Gargantuan chainquote wall:-D No way I'm replying to that. Seriously.
Your loss. He's got some good info in there.
I'm afraid the humiliation is yours. Both exist. They mean different things.
Cite? Because I have no idea what you think reductum ad absurdum means in contrast to reductio ad absurdum.
Half-orcs are monstrosities...[opinion] Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin.[fact] Their canines often grow long enough to protrude from their mouths, and these “tusks,” combined with heavy brows and slightly pointed ears, give them their notoriously bestial appearance.[possible racial variation] While half-orcs may be impressive, few ever describe them as beautiful.
A 20 charisma is attractive that is RAW, a half orc with a 20 Cha isn't is opinion. Your opinion at that.
Even your PRD quote describes them as IMPRESSIVE. Also few implies that some would describe them as beautiful. In fact Mr. Fishy has a Half-orc female with a high charisma that is described as beautiful.
That's your argument, the best you can come up with is to randomly decide that what is written in the book (IE: RAW) is opinion? Then hang that argument on the fact that the word "impressive" and "few" were in the description. Well I guess the 17 CHA Night Hag is beautiful too then. Perhaps your "beautiful" half-orc can hook up with one sometime.
If you're talking about different characters all having a Charisma of 14 having the same net effect on Charisma-based checks, then we're in agreement. But that really doesn't entail making sure that all characters with a 14 charisma are equally good looking, rather that all of the things charisma measures, taken as a whole, produce the same modifier to checks.
I've made no assumptions, I only read what it says. Stats always do give same benefits in PF. Assumption is yours that it is a net result.There is nothing wrong in describing with a little variance. Describing contrary to the stats is what brings the problems. You can't tell by description weather it would be 6,7 or 8. You can pretty well tell weather its around 7 or 14. Then the story in game start to hapen contrary to description. If you are cool with that, I'm not the one to judge. Everyone answered -2 to my question, that's about good enough for me really. I can't see a nice looking guy receiving the -2, others seem to. Maybe they do, maybe they want to 'win' an argumet. I don't really care.
But even you yourself indicated that you apply the normal charisma modifier even when all the things that charisma measures don't and cannot factor in. That unavoidably implies that each aspect ranks equal to charisma individually.
The problem you think you're encountering that the rest of us aren't is that you want to pull out a single element of what makes up charisma and try to generate a modifier off that. Appearance. But, being abstract, Charisma really doesn't give us enough information to do that.
In real world propably not. But appearance can be an asset so it can't be decided arbitrarily by players. Charisma is all we have to go on.
Seriously this thing is just repeating same things now over and over. (not directed at you specifically Bill) I think I'm about done. People can read all my previous posts to get the answers to their arguments.
Gargantuan chainquote wall:-D No way I'm replying to that. Seriously.
The argument is there, ignore it if you like.
|
I mean specific in that his words implied that the character's low charisma a specific thing, whereas it can actually represent a wide variety of social archtypes.
I am even more lost now, in response to me posting:
Unfortunately, Pathfinder RPG seems to be lacking any rules, guidelines or advice on how to determine the starting attitude of NPCs (if someone else can find something please correct me). In lack of any such rules, it comes down to a GM decision.Now if the GM wishes to base his decision on the raw Charisma stat of a PC I think that is fine, and actally a good default. Obviously, other factors will likely come into play, like whether the PC just killed the NPC's friend, but as a default using the raw Charisma stat, or asking for a Charisma check is not a bad idea.
you wrote:
This seems exceptionally specific, especially given the things Charisma can represent. Are you saying that on sight a character should know that a person has excellent leadership capabilities or a soothing way of speaking? That's far sillier than a person who's not a naturally gifted speaker but becomes better at it as he does it.
I am still not sure what part of my original post is "specific". I never mentioned how that CHarisma was being presented, just that if there are no other significant story factors it isn't a bad idea to determine an initial attitude based on the character's charisma.
Compare someone who is attractive, well dressed & presented walking up to the NPC confidently and smiling warmingly, to a character who is homely, scruffily dressed and who nervously shuffles towards the NPC, won't make eye contact, then grins inannely.I'm not sure what this has to do with the portion of my post that you quoted, but yes, this is emulated by the +x/-x for having a high or low charisma specifically.
My example was an attempt to show that yes, sometimes an NPC could genuinely get an impression of someone's charisma just by observing them - something that you suggested was "silly".
Thats enough to make a first impression even before either of those people open their mouths. It may turn out that the confident person can't talk diplomatically for toffee and the nervous person is a skilled negotiator, but that won't come to light until they have a minute with the NPC.Nothing comes into play until you've had about a minute with someone. A person's attitude doesn't initially change because you have a low or high charisma. That would be a house rule (and a spiteful one at that) because officially a person needs a minute of NPC interaction to influence their opinion of them at all.
Yes, things do come into play before a PC has had a minute with someone - every single story factor that would help a GM determine the NPC's initial attitude. If you are arguing against that, then you would be arguing against the fact that a PC killing an NPC's friend in front of him shouldn't affect that NPC's initial attitude.
