn't specifically pretty or ugly. It is attractive or unattractive.
Do you attract people to follow you (leadership)
Do you attract people to be for your cause.
Do you attract the energies around you to the point you can channel it (all of the charisma based casters)
What we are debating here is whether or not "pure looks" are strictly governed by CHA. From your own quote it seems you agree that looks are not in fact directly governed by CHA by any universal standard.
And since diplomacy doesn't say it effects anything but the hostility scale, specifically it can make someone friendly or, at best, helpful.
"helpful" is not the same as thinking you are dashing. Kind of like a good survival check doesn't make you wise.
1) Hostility Scale is nowhere in the description. Starting attitude is, which can be anything from hostile to helpful. The scale isn't measuring degrees of hostility, it is measuring degrees of how much someone likes or dislikes you.
2) "Friendly" and "Helpful" can mean a variety of things, aptly demonstrated by Ash's post concerning Charm Person and Potions of Love both of which make someone "Friendly" to you. The same "Friendly" that Diplomacy uses. And based on that you could make someone your best friend or lover for life with a successful Diplomacy check, or series of Diplomacy checks: "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)."
3) Dashing and Heroic have very similar meanings, both words share several synonyms. If Ash had chosen to describe her Fighter as Heroic instead would you be arguing so adamantly that her adventuring Fighter could not be heroic because he lacked the charisma?
|
How are Amiri and Laori Vaus' appearances negative?If you have negative Charisma, your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are all negatives attributes.
Laori Vaus is described as "unsettling" to those around her.
So her appearance (how she is viewed by others, not her looks specifically) unsettles those around here.
Amiri was chased off from her tribe. And so she probably has some interpersonal issues.
Charisma is a strong personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
|
|
I literally understand no points you are apparently trying to make. What do you mean by "all are negative attributes"? Are you suggesting that all people with poor leadership abilities are also unattractive? That's absurd.
Unattractive means people aren't attracted to you.
It isn't only referring to sexual attraction.
I could think someone is hot, but also a horrible human being that I want nothing to do with.
I would be sexually attracted to someone I find unattractive as a person.
Low Charisma means people generally don't like you and don't want to follow you or be around you UNLESS they need to be for some purpose or shared goal.
Diplomacy is the ability to get someone to be friendly and helpful towards you and your goal. Many people hate the French, but the French are also allies to many people who have shared goals due to long standing diplomatic agreements.
Diplomacy can be used to get people to work with you, but your still an unattractive person if you have negative charisma.
Think of someone at work you think is obnoxious, but you work with because you are on the same team. That person has a low charisma, but also has a skill set your team needs so you deal with it.
|
|
What we are debating here is whether or not "pure looks" are strictly governed by CHA. From your own quote it seems you agree that looks are not in fact directly governed by CHA by any universal standard.
Not unless you are using the royal "We". The discussion is effects of Charisma. That is one aspect some people are arguing.
1) Hostility Scale is nowhere in the description. Starting attitude is, which can be anything from hostile to helpful. The scale isn't measuring degrees of hostility, it is measuring degrees of how much someone likes or dislikes you.
2) "Friendly" and "Helpful" can mean a variety of things, aptly demonstrated by Ash's post concerning Charm Person and Potions of Love both of which make someone "Friendly" to you. The same "Friendly" that Diplomacy uses. And based on that you could make someone your best friend or lover for life with a successful Diplomacy check, or series of Diplomacy checks: "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)."
3) Dashing and Heroic have very similar meanings, both words share several synonyms. If Ash had chosen to describe her Fighter as Heroic instead would you be arguing so adamantly that her adventuring Fighter could not be heroic because he lacked the charisma?
1. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
Check
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier.
Succeed - If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
Fail - If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step.
2. Friendly and Hostile have very specific meaning in the game, with full explanations of how things interact based on where they fall on the hostile to helpful scale. You know this, and it is very clear in the diplomacy description that the check is used to move people up and down this scale. It isn't about people liking you, it is about them being willing to work with you.
3. Dashing and Heroic do not have similar meanings.
Heroic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heroic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dashing
You can do heroic things and not be dashing. You can appear to be dashing and not be heroic. They are nowhere near synonyms.
I stand by my statement that you are trying to avoid penalties for charisma so you can have a dump stat.
|
|
I stand by my statement that you are trying to avoid penalties for charisma so you can have a dump stat.And in the case of many of us (I can't speak for all of us, but I've seen other examples I can be certain of,) that is flat out wrong. We believe in penalties for charisma, we just find it completely retarded and stupid to base appearance and initial opinion off a stat.
I've already clarified my position on this and will let others handle the debating in this thread for the most part, but the fact of the matter is, in my games players or npc's look like what they are supposed to look like. What they are supposed to look like is dictated by either the player or GM for respective character owners, irrespective of charisma. In your games, if you want cha to dictate appearance, go for it.
(Also, I suspect we're talking in circles here, I've seen you basically agree to having people that look good but have s&%%ty personalities as acceptable use of low cha, but then go on to start the discussion up again on a different track lol.)
Again, not you. Shadowlord in this case, who I definitely believe this about.
Also, have you actually read what I am posting?
It isn't about physical appearance, it's about how you appear to other people.
You can be ugly, but impressive. You can be hot but annoying.
As long as there is a bonus and a penalty to interaction.
It isn't about physical appearance, it's about how you appear to other people.
You can be ugly, but impressive. You can be hot but annoying.
As long as there is a bonus and a penalty to interaction.
So you actually agree with us?
Pretty much everything we've been saying is that looks (such as handsome, pretty, etc) are disassociated (or can be) from a character's raw charisma modifier.The example I've shown repeatedly is a low charisma fighter. It's not all that low (7 charisma) but it does provide a -2 to social interactions. He's handsome and - at least by 3rd level - is quite dashing in most every sense of the word, but he has a variety of other social hangups (people just don't take him seriously, or he accidentally offends people, or he bores them talking about military stuff, etc), and he has a -2 to social based checks. Ultimately, he's just not that good at influencing people by default. Later he gets better, but he's not that good at first.
Likewise, even if he was - hypothetically - roleplayed like a really nice guy, very polite, and very handsome, it's possible that people wouldn't take him seriously because he hasn't learned how to actually display these traits without coming off a bit goofy.
Either way, he still has a -2 penalty to social interaction, and choosing to be pretty (and entirely fluff thing) isn't going to change that, unless the GM changes it (and then proceeds to complain about it).
1. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
Check
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier.Succeed - If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
Fail - If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step.
I have read how the check works and my post had nothing to do with a debate on how the check works or what it does. You used the term "hostility scale" when that is not in fact what the scale in Diplomacy is, it is a "Starting Attitude" scale. The two phrases carry very different connotations.
2. Friendly and Hostile have very specific meaning in the game, with full explanations of how things interact based on where they fall on the hostile to helpful scale...
Really? The only explanation I saw of the different degrees in the Diplomacy entry is this one:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
All this says is that starting at indifferent you can make requests. As the target's attitude toward you grows more positive the requests become easier. That entry does not specifically exclude, nor include, creating friendships or other relationships under this skill.
However, the fact that both the Charm Person spell (which states: "makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally.") and the Elixir of Love (which states: "causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft.") both refer back to the "Friendly" level on the Diplomacy scale; I would say that friendships and other relationships can in fact be created with Diplomacy checks. Coupled with the fact that those results can last indefinitely ("Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).") and what I said is entirely accurate:
"Friendly" and "Helpful" can mean a variety of things, aptly demonstrated by Ash's post concerning Charm Person and Potions of Love both of which make someone "Friendly" to you. The same "Friendly" that Diplomacy uses. And based on that you could make someone your best friend or lover for life with a successful Diplomacy check, or series of Diplomacy checks: "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)."
You know this, and it is very clear in the diplomacy description that the check is used to move people up and down this scale. It isn't about people liking you, it is about them being willing to work with you.
Intimidate is about making people who don't like you work with you. Diplomacy is about winning people over.
3. Dashing and Heroic do not have similar meanings.
Heroic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heroic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dashing
You can do heroic things and not be dashing. You can appear to be dashing and not be heroic. They are nowhere near synonyms.
I said they "share" synonyms, not that they "are" synonyms, which is true. I also said they have similar meanings, not exactly the same meaning, and since they do in fact share synonyms this must be true to some degree. Judging by your reply, your answer to my actual question would be, "No."
I stand by my statement that you are trying to avoid penalties for charisma so you can have a dump stat.
Shadowlord in this case, who I definitely believe this about.
Believe what you like, I have stated my opinions and intent several times. The negatives of a low CHA are plainly stated, a mechanical -X modifier to CHA related things and I have never argued against those -X penalties. My own opinion of you is very similarly to what kyrt-ryder said about you. You have changed your argument several times.
I've seen you basically agree to having people that look good but have s@!!ty personalities as acceptable use of low cha, but then go on to start the discussion up again on a different track lol.
Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, William DaFoe, we could just go on and on.
Joe Pesci, I think, proves exactly why intimidate is a charisma skill, not a strength skill. The guy is like half my size, and could still make me - and everyone else here, you know it - wet ourselves.
Incidentally? I wouldn't exactly call him a "handsome man."
Oh, and nobody is trying to make charisma a dump stat, we just think tying it to appearence is dumb and wrong. I've already stated that the key to changing it is to give charisma benefits.
Or if you're using Comeliness, you give Richard a low Comeliness but a high Charisma, toss in some ranks in the appropriate skills, and you have a character who automatically makes a bad first impression but once people get to know him can turn that impression around.
D20 systems are bad for modeling ugly but charismatic figures or beautiful but uncharismatic ones, at least by the RAW, unless you incorporate old rules like Comeliness or do a lot of handwaving.
Or you not codify it at all because it's a stupid, stupid decision.
Especially in 1e where half-orcs had a penalty and elves had a bonus because pffff skinny white people should clearly get a bonus in wow my eyes just started bleeding funny that.
And how is this quantifiably different from Pathfinder where half-orcs have a bonus to Intimidate even against other half-orcs? Do they even scare themselves when they look in the mirror to brush their tusks?
In 1st ed elves were the "it girls" of society because apparently skinny white folk were the in thing. Pathfinder, the +2 CHA (which by the RAW includes looks, so yeah, it comes to the same thing) is applied to halflings and gnomes. The new "it girls" are apparently suave little Latino dudes and perky Asian chicks with dyed anime hair and imaginative cosplay outfits.
Does it follow any logical sense, other than the societal ideal currently pointing at the short people? The occasional human who gets a 20 CHA at first level probably gets a lot of "Wow, you're awfully tall to be looking that hot. Usually only halflings and gnomes can be so cute."
It should also be pointed out that 1st ed in the Dragon magazine clarifications to UA had rules for similar races being more attracted to their own race and similar ones than to ones that were more exotic.
|
|
I have read how the check works and my post had nothing to do with a debate on how the check works or what it does. You used the term "hostility scale" when that is not in fact what the scale in Diplomacy is, it is a "Starting Attitude" scale. The two phrases carry very different connotations.=
You posted about how to use the diplomacy check to do something, but the rules of the diplomacy check have nothing to do with what you posted?
If this is the baseline you are starting from, I give up. Until they have an ignore feature, I'll just have to do it manually.
|
|
It isn't about physical appearance, it's about how you appear to other people.
You can be ugly, but impressive. You can be hot but annoying.
As long as there is a bonus and a penalty to interaction.
So you actually agree with us?
Pretty much everything we've been saying is that looks (such as handsome, pretty, etc) are disassociated (or can be) from a character's raw charisma modifier.The example I've shown repeatedly is a low charisma fighter. It's not all that low (7 charisma) but it does provide a -2 to social interactions. He's handsome and - at least by 3rd level - is quite dashing in most every sense of the word, but he has a variety of other social hangups (people just don't take him seriously, or he accidentally offends people, or he bores them talking about military stuff, etc), and he has a -2 to social based checks. Ultimately, he's just not that good at influencing people by default. Later he gets better, but he's not that good at first.
Likewise, even if he was - hypothetically - roleplayed like a really nice guy, very polite, and very handsome, it's possible that people wouldn't take him seriously because he hasn't learned how to actually display these traits without coming off a bit goofy.
Either way, he still has a -2 penalty to social interaction, and choosing to be pretty (and entirely fluff thing) isn't going to change that, unless the GM changes it (and then proceeds to complain about it).
It isn't just to skill checks. It's to everything related to social interactions.
This is where we differ.
Your Fighter may be handsome physically, but something about him is unsettling or off putting to those around him. He repels people. Now with diplomacy he can get people to overlook these traits, or he can just intimidate them into doing what he wants. But he is off-putting if he has negative charisma just as much as he is intriguing for positive charisma.
Your Fighter may be handsome physically, but something about him is unsettling or off putting to those around him. He repels people. Now with diplomacy he can get people to overlook these traits, or he can just intimidate them into doing what he wants. But he is off-putting if he has negative charisma just as much as he is intriguing for positive charisma.
Show me where it says that.
I want to know the rule that says that the fluff part of these mechanics has to match your description of them. Go ahead, I'll wait.
But while I'm waiting, Shadowlord and others are right. You keep changing your argument and I honestly don't see where you're making any sense. You're saying a specific 7 Charisma means a specific thing and all 7 Charisma people must somehow be the same. Jess Door pointed out why this is completely absurd.
You posted about how to use the diplomacy check to do something, but the rules of the diplomacy check have nothing to do with what you posted?
Really? Then please quote what I said and show me exactly where you think I am wrong and why.
What I think you are talking about is my statement about making lifelong friends and even lovers through Diplomacy interactions. If that is the case, you are right, nothing in the Diplomacy rules specifically spell that out. There are also no descriptions or rules in Diplomacy that specifically exclude these possibilities. There are, however, other descriptions paired with the same mechanic that lead me to my conclusion. I can very easily show you the logic path that brought me to that conclusion:
1) Diplomacy can be used to shift people to the Friendly/Helpful attitude toward you.
2) The results of the check can last 1d4 hours, or possibly much longer or much shorter based on the situation and GM discretion.
3) There is very little flavor text for the Diplomacy skill. In fact that seems to be a common trait in PF, which seems to encourage GMs and Players to create their own flavor text to go with things. There is quite a bit less needless flavor text in PF than there was, from what I recall, in 3.5 books.
4) Charm Person and Elixir of Love also put people in the Friendly attitude category. So, being a trusted friend or completely infatuated with someone are placed under the same mechanical "Friendly" attitude category that is found in the Diplomacy description.
There you have it, feel free to ignore or rebuttal as you see fit. Incidentally, I am not the only person who sees Diplomacy as a way to determine these types of interactions. I have played in many games where after a few minutes of good "flirty" RP with an NPC bar maid the GM will ask for a Diplomacy roll to determine just how well or poorly she will react to the advances. Now, if you have a low CHA then the -X penalty will be there, and you will never quite as good as someone with -/+0 or near as good as someone with a +X. But nowhere, in any rules or descriptions do the designers say how that -/+X has to be represented or RPd.
[tangent]
Just like a low DEX guy has to have a -X modifier to several things, but nowhere does it say how that must be represented. You could say he is crippled somehow, or he is big and slow, or maybe he's just slow and not big, and maybe he is just clumsy. You can describe it and RP it any way you want, it really doesn't make any difference. The only negatives that are spelled out for a low ability score is the -X modifier associated with it.
[/tangent]
....
There is another thing that puts people into the "Friendly" category for a short time: Intimidate. Obviously you are not winning friends or lovers with Intimidate but it makes sense that they might "act" that way for a short time. It does put them into that same mechanical attitude category. While you can't make true friends this way, it is a good mechanic to depict situations like the little guy being bullied by the big guy. The little guy will act like he is the big guy's best friend when he is backed into a corner. But he is intimidated, it is just a show to try and get out of what he fears is coming. Again, Intimidate is for making people who don't like you work with you anyway; Diplomacy is for actually winning people over.
Something else I just found, in the Getting Started section of the PRD under Generating a Character, step six says:
Step 6—Finishing Details: Finally, you need to determine all of a character's details, including his starting hit points (hp), Armor Class (AC), saving throws, initiative modifier, and attack values. All of these numbers are determined by the decisions made in previous steps. Aside from these, you need to decide on your character's name, alignment, and physical appearance. It is best to jot down a few personality traits as well, to help you play the character during the game. Additional rules (like age and alignment) are described in Additional Rules.
Nowhere does it say that the physical appearance you decide on must be based on anything else. Now you might say, "Wait, it also mentions HP, AC, Saves, and Initiative, all of which are based on abilities. Yet it doesn't say they must be decided based on your abilities in this section either." You would be right about that, but all of those things have hyperlinks in the actual PRD entry to their respective areas of RAW, in which the specific directions for determining these values, including ability score mods, are laid out. Interestingly enough, physical appearance has no hyperlink and no rules governing how you must determine it. Furthermore the text I put in italics seems to specifically exclude deciding physical appearance from anything determined in previous steps, to include ability scores.
Something else I just found, in the Getting Started section of the PRD under Generating a Character, step six says:
Step 6—Finishing Details: Finally, you need to determine all of a character's details, including his starting hit points (hp), Armor Class (AC), saving throws, initiative modifier, and attack values. All of these numbers are determined by the decisions made in previous steps. Aside from these, you need to decide on your character's name, alignment, and physical appearance. It is best to jot down a few personality traits as well, to help you play the character during the game. Additional rules (like age and alignment) are described in Additional Rules.Nowhere does it say that the physical appearance you decide on must be based on anything else. Now you might say, "Wait, it also mentions HP, AC, Saves, and Initiative, all of which are based on abilities. Yet it doesn't say they must be decided based on your abilities in this section either." You would be right about that, but all of those things have hyperlinks in the actual PRD entry to their respective areas of RAW, in which the specific directions for determining these values, including ability score mods, are laid out. Interestingly enough, physical appearance has no hyperlink and no rules governing how you must determine it. Furthermore the text I put in italics seems to specifically exclude deciding physical appearance from anything determined in previous steps, to include ability scores.
I think citing a lack of hyperlinks as support for any stance is a little flimsy. Yes, we determine our characters appearance - by assigning them a Charisma score.
Much like how we assign our characters Skills - which are not mentioned nor hyperlinked in the 'Getting Started' section.
I get where you are coming from but... it's a real stretch to use what you've supplied as 'evidence' for the case.
I like the idea, but it does seems like a bit of a stretch....
::
Personally, if I want to make a character, I find the actual sections that addresses making of a character and read the specific areas that govern the aspects of creation, including the definition of each value and what they govern. I.E For Charisma, I'd look up Charisma and see what it does. (especially as a new player) Then I make choices based on information from the specific section.
The Getting Started section, quite obviously, informs me, the player, what I do as a player, what a character is and provides some of the example values that comprise a character. That's about it.
They're normally an overview intended to orientate rather than provide a character creation guide. Of course, this one might be different but...
::
..the best support is still the lack of clarity concerning what 'appearance' is, when mentioned under the Charisma stat.
..and that as long as a character is claiming no game benefits from being 'good looking' (for a given value of 'good looking') and is still dealing with the charisma penalty incurred by their low stat then all is well.
::
Of course, after the 100th 'Mighty Warrior with Cha 6/7/8 who is actually good looking but simply doesn't get on well with people' things get very.. stale..
..and we end up playing a cliche'.
NOT COOL YO! O_O
For me, that's where the real fun is - characters with original.. character.
..and no, a long a$$ back story does not equate to an original character!
|
|
Your Fighter may be handsome physically, but something about him is unsettling or off putting to those around him. He repels people. Now with diplomacy he can get people to overlook these traits, or he can just intimidate them into doing what he wants. But he is off-putting if he has negative charisma just as much as he is intriguing for positive charisma.Show me where it says that.
I want to know the rule that says that the fluff part of these mechanics has to match your description of them. Go ahead, I'll wait.
But while I'm waiting, Shadowlord and others are right. You keep changing your argument and I honestly don't see where you're making any sense. You're saying a specific 7 Charisma means a specific thing and all 7 Charisma people must somehow be the same. Jess Door pointed out why this is completely absurd.
Show me where it says Diplomacy makes you sexy. The "prove a negative game" breaks both ways.
It's very simple. You can be sexually attractive and still be unsettling and disturbing. But if you have a negative charisma, those interacting with you have a negative impression of you.
I've already gone through what each of the Charisma based skill checks can and can not do. I've posted the RAW written Charisma several times, and I don't find it at all unclear.
Charisma = the force of your personality.
You can use it to make people like you, you can use it to make people follow you, you can use it to make magic items work, you can use it (if you are a Charisma based caster) to call forth arcane power to do your bidding.
And yes, you can use it to make the bar wench want to do you.
You and the others don't seem to get the distinction between "cute" and Charismatic.
A kitten is cute, Hitler was Charismatic.
Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her physically being attractive, because she's creepy as hell.
That is low Charisma.
.
..
...
....
.....
What isn't said anywhere is that the higher the Charisma, the more attractive the PC is.
Yup +1
|
|
There is another thing that puts people into the "Friendly" category for a short time: Intimidate. Obviously you are not winning friends or lovers with Intimidate but it makes sense that they might "act" that way for a short time. It does put them into that same mechanical attitude category. While you can't make true friends this way, it is a good mechanic to depict situations like the little guy being bullied by the big guy. The little guy will act like he is the big guy's best friend when he is backed into a corner. But he is intimidated, it is just a show to try and get out of what he fears is coming. Again, Intimidate is for making people who don't like you work with you anyway; Diplomacy is for actually winning people over.
Diplomacy is for making people work with you by convincing them you have shared interests.
Intimdate is for making people work with you because you will hurt them if they don't.
Neither of these means they have to like you. We just played out a scenario last night where thanks to a ridiculously high diplomacy check a Shoanti and a Hellknight were about to negotiate an agreement to not interfere with each other on a specific thing.
They still are a Shoanti and a Hellknight, so they are far from friends regardless of the diplomacy check. But they have a common enemy in the game that they hate more than each other, so they can come together on this one issue, this one time.
This is diplomacy.
|
|
.
..
...
....
.....
What isn't said anywhere is that the higher the Charisma, the more attractive the PC is.Yup +1
And again, attractive is NOT JUST PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE!
Hot but annoying happens. Ugly but charming also happens.
If you have low Charisma, people aren't attracted to you, even if you are physically attractive.
If you have high Charisma, people are drawn to you even if you are ugly.
I think citing a lack of hyperlinks as support for any stance is a little flimsy.
By itself maybe, but together with the other examples given throughout the book as well as those in the Bestiary and GMG? It is no more flimsy than hanging on the fact that "and" is used instead of "or" in the CHA description and using that to come to an opinion that is in direct contradiction to every other example in the game.
Yes, we determine our characters appearance - by assigning them a Charisma score.
Determining ability scores is step 1. Now the text in step 6 clearly states that the numbers associated with NP, AC, Saves, Initiative and Saves are determined by the decisions made in previous steps (like abilities in step 1 for instance). It then goes to say, "Aside from these," you must determine alignment and physical appearance as well as personality quirks if any.
The term fact that previous items are specifically stated to be determined from the decisions in previous steps followed by "aside from that" you determine physical appearance clearly separates previous steps, including ability scores, from determining physical appearance. If you want to call that flimsy then also realize basing an entire argument on the difference between "and appearance" vs. "or appearance" is just as flimsy. And there are numerous other examples in the game that will back my flimsy argument up, whereas the "and appearance" argument seems to stand alone in contradiction to prevalent examples.
Much like how we assign our characters Skills - which are not mentioned nor hyperlinked in the 'Getting Started' section.
Actually assigning feats and skills is in step 4 of the process and ARE hyperlinked to areas where those rules are laid out and the process of how to factor in Ability Mods is explained.
I get where you are coming from but... it's a real stretch to use what you've supplied as 'evidence' for the case.
Not when coupled with everything else. It's likely that this, by itself, would not win any arguments. But link it to all the other examples and descriptions in the published material and it helps to show a bigger picture/pattern.
Personally, if I want to make a character, I find the actual sections that address making the character and read the specific areas that govern the aspects of creation. I.E For Charisma, I'd look up Charisma and see what it does (as a new play at leat) then make choices based on that information.
The Getting Started part of the PRD in fact IS where it talks about making a character. And it is also where the description for CHA is. In fact, the 6 step process for building a character is located just above where it talks about how to generate ability scores.
Oh and I failed to add the actual URL to the Getting Started link in my previous post, so here it is: Getting Started
Diplomacy is for making people work with you by convincing them you have shared interests.
That is certainly one valid purpose for Diplomacy yes. But show me anywhere in RAW where what I wrote is wrong. Diplomacy can also be used to win people over.
Intimidate is for making people work with you because you will hurt them if they don't.
IE: Making people who don't like you work with you anyway.
Neither of these means they have to like you.
Have to? No. But it certainly CAN mean that they will end up liking you. If not, you saw my logic path and my reasoning; show me where I am wrong.
We just played out a scenario last night where thanks to a ridiculously high diplomacy check a Shoanti and a Hellknight were about to negotiate an agreement to not interfere with each other on a specific thing.
They still are a Shoanti and a Hellknight, so they are far from friends regardless of the diplomacy check. But they have a common enemy in the game that they hate more than each other, so they can come together on this one issue, this one time.
This is diplomacy.
Yes and it’s an excellent example. But by far not Diplomacies only use.
|
|
Diplomacy is for making people work with you by convincing them you have shared interests.That is certainly one valid purpose for Diplomacy yes. But show me anywhere in RAW where what I wrote is wrong. Diplomacy can also be used to win people over.
The rule for diplomacy allows you to move people up and down that scale.
That is all it does. That is what the check is for.
To say it did more than that would be like saying Jump does more than make you jump, or climb does more than make you climb.
Diplomacy allows you to make people go up or down on the Hostile to Friendly scale.
It doesn't make them like you, it just makes them see your point of view.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy
"skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility"
If you have low Charisma, people aren't attracted to you, even if you are physically attractive.
All low CHA means is you have a -X penalty to CHA based things, which includes social interactions. It doesn't specify why that is or how you have to RP it. Low CHA people don't have to be pariahs, they don't have to be companionship repellants, and they certainly don't have to play any particular physical or social deformity. What they have to do is suffer -X penalty to social interactions and come up with some way to RP that penalty.
They could be physically unattractive.
They could be very physically attractive but have severe personality flaws.
They could be pretty and kind but have a severe lack of self-confidence.
It could even be that they are pretty, kind and confident but there is something visual about them that people don't react well to. Maybe there is something odd about their eyes that unnerve people, like their eyes have no color, or are a strange color. Then again, this same thing could be the way you explain a high CHA.
It could be just a feeling that people tend to get when interacting with that person.
They could have a speech impediment of some sort.
They could have a mental disorder and simply be incapable of fully relating to people. Thereby incapable of normal social interactions.
The point is, it could be any number of things that are perfectly viable for RP and have absolutely no affect on the fact that you are still going to suffer a -X penalty to CHA based things, regardless of how you want to explain it.
If the point you are making is that Charisma determines appearance, but the fine details (eg. brunette vs. blonde, 5'10" or 6'2", etc. ) are filled out later in step 6, then I agree.
The point I am making is that the +/-X you get to CHA based things is determined by CHA. How a character looks and why they are getting that +/-X from an RP stand point are determined by the Player.
Everything you're saying is true right up to the point where a player is going to take your idea and then use it to game the system.
If that happens it is a problem with the Player not the rules. If a player were to try that then it's the GM's job to put a stop to it.
|
|
Everything you're saying is true right up to the point where a player is going to take your idea and then use it to game the system.If that happens it is a problem with the Player not the rules. If a player were to try that then it's the GM's job to put a stop to it.
But you are arguing the GM can't. If the player with a 7 Charisma says they are beautiful and wants people to find them beautiful, you are saying that the GM should not be able to say "No, you can't seduce the guard, he finds you creepy because you have a 7 Charisma."
The rule for diplomacy allows you to move people up and down that scale.
That is all it does. That is what the check is for.
Both true. But neither of those points refutes the fact that Charm Person and Elixir of Love refer back to the "friendly" attitude category which can be achieved by Diplomacy.
To say it did more than that would be like saying Jump does more than make you jump, or climb does more than make you climb.
Exactly right, but "how that jump looks" is up to the people at the table; the GM and the Player involved.
Diplomacy allows you to make people go up or down on the Hostile to Friendly scale.
And the only things provided in the Diplomacy description about those points on the scale are mechanics of how to make requests of the target. There is no flavor text to describe what that interaction must look like.
It doesn't make them like you, it just makes them see your point of view.
Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
|
|
Laori Vaus is the best example someone has given so far to illustrate this, ironically from your side.
She is cute, but she is also unsettling to those around her. People don't like her, despite her...
And yet she keeps endearing herself to PCs.
Should I have told my players "NO! YOU CAN'T LIKE HER!"
But you are arguing the GM can't. If the player with a 7 Charisma says they are beautiful and wants people to find them beautiful, you are saying that the GM should not be able to say "No, you can't seduce the guard, he finds you creepy because you have a 7 Charisma."
That's not what I am saying at all, but feel free to continue trying to twist my argument and put words in my mouth.
....
This is how that interaction would play out:
Player: "I am a pretty girl, I want to go flirt with that guard."
GM: "Alright, go for it."
Player: "I approach him, walking sexy, and start talking to him and flirting."
GM: "Let's have a roll shall we. Give me a X roll." (X = Diplomacy or CHA check, or whatever.)
Player: Rolls 1d20 +X -Y. (X equals any positive modifiers applicable. Y equals any penalties, to include low CHA penalty.)
GM: "The guard doesn't seem taken by you. He politely tells you he is busy and asks that you move along."
|
|
Charm Person and Elixir of Love do make people like you, and they both refer back to "friendly" which is only described in Diplomacy. I am not saying that Diplomacy HAS to make people like you, or that you HAVE to be liked in order to use Diplomacy. I am saying that people liking you is one possible outcome of some specific types of Diplomacy interactions.
Elixir of Love makes them enamored with you.
"This sweet-tasting liquid causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first creature she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person—the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours."
This more proves my point than disproves it. Charming a person with diplomacy, isn't the same as making them enraptured.
Even Charm Person isn't equivalent, as it is a spell that makes them a "trusted friend and ally"
Diplomacy isn't a spell, it's a skill. A successful diplomacy roll doesn't make them a trusted friend, just potentially an ally.