That abberant-blooded sorcerer with a 30 charisma, malformed arms with too many joints that can unfold to fifteen feet long, features in the wrong places and the wrong number of eyes is totally hot.
|
That abberant-blooded sorcerer with a 30 charisma, malformed arms with too many joints that can unfold to fifteen feet long, features in the wrong places and the wrong number of eyes is totally hot.
Well...
>_>
<_<
Ahem. Adding to Ion Raven, Evil Lincoln, and Umbral Reaver's examples:
High CHA Oracle with the Wasting curse. They take no negatives to CHA for it, only penalties to most CHA-based skills.
Leper King/Queen up in this piece, with CHA through the roof.
There are no skills or checks by RAW that incorporate attraction.
Diplomacy is used for:
And while it can often be flavored as seduction, it can also be flavored as fear. At the same time, just because someone is pretty doesn't mean they can manage this.
Bluff is used for getting someone to believe your lies
Again while this can be played off as seduction, it can also be played off as the other member being so afraid that they just can't tell you're lying. However, a person could be really pretty and you still don't believe a word out of their mouth (but you might pretend to influence them, in which case you'd bluffing back).
Perform, all the auditory stuff can easily be explained, but let's look at Acting and Dancing. No matter how pretty you may be, you can't be an actress if you can't even perform the lines in front of you. People berate actors and actresses all the time, but those are still people who actually made the cut. If you took people in your school or your work area and make them act, you might realize that being pretty does not distract from the most horrendous of acting. The same applies for dancing. Vulgar dancing can really turn me away no matter how hot the dancer is.
While beauty might have advantages in society, such as getting a mate, getting a promotion, or getting people to be friends. Those things are not covered in the rules, so any such things involving beauty are houserules. It's easier if it's just one culture, but beauty gets complicates when you go from human culture to dwarven culture to elven culture to orc culture to goblin culture to demon culture.
If you want to have an attraction stat fine, but please don't act like charisma = beauty is anything the rules support.
|
Just think about celebrities and you can see the difference between appearance and charisma. Indeed, the charisma tends to color one's perspective about actual appearance. You might throw up a little in your mouth when you see a picture of Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, but its only because you recognize who they are. Had you no idea, you'd think "Oo, hot chick."
Pop Tarts= High Appearance, Low Charisma.
Then remember that some of the goofiest looking celebs found success not on their looks, but their ability to charm a crowd.
Gabriel "I'm not Fat, I'm Fluffy!" Iglesias = Low Appearance, High Charisma :D
stuff
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Arg, I'm so terrible at explaining things, I get more frustrated by my inability to get my point across than any of the arguments themselves.
I'm a player and a GM. I think players should have almost endless fluff involved in created their character. They can describe themselves as attractive as much as they want. Or whatever. For example, the first time I tried out summoner, I was a halfling with the serpentine base form, with the intent of turning it into a classic Chinese dragon. My GM and I agreed that it could have little legs that it might have used to help scurry about, but I didn't take any evolutions for legs and there was never going to be a time I could call on them for anything.
The point at which this becomes a problem is when people raise the idea that because of a fluff choice they've made, they should receive a benefit in the game. A lot of times, this is a very logical conclusion. "I've described my character as a very handsome young man. I think that this warrants a +2 to diplomacy with females around my age." In my summoner example above, what if I had said at some point that those little legs ought to provide maybe a +1 on a bull rush, because they helped just the littlest bit? Sure, it makes sense. However, the player is trying to gain a benefit from fluff - there are things in the game for that, traits being the best example. I would come down on those players in a heartbeat and make sure they know that it won't fly with me. I'm all for having fun but within pre-established rules.
The bolded bit you posted is a logical fallacy, which I'll explain below. My point is that appearance is controlled by charisma, but charisma isn't controlled by appearance. That would be akin to me saying bonuses to carrying capacity through a trait should increase my strength overall. It doesn't make sense. I tried to explain this in an earlier post. A sorcerer's ability to cast spells is not going to be affected by his looks, but his looks are being affected by his charisma. Can you not understand that?
A higher charisma allows for greater control over one's personality and appearance. That means they can be pretty or horrifying or whatever. But regardless, their appearance would MEAN something. A high charisma in pure terms of personality can be executed in entirely different ways.
Gah, I feel like I'm just restating what I've already said. This is where I either hope you get the point and move on or keep facedesking because I can't explain anything.
Look, if you understand what I'm saying and you read over the first of this post here, then maybe I can walk away from this thinking I actually got something across. If you disagree, that's fine, you can play how you want. I'm just making my case for why I play it the way I do.
Your explanation satisfies me. I only took it up because it seemed like you were continuing to refute Ion Raven's point in the bolded text.
Plus I'm not quite sure mine was the logical fallacy, you may have had contradictory points upthread.
You are correct, players should not be assigning themselves a description and trying to leverage that to a mechanical benefit.
|
As previously stated, I see both sides and really its up to your GM to arbitrate how your charisma effects your appearance.
To pour more fuel on the fire however, consider the Icons.