And again, Pathfinder has absolutely ZERO rules, advice or guidance on how a GM should determine an NPC's initial attitude, not even a default attutude rule. A GM using a PC's Charisma as a gauge to determine an NPC's initial attitude is as much a "houserule" as a GM using the PC's past exploits to determine initial attitude. If you feel that is "spiteful" I am sure you won't use it, but it doesn't make it wrong.
The great first impression comes during that 1st minute of NPC/PC interaction.
So, the PC killing an NPC's friend just before coming over to talk to him doesn't make an impression? The Bard just having finished regaling the tavern with a story that paints the NPC in a good light won't help make a good first impression? The first impression starts from when an NPC notices the PC, not just from when the PC opens his mouth to speak directly to the NPC.
You're, again, implying that a low charisma means a specific thing ("He looks weird, he's a slob, she's poorly dressed, she smells funny") when it can represent many things and does frequently.
I am using examples to try to illustrate my points - and I am using varied examples, from someone being shifty, to someone being aloof, to someone looking ugly. I am not suggesting Charisma is any one thing, it is a combination of many things, but most of which can show to someone who is observing them.
If no other factors indicate what the initial attitude should be, wouldn't it be logical to default to "indifferent"?
And that is fine rule of thumb if you want, but some GMs may prefer to go with the Charisma gauge - it is not BADWRONGFUN!!!!
No it's not. Now if you said "Since your character has a 7 Strength, all his gear counts as being twice as heavy because he's really not strong" when his weight limit is already lower than the average PC. Then, THEN you would be correct.
What I was trying to show in that example, was that according to a RAW mechanic, being deficient in an ability (in this case Strength) can mean you suffer doubly for the same task (in this case trying to hurt someone), and so it isn't necessarily spiteful for a GM to occassionally have a low Charisma be doubly problematic for specific tasks. But it seems that because Charisma affecting Initial Attitude is not RAW then it must be "spiteful".
It would be just as spiteful as intentionally raising all the base DCs for a character with a penalty from Charisma but using lower DCs for the characters with a bonus.
Do you deny?
Yes, I deny, because I never said a GM should use Charisma as a gauge to determine NPC's initial attitudes ALL the time, just occassionally and if no other story factors would take precedence. It is a way to differentiate the ABility from the Skill every so often.
It's already handled. If a character has no specific starting attitude then they're indifferent.
Where in the rules does it say that? It isn't handled, that is my point, Pathfinder makes no reference to how to determine Initial Attitude.
Now with a charisma penalty it's very easy within the first few moments of interaction that they will become unfriendly.
Yes, that may be possible on the odd occassion that the GM uses Charisma to determine starting attitude.
Likewise, I say it's not a good way at all. It requires metagaming on the GM's part. You're basically saying "Ok, the NPCs know what your charisma score is, regardless if it actually is low due to outward appearance or because you've got tourette syndrome and make funny twitching motions when you're talking to people.
NPCs don't magically know what a PC's charisma score is, they gauge how charismatic the PC is based upon observations they make. And I have given plenty of examples of how a low charisma (and a high charisma) could manifest itself to an observer.
Now if you are suggesting that occasionally a PC's low charisma may not manifest itself at all until that person opens his mouth and therefore it should never be assumed that Charisma has visible manifestations, then I can possibly see where you are coming from. But to be honest, more often than not a low (or high) charisma will have some visible manifestations and so I would rather not rule out the possibility of using that just because one odd character's low charisma may not manifest itself visibly.
Read my comment on strength above to see the logical fallacy and why it's both silly and spiteful. I call 'em as I see 'em, my friend.
Okay, lovely, unrepentant about referring to other people's play styles as "silly" and "spiteful", you cannot seem to accept that some people may play differently, and that their motives for doing something might not be vindictiveness because it doesn't match with how you play. We are all obviously having BADWRONGFUN because we don't play it exactly as you do.
But even you yourself indicated that you apply the normal charisma modifier even when all the things that charisma measures don't and cannot factor in. That unavoidably implies that each aspect ranks equal to charisma individually.
No, you think that the other things charisma measures don't and cannot factor in. If you will recall, I disagreed with you on that point.
I'm afraid the humiliation is yours. Both exist. They mean different things.Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequenceReductum ad absurdum is not an actual Latin phrase. "Look it up anywhere." In the process, learn humility.
Reductio ad absurdum can be used as a strawman. It wasn't used that way.
I would welcome you to point me to one single place on the internet of any acceptable repute that uses the made up latin term "reductum."
Poster's note to anyone of common sense: I already used both Wikipedia and Google. The ONLY place I found the term "reductum" referenced was Urban Dictionary.
|
|
Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.
Body language, just because that man doesn't open his mouth doesn't mean the only visual cue is how good looking he is. Does he walk with an air of confidence? Does he avoid eye contact? Does he sweat with nerves? Does he hunch over or stand straight? A lot of communication is non-verbal and so the communciation starts occuring even before someone opens their mouth to speak.
In real world propably not. But appearance can be an asset so it can't be decided arbitrarily by players.Maybe this is the root cause of the strange stand you're taking. WHY is it an asset to a character if its player describes it as attactive?
Not Lazzo, but I assume it's because most people accept that appearance does have a bearing on how other people treat you. People gifted with a high degree of physical attractiveness often are treated quite differently than average or unattractive people from the very beginning of a social interaction.
After a sustained period of social interaction the effect of appearance can wear off especially if the attractive person acts like a total troll but it's pretty clear that in real life at least appearance is a critical aspect informing social interaction.
The problem is that the various active skills (diplomacy and bluff, intimidate is a bit of an oddball) don't really reflect that initial phase of social interaction well if low charisma characters are also physically attractive and have sufficient skill ranks.
Personally I'd like the system to reflect that really attractive people often make good first surface impressions but that even non-charismatic people (think the worst archetype of the slimy high pressure car salesmen)can use skill at negotiation to get their way.
As said earlier I pretty much assume that everyone is within a certain range from the statistical norm unless they choose to invest in an attractiveness trait/feat that actually provides some sort of mechanical benefit. I'd also include a hideous visage trait that has negative penalties to diplomacy and bluff but good bonuses to intimidate to reflect how really hideous things can be quite intimidating (at least within the genre).
|
Right, but none of that is a part of the rules. At all. If that's the reasoning, people making that arguement are arguing against common sense and current RAW in the description of Charisma and race descriptions simply to make some house rule of initial impressions based solely on appearance work.
There is no "no interaction but looking at the attractiveness of the creature" first impression check. There is no "Your character is attractive so people like you" check.
Players describing thier low charisma character as attractive but horrible at presenting themself well is fluff. DMs deciding others react to that character based on his appearance is DM fiat.
The logical result of "charisma 7 automatically means your guy is ugly" in conjunction with "you may not average the constituent components of charisma to come up with your character's charisma score...all the constituent components equal your charisma score" means "all rude or unpleasant people are physically unattractive" and "all nice and pleasant people are physically attractive".
In an effort to make the game more "realistic" by using DM fiat to assign initial attitudes to NPCs in response to PCs using charisma as a quantifiable measure of a PC's physical attractiveness, you're making assumptions that force you to adhere to the above statements.
I'm reducing this stand to absurdity because it is absurd.
Right, but none of that is a part of the rules. At all. If that's the reasoning, people making that arguement are arguing against common sense and current RAW in the description of Charisma and race descriptions simply to make some house rule of initial impressions based solely on appearance work.
There is no "no interaction but looking at the attractiveness of the creature" first impression check. There is no "Your character is attractive so people like you" check.
Players describing thier low charisma character as attractive but horrible at presenting themself well is fluff. DMs deciding others react to that character based on his appearance is DM fiat.
The logical result of "charisma 7 automatically means your guy is ugly" in conjunction with "you may not average the constituent components of charisma to come up with your character's charisma score...all the constituent components equal your charisma score" means "all rude or unpleasant people are physically unattractive" and "all nice and pleasant people are physically attractive".
In an effort to make the game more "realistic" by using DM fiat to assign initial attitudes to NPCs in response to PCs using charisma as a quantifiable measure of a PC's physical attractiveness, you're making assumptions that force you to adhere to the above statements.
I'm reducing this stand to absurdity because it is absurd.
+1 this.
Half-orcs are monstrosities...[opinion] Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin.[fact] Their canines often grow long enough to protrude from their mouths, and these “tusks,” combined with heavy brows and slightly pointed ears, give them their notoriously bestial appearance.[possible racial variation] While half-orcs may be impressive, few ever describe them as beautiful.
That's your argument, the best you can come up with is to randomly decide that what is written in the book (IE: RAW) is opinion?
Fact
A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. "Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin." [fact]Look at a half-orc is his skin greenish or gray? Can be proven.Opinion
A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Half-orcs are monstrosities. To who? Can not be proven.
Yeah totally random, Your agruement is based on non RAW "fluff."
Half-orcs have no negative modifiers to their Charisma or social skills[RAW] and recieve a +2 to ANY stat including charisma[RAW]. Fact
You think you're right. Opinion. See the difference?
Right, but none of that is a part of the rules. At all. If that's the reasoning, people making that arguement are arguing against common sense and current RAW in the description of Charisma and race descriptions simply to make some house rule of initial impressions based solely on appearance work.
There is no "no interaction but looking at the attractiveness of the creature" first impression check. There is no "Your character is attractive so people like you" check.
Players describing thier low charisma character as attractive but horrible at presenting themself well is fluff. DMs deciding others react to that character based on his appearance is DM fiat.
The logical result of "charisma 7 automatically means your guy is ugly" in conjunction with "you may not average the constituent components of charisma to come up with your character's charisma score...all the constituent components equal your charisma score" means "all rude or unpleasant people are physically unattractive" and "all nice and pleasant people are physically attractive".
In an effort to make the game more "realistic" by using DM fiat to assign initial attitudes to NPCs in response to PCs using charisma as a quantifiable measure of a PC's physical attractiveness, you're making assumptions that force you to adhere to the above statements.
I'm reducing this stand to absurdity because it is absurd.
You know, that was kinda what I thought too... but apparently that was due to my misinterpretation of published examples. Or at least that is what I have been told.
Right, but none of that is a part of the rules. At all. If that's the reasoning, people making that arguement are arguing against common sense and current RAW in the description of Charisma and race descriptions simply to make some house rule of initial impressions based solely on appearance work.
There is no "no interaction but looking at the attractiveness of the creature" first impression check. There is no "Your character is attractive so people like you" check.
Players describing thier low charisma character as attractive but horrible at presenting themself well is fluff. DMs deciding others react to that character based on his appearance is DM fiat.
The logical result of "charisma 7 automatically means your guy is ugly" in conjunction with "you may not average the constituent components of charisma to come up with your character's charisma score...all the constituent components equal your charisma score" means "all rude or unpleasant people are physically unattractive" and "all nice and pleasant people are physically attractive".
In an effort to make the game more "realistic" by using DM fiat to assign initial attitudes to NPCs in response to PCs using charisma as a quantifiable measure of a PC's physical attractiveness, you're making assumptions that force you to adhere to the above statements.
I'm reducing this stand to absurdity because it is absurd.
I understand your point but the game has always had raw ability checks to some degree or another. 3.x has de-emphasized them to a large degree but you do have strength ability checks (lifting, bend bars, breaking open doors) and constitution ability checks (sustained overland travel, etc) I don't really see why you can't incorporate charisma ability checks that reflect first appearances.
I mean if wearing street clothes while trying to influence nobles imparts a -2 circumstance penalty then I don't really see why you couldn't have a charisma ability check that imparts a +2 circumstance bonus to the first social interaction you have with an NPC. I'd steer away from a double penalty but a double bonus (ability score + circumstance bonus) is definitely within the bounds of the game. I wouldn't really change the DC from indifferent to unfriendly though solely based upon appearance. Other factors such as racial hatred or antipathy might certainly cause that sort of adjustment though.
But like I said I like using an attractiveness feat/trait to reflect supermodel / comic book good looks. Everyone else is within the band of homely to "solid 7" ;) Like most people I also assume modern hygiene and nutrition levels rather than the dirty, pox ridden, lice infested pig farmer with most of his teeth missing :D Being ugly is appropriate for WHFRP not high fantasy D&D ;)
Half-orcs are monstrosities...[opinion] Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin.[fact] Their canines often grow long enough to protrude from their mouths, and these “tusks,” combined with heavy brows and slightly pointed ears, give them their notoriously bestial appearance.[possible racial variation] While half-orcs may be impressive, few ever describe them as beautiful.
That's your argument, the best you can come up with is to randomly decide that what is written in the book (IE: RAW) is opinion?Fact
A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. "Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin." [fact]Look at a half-orc is his skin greenish or gray? Can be proven.Opinion
A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Half-orcs are monstrosities. To who? Can not be proven.Yeah totally random, Your agruement is based on non RAW "fluff."
Half-orcs have no negative modifiers to their Charisma or social skills[RAW] and recieve a +2 to ANY stat including charisma[RAW]. Fact
You think you're right. Opinion. See the difference?
And just think, with a 17 CHA you can be just as beautiful as a Night Hag.
My example was an attempt to show that yes, sometimes an NPC could genuinely get an impression of someone's charisma just by observing them - something that you suggested was "silly".
Well there is Parade Armor that provides a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate towards people of the appropriate nationality, which does seem to imply that appearance could modify the Diplomacy check.
However, Charisma isn't something that is observed just by looking at someone, otherwise players are entitled to know the charisma score of everything and everyone they meet, which is silly and always will be silly because you end up with Order of the Stick world (which is very humorous but silly) where people look at people and go "Oh, I won't like him, he's got an 8 charisma; let's avoid him."
Yes, things do come into play before a PC has had a minute with someone - every single story factor that would help a GM determine the NPC's initial attitude. If you are arguing against that, then you would be arguing against the fact that a PC killing an NPC's friend in front of him shouldn't affect that NPC's initial attitude.
So, the PC killing an NPC's friend just before coming over to talk to him doesn't make an impression? The Bard just having finished regaling the tavern with a story that paints the NPC in a good light won't help make a good first impression? The first impression starts from when an NPC notices the PC, not just from when the PC opens his mouth to speak directly to the NPC.
I've never suggested otherwise. In fact, I noted that based on reputation, actions, deeds, and circumstances that starting attitudes of NPCs are really just common sense things. If the NPC has no reason to care or dislike the PC by default then they're Indifferent.
Your example is similar to the point I previously made. In this case the PC murdered one of your friends, so now you're hostile. He didn't murder your friend because he had a low charisma, and you're not hostile against him because he had a low charisma, you're hostile against him because he murdered your friend.
If you argue that a character's raw charisma score determines the starting attitude of the NPC then you're opening a can of worms, because - perhaps not intentionally - you are implying that NPCs are able to recognize your charisma score on sight, which is contradicted many times within the rules and within logical reasoning, you're implying that the ability score can be viewed regardless of the character's mannerisms, and you're also implying that either it's used as an excuse to set the NPC's initial attitude better or worse for the player sometimes if they want to but not always, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
While there are not hard-coded rules declaring how NPCs should initially begin, there probably shouldn't be (otherwise bad guys will initially end up friendly or indifferent to a high charisma PC on sight), and there is an established mechanic for dealing with these interactions (pick a starting attitude that makes sense, roll Diplomacy, see result) that is not based on the Charisma score directly. Adding in a completely separate rule - in this case choosing starting attitudes based on the character's ability scores - is further from RAW and the mechanics of interaction than merely choosing an attitude that makes sense in context of the role-playing game.
Likewise, the rule itself creates more problems due to the varying meanings of Charisma. Appearances - if particularly impressive - such as certain clothing (like parade armor) likely provide a small situational modifiers as GMs can do (such as +2/-2) depending on the situation. Your example of the murdering PC or the reputation for awesomeness are good reasons for the GM to modify starting attitudes, while arbitrarily setting it based on the PC's invisible charisma score isn't, and unfairly penalizes characters for something they're already penalized for.
And again, Pathfinder has absolutely ZERO rules, advice or guidance on how a GM should determine an NPC's initial attitude, not even a default attutude rule. A GM using a PC's Charisma as a gauge to determine an NPC's initial attitude is as much a "houserule" as a GM using the PC's past exploits to determine initial attitude. If you feel that is "spiteful" I am sure you won't use it, but it doesn't make it wrong.
My above comments set my stance on attitudes.
As to it being spiteful, yes I do believe it is because you're creating a house rule to further penalize characters who already have a penalty, and you want them to suffer more. Congratulations, it's a cute excuse.And yes, in a conversation about the rules and how they interact with each other, it wrong; because that's not how the game handles it, implies it being handled, or suggests it be handled or anything of the sort. It's not even a good rule (because of the reasons mentioned above) because it makes existing rules make less sense. Especially if you're basing it off a character's appearance (which provides no mechanical bonus barring feats, abilities, or as part of justifying a higher charisma).
And that is fine rule of thumb if you want, but some GMs may prefer to go with the Charisma gauge - it is not BADWRONGFUN!!!!
No, it's just bad, for the reasons already mentioned. It's bad mechanically because it creates problems and new issues within the rules and doesn't add anything. It conflicts with the GMs options for simply picking a starting attitude based on logic and reasoning, which in turn require you to think "Well he's got a 14 charisma which doesn't mean a damn thing, but I'm gonna pretend it does, but he also was caught shoplifting, and he did spit on that one guy, but that guy was a jerk, so maybe he's just indifferent but would be unfriendly, if it weren't for the fact he's got 14 charisma, which doesn't mean a damn thing."
Instead of just thinking "This NPC has seen him shoplift and spit on someone for fun. His initial attitude is unfriendly. The base DC is 20."
Bad rules, doesn't mesh well with the system, doesn't seem like much fun. I didn't tell you you couldn't use it. I just said it's not very good. I'm not telling you how to play your game, but I am saying that the house rule is crap. If it's your house rule then sorry, but I think it's crap. Getting bent out of shape and trying to accuse me of saying you're having "badwrongfun" isn't solving anything.
What I was trying to show in that example, was that according to a RAW mechanic, being deficient in an ability (in this case Strength) can mean you suffer doubly for the same task (in this case trying to hurt someone), and so it isn't necessarily spiteful for a GM to occassionally have a low Charisma be doubly problematic for specific tasks. But it seems that because Charisma affecting Initial Attitude is not RAW then it must be "spiteful".
No, you are inventing a new drawback to punish players with a low charisma. Do not try to disguise it or deceive the readers of this thread. Strength already gives large bonuses for having a high strength (more carrying capacity, more attack, more damage, bonuses to some skills), but it already has a defined drawback for a low score which is fairly painful (less carrying capacity, less attack, less damage, lower skills). In my example, I noted that introducing a rule that creates an additional penalty for having a low strength (in this case making objects count as double their weight for weaker characters) would be spiteful and mechanically poor. Why? Because the penalty for strength is already factored in, and now you're factoring it in with a new mechanic to make it harder for a low-strength character to function.
It's the same as having a penalty to your social checks from Charisma, and then saying "Well since you have a Charisma of 7, people don't like you before they've even interacted with you, so everyone begins at Unfriendly, so the base DC is 5 points higher for you than another character because I said so".
NOTICE: Even your post says that Story elements should trump this nonexistent rule for adjusting attitudes based on charisma, so if you gave someone a gift or did nice things for them then their attitude would set appropriately, so why even bother taking it out on 7 Cha guy? I mean, just treat them like you would anyone else, story elements included, and let them make their checks with their -2 penalty and go from there. You're complicating it and in a way that does seem spiteful.
It actually sounds like the GM is trying to punish his player for having - as you put it - badwrongfun and using a bad house rule as an excuse.
NPCs don't magically know what a PC's charisma score is, they gauge how charismatic the PC is based upon observations they make. And I have given plenty of examples of how a low charisma (and a high charisma) could manifest itself to an observer.
Now if you are suggesting that occasionally a PC's low charisma may not manifest itself at all until that person opens his mouth and therefore it should never be assumed that Charisma has visible manifestations, then I can possibly see where you are coming from. But to be honest, more often than not a low (or high) charisma will have some visible manifestations and so I would rather not rule out the possibility of using that just because one odd character's low charisma may not manifest itself visibly.
COULD. Not does. Charisma is not pigeonholed into a set archtype, nor does having a low charisma mean you're going to dress badly or ignore your hygiene. You might roleplay it that way, but it's far from set in stone.
You can also say that more often than not a low charisma has visible manifestations but I want citation. I want you to back it up. If you never engage in a social encounter then how do you look at two armed warriors and tell which has better social skills? Are you just looking for which one is pretty, which one doesn't slouch? They have good posture due to martial training. Are you looking for the one that's better dressed? Both are wearing shiny armor. What are you looking for that is immediately telling these NPCs "Hey, this guy's charisma is his dump-stat" prior to them interacting with them?
Okay, lovely, unrepentant about referring to other people's play styles as "silly" and "spiteful", you cannot seem to accept that some people may play differently, and that their motives for doing something might not be vindictiveness because it doesn't match with how you play. We are all obviously having BADWRONGFUN because we don't play it exactly as you do.
Nope. I'm referring to a specific action, not a play-style. Check this out: I have a house-rule that lets people make full-attacks as standard actions. That's not a play-style, that's a house rule. Likewise, I know lots of people play differently, and I surely don't lose sleep over it.
I'm noting what I see as spiteful because that's what it looks like to me. That is how I perceive it as I look at both the roleplaying and mechanical ripples. Seems spiteful to invent new ways to screw over your player for having a lower ability score than someone else. Woot for the playstyle!
Right, but none of that is a part of the rules. At all. If that's the reasoning, people making that arguement are arguing against common sense and current RAW in the description of Charisma and race descriptions simply to make some house rule of initial impressions based solely on appearance work.
There is no "no interaction but looking at the attractiveness of the creature" first impression check. There is no "Your character is attractive so people like you" check.
Players describing thier low charisma character as attractive but horrible at presenting themself well is fluff. DMs deciding others react to that character based on his appearance is DM fiat.
The logical result of "charisma 7 automatically means your guy is ugly" in conjunction with "you may not average the constituent components of charisma to come up with your character's charisma score...all the constituent components equal your charisma score" means "all rude or unpleasant people are physically unattractive" and "all nice and pleasant people are physically attractive".
In an effort to make the game more "realistic" by using DM fiat to assign initial attitudes to NPCs in response to PCs using charisma as a quantifiable measure of a PC's physical attractiveness, you're making assumptions that force you to adhere to the above statements.
I'm reducing this stand to absurdity because it is absurd.
All my +1s are belong to you.
Having an appearance stat is the dumbest thing in the world because it makes "beauty" into something objective - which it isn't.
It literally tells you "If you think x is hotter then y guess what you're wrong. You are objectively wrong."
And that's a statement that should not exist.
Guys charisma is appearance.
Also if you find elves hotter then Mind Flayers guess what the rules state you are wrong.
Having an appearance stat is the dumbest thing in the world because it makes "beauty" into something objective - which it isn't.
It literally tells you "If you think x is hotter then y guess what you're wrong. You are objectively wrong."
And that's a statement that should not exist.
Agreed. Especially since Ozzal really lurvs dem Hags. ^-^
Note: This was a joke. The agreement is real. All other commentary is merely an attempt at humor based on the posts in this thread. Names have been altered to protect the guilty.
And just think, with a 17 CHA you can be just as beautiful as a Night Hag.
Hags find each other ravishing that's why they as live in a
ménage à trois. That's "RAW" by the way look it up.
Having an appearance stat is the dumbest thing in the world because it makes "beauty" into something objective - which it isn't.
It literally tells you "If you think x is hotter then y guess what you're wrong. You are objectively wrong."
And that's a statement that should not exist.
Agreed. Especially since Ozzal really lurvs dem Hags. ^-^
Note: This was a joke. The agreement is real. All other commentary is merely an attempt at humor based on the posts in this thread. Names have been altered to protect the guilty.
Apparently there is a Mr.Yhsif who loves the Night Hags too. He says it's cause they're raw.
And just think, with a 17 CHA you can be just as beautiful as a Night Hag.Hags find each other ravishing that's why they as live in a
ménage à trois. That's "RAW" by the way look it up.
“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.” Yeah, maybe Night Hags think of each other as attractive but no one else does, except apparently certain fish. Anyway, I am glad you think that sounds sexy, I will pass. I am pretty sure at this point that you are just arguing to argue... at least I really hope so... good times, happy trolling.
Witty personal attack?
“
Apparently there is a Mr.Yhsif who loves the Night Hags too. He says it's cause they're raw.
Nearly clever, poorly performed, you used a pun? Not even a clever one...Mr. Fishy is docking you points.
Are you even armed?
Night Hags think of each other as attractive but no one else does, except apparently certain fish. Anyway, I am glad you think that sounds sexy, I will pass.
Apparently not.
“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”
I'm wondering whether the hags purposefully distress their clothes for that effect or do a lot of shopping at second-hand stores. Or does Hell just have a lot of clothes moths?
How quickly could a swarm of clothes moths from Hell eat a cloak of protection or a robe of the archmagi? It's like rust monsters for wizards!
“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”
So do the hags purposefully distress their clothes to get that effect or do they just hit a lot of second-hand shops? Or does Hell just have a real problem with clothes moths?
Hmm.... How quickly could a Hellish clothes moth swarm eat a robe of the arch magi? It's like rust monsters for wizards!
Poster's note to anyone of common sense: I already used both Wikipedia and Google. The ONLY place I found the term "reductum" referenced was Urban Dictionary.
What he didn't write...
Reductio ad Absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.
Reductive fallacy
of the basic logical fallacies is the reductive fallacy, or in Latin, 'reductum ad absurdum'. Basically means taking a normal argument to such a far extreme (reducing it in an absurd manner) as an attempt to try to say it is wrong. Note this is a logical fallacy.
It's from the internet but so is Cartigan. So consider both sources.
Witty personal attack?
Well since you're asking, no, it's actually not personal; it is a general attack in the form of a joke. It just happened to be at your expense.
Nearly clever, poorly performed, you used a pun?
Another question. Well if you have to ask...
Not even a clever one...Mr. Fishy is docking you points.
Now this one is punctuated as a statement. I'm proud of you for taking a stand, unfortunately I don't really respond to fish points.
Are you even armed?
I carry two arms with me at all times.
Night Hags think of each other as attractive but no one else does, except apparently certain fish. Anyway, I am glad you think that sounds sexy, I will pass.
Apparently not.
No really, I really promise that I will be passing on the Night Hag.
“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”So do the hags purposefully distress their clothes to get that effect or do they just hit a lot of second-hand shops? Or does Hell just have a real problem with clothes moths?
I am pretty sure think it is purposeful, part of that Haggish 17 CHA sex appeal. Although, I do like the moths idea, that is feasible. My only question is, what did the moth do in his/her mortal life that was deserving of going to hell and becoming a hell moth?
Hmm.... How quickly could a Hellish clothes moth swarm eat a robe of the arch magi? It's like rust monsters for wizards!
It's one of those things... like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop... the world will never know.
Dumped your Charisma huh. Take ranks in Diplomacy it helps.
Dumped your Charisma huh. Take ranks in Diplomacy it helps.
Yeah, but only after one full minute of conversation.
Which of course means you must be ugly.
I am pretty sure think it is purposeful, part of that Haggish 17 CHA sex appeal. Although, I do like the moths idea, that is feasible. My only question is, what did the moth do in his/her mortal life that was deserving of going to hell and becoming a hell moth?“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”So do the hags purposefully distress their clothes to get that effect or do they just hit a lot of second-hand shops? Or does Hell just have a real problem with clothes moths?
Oh, that's easy. Just imagine the Pope (or Golarion equivalent thereof) coming out on the balcony for Easter Sunday (or the Golarion equivalent thereof) to bless the masses. Then imagine the clothes moths being the cause of a "wardrobe malfunction."
Especially imagine it given what the current Pope looks like.
Besides which, Asmodeus is the Lord of the Flies, after all. One imagines clothes moths would be somewhere in his portfolio as well.
|
Having an appearance stat is the dumbest thing in the world because it makes "beauty" into something objective - which it isn't.
It literally tells you "If you think x is hotter then y guess what you're wrong. You are objectively wrong."
And that's a statement that should not exist.
Agreed. Especially since Ozzal really lurvs dem Hags. ^-^
Note: This was a joke. The agreement is real. All other commentary is merely an attempt at humor based on the posts in this thread. Names have been altered to protect the guilty.
Hell, let's lay it out.
Objective beauty.
Imrijka has a negative CHA penalty.
Look at all the varying opinions from the fans on her appearance, from one extreme to the other.
Can anyone, in all seriousness and maturity say that one fan's opinion on that matter is more "correct" than the other rather than being a matter of taste and aesthetics?
Your average rock star has high charisma. Rules state that as he grows older, with all the wear and tear of his sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll lifestyle, he will only gain more CHA later in life simply by growing old.
Does anyone seriously expect his screaming fans to lust after him more once he's got an old, Dr. Rockso-esque gut and Keith Richardsian leathery nigh-mummified skin than when he was young and had all his hair?
srsly?
Straight up quantifying beauty makes me mad. Makes me mean-mad. CHA can pull from it, but it by no means should have a direct relationship with it.
If I'm playing a high CHA horrifically scarred leperous sorcerer, I seriously don't expect(nor would I want) anyone to find me more attractive than the low CHA amazingly physically fit barbarian lady. Just let him have an air of incredible dignity and be done with it.
Poster's note to anyone of common sense: I already used both Wikipedia and Google. The ONLY place I found the term "reductum" referenced was Urban Dictionary.What he didn't write...
Reductio ad Absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.Reductive fallacy
of the basic logical fallacies is the reductive fallacy, or in Latin, 'reductum ad absurdum'. Basically means taking a normal argument to such a far extreme (reducing it in an absurd manner) as an attempt to try to say it is wrong. Note this is a logical fallacy.It's from the internet but so is Cartigan. So consider both sources.
Really? You quoted Urban Dictionary? What exactly are you trying to prove? That I was correct?
EDIT: "Reductive fallacy" appears to be the confused english version of a deductive fallacy which is then made into the made-up Latin of "reductum ad absurdum." And it wasn't even a deductive fallacy to begin with, it was the formal logic version of reductio ad absurdum given the argument Lazzo and others are making.
|
All right kids, let's save 900 posts and narrow down raw:
*RAW states looks are part of CHA. The no-dump group is right on this. Get over it. Yes, there are plenty of real-life examples you can give that would have likeable but ugly old people. In PF, you would say they are low CHA, high diplomacy. Likeable but ugly.
*RAW uses diplomacy for how people feel. So even dumpees should allow people to use their skills. However, if a GM wants to base the starting attitude on the party's CHA, that is his business; it specifically leaves this "open for interpretation". PFS doe not do it; but in home games the GM can state this and mean it. Kingmaker certainly works to a degree on these lines.
Bottom line: social interactions are not heavily covered by this game; more RP-heavy games use more complicated rules sets to make it more meaningful; I play L5R to get my "fix" of this. Pathfinder gives you very fast-paced and simple rules... good for combat, not so much in the social world. So with that in mind, unless the GM states he will use CHA from the whole party to influence starting attitude, expect it to get dumped. After all, they'll either take Diplomacy or just "let someone else talk".
*RAW states looks are part of CHA. The no-dump group is right on this. Get over it.
There are plenty of published Pathfinder examples of ugly people and creatures with extremely high CHA as well. Several races get bonuses and penalties to CHA and their descriptions specifically attribute it to personality types not appearances. There are several other examples as well, already posted up-thread.
Disclaimer, Found in original post.
It's from the internet but so is Cartigan. So consider both sources. Mr. Fishy noted that the sourse was questionable. You stand that you aren't?
EDIT: "Reductive fallacy" appears to be the confused english version of a deductive fallacy which is then made into the made-up Latin of "reductum ad absurdum."
"Appears" makes this an opinion, you have no prove, only belief.
Mr. Fishy showed the fact both can be found and are defined as different. The reader is allowed to decide for themselves.
Read that as you see fit.
.
..
...
....
......
*..but but but..*
*RAW states looks are part of CHA...
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead,
Get over it.
::
..and I'm even all for some variance between how a character looks and their charisma score!
Still, as per RAW, Charisma measures appearance.
You don't *have* to play by RAW...
Disclaimer, Found in original post.
It's from the internet but so is Cartigan. So consider both sources. Mr. Fishy noted that the sourse was questionable. You stand that you aren't?
EDIT: "Reductive fallacy" appears to be the confused english version of a deductive fallacy which is then made into the made-up Latin of "reductum ad absurdum.""Appears" makes this an opinion, you have no prove, only belief.
Mr. Fishy showed the fact both can be found and are defined as different. The reader is allowed to decide for themselves.
Read that as you see fit.
I stand that I am not because I have actually done some research into everything I said instead of just copying stuff off the internet which is wrong and then implying you are wrong because you are on the internet. You know, a deductive fallacy.
.
..
...
....
.....
!!!
!!!
You two need a small room, some blunt objects, a gallon of cheap vodka, some paper clips and an untouchable sense of self!
::
You two need a small room, some blunt objects, a gallon of cheap vodka, some paper clips and an untouchable sense of self!
Then we come out with a homemade airplane?
Then we come out with a homemade airplane?
You two need a small room, some blunt objects, a gallon of cheap vodka, some paper clips and an untouchable sense of self!
lol >_<
Nicely done :)
.
..
...
....
......*..but but but..*
*RAW states looks are part of CHA...
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead,
Get over it.::
..and I'm even all for some variance between how a character looks and their charisma score!
Still, as per RAW, Charisma measures appearance.
You don't *have* to play by RAW...
Yes, I am aware of that sentence. Are you aware it's not the only portion of the book that is applicable to this discussion? If you read that one sentence and cling to it for dear life, yes you are right. If you take the whole book and the Bestiary into consideration as a whole then either the rest of the book and the Bestiary break the rules, or you are wrong.
.
..
...
....
.....
If you read that one sentence and cling to it for dear life, yes you are right.
..Sir, may I introduce you to the RAW crowd! :D
One sentence...
...so many people missed their calling as lawyers!
A high charisma ugly character like a Hag or a devil is awe inspiring with personal force. Lowering an aspect of a stat doesn't offer an advantage. It gives a disadvantage, example:
“Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”
So you see the above decribed creature, would you smile politely and wait for it to roll diplomacy, or grab your sword and roll initative...Remember she has ranks in diplomacy. Bluff +16, Diplomacy +11.
Diplomacy is a DC modified by the target Charisma...So a indifferent to helpful against a Cha 7 is DC 13 Take 10 for a 21 that enough to make you helpful.
So if a Cha7 character can roll diplomacy, then a ugly character or creature should have the same ability.