Amiri, charisma 8
Merisiel, charisma 10
Valeros, charisma 10
Esren, charisma 9
Kyra, charisma 12
SELTYIEL, charisma 10
Sajan, Charisma 8
Lini, charisma 15
Harsk, charisma 6
Seelah, Charisma 14
Seoni, charisma 17
Lem, charisma 17
As heroic fantasy characters they look just how the artist wants them to look. In this instance, does not seem to be closely linked to appearance. However, if you insist upon a mechanic for appearance, then charisma is all you have, and your GM is entitled to make you wear your charisma. Bear it in mind when you make the character, or just begin the unending charisma debate...
appearance should be determined by the player, not a series of numbers on his sheet.
and if a series of scores should have an impact on a character's appearance, it should be the physical ones, not the mental ones. and even those should have room for freedom as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last I checked casting disguise self or alter self to appear as a beautiful elf didn't erase the orc shaman's -3 Charisma penalty, and neither did the +20 disguise modifier.
Vendis we agree that being pretty in the real world can be an advantage could you show me however where in the rules i get any mechanical bonus do to being Pretty even though i have a shit CHA
Vendis we agree that being pretty in the real world can be an advantage could you show me however where in the rules i get any mechanical bonus do to being Pretty even though i have a s@&* CHA
There is only very light, twisted logic to allow it. Traits exist that spell out that your attractiveness allows you bonuses. Claiming your description of your character as a beautiful temptress can be argued to fit. It also is simple logic - if I am handsome, girls might do a double take when I pass by them, allowing our rogue a +1 to his sleight of hand to cut their purse. Even if its not every time, its still a benefit to be gained through fluff.
I don't agree with this, but the logic behind it is undeniable. Tying appearance to charisma negates any chance of this happening. Separating causes tensions between munchkiny players (or heck, even players who want NPCs to perceive them a certain way) and GMs.
Anyway, I get the feeling you havent read all of my posts, which is fine, but I am going to stop repeating myself.
So your entire arguement is based of something that the DM has to allow. Nothing baseline in game other than the rule for favorable conditions.
A DM makes the call not the player as in " Sure you pretty but you don't have the CHA to flaunt that beauty in a way to be enough of a distraction to the rogue"
|
|
It's not really complicated.
People shouldn't get mechanical differences for things they haven't paid.
That means that people will be penalized for dump stats (it is difficult for me to believe that anyone honestly has trouble understanding this)
It means that, while people can create handsome/pretty characters, they will get no mechanical advantages for that unless they pay for it.
The fact that this thread continues to go on despite the obviousness of these points makes me depressed about the quality of discussions on the Internet.
Yes, completely this. People just want to their have their cake and eat it too. They're making fine arguments, sure, but if they were being intellectually honest they would eventually have to concede the bolded point. As far as I can see, none have. All I see is more and more advocating against using Charisma as a common stat. I'd challenge them against letting PCs with low Int being as smart as they want too, but I fear too many would agree. 'What is smart and doesn't it vary from culture to culture?'
BAH
|
|
It's not really complicated.
People shouldn't get mechanical differences for things they haven't paid.
That means that people will be penalized for dump stats (it is difficult for me to believe that anyone honestly has trouble understanding this)
It means that, while people can create handsome/pretty characters, they will get no mechanical advantages for that unless they pay for it.
The fact that this thread continues to go on despite the obviousness of these points makes me depressed about the quality of discussions on the Internet.
Yes, completely this. People just want to their have their cake and eat it too. They're making fine arguments, sure, but if they were being intellectually honest they would eventually have to conceed the bolded point. As far as I can see, none have. All I see is more and more advocating against using Charisma as a common stat. I'd challenge them against letting PCs with low Int being as smart as they want too, but I fear too many would agree. 'What is smart and doesn't it vary from culture to culture?'
BAH
This thread is making me more and more grateful that I don't play with people who fight this passionately to get mechanical advantages for free.
Amen to that.
I tend to be on the side of the argument that a player can determine whatever they want to look like within reason.
example, in one game i ran one player had a high charisma (paladin) but didn't want to be a pretty boy, he was a combat hardened knight after all. so he had some scars... but he also had a commanding voice, a pleasant demeanor and was skilled with words. But not really all that attractive.
So your entire arguement is based of something that the DM has to allow. Nothing baseline in game other than the rule for favorable conditions.
A DM makes the call not the player as in " Sure you pretty but you don't have the CHA to flaunt that beauty in a way to be enough of a distraction to the rogue"
My entire argument is to set something in the rules so that it cannot be debated. It's based off of the knowledge that there are people out there that try to twist wordings to gain advantage. You also do realize that what you just described is how a lot of rules have been created, right? Something comes up, the DM is forced to create a ruling, and eventually it becomes either widespread enough or the developers agree with it enough so that it becomes an official rule. This is where play testing and regular feedback come into play.
Let me know when demanding that pretty characters get X bonus becomes a problem then we can actually feel the need for a beauty mechanic.
In the mean time if you want to be pretty be pretty if you want ugly be ugly. I notice you dont seem to be argue that people can't mbe uglier than their CHA would allow by your standards. or even that that should have penalties. Only that being prettier is an issue.
Let me know when demanding that pretty characters get X bonus becomes a problem then we can actually feel the need for a beauty mechanic.
In the mean time if you want to be pretty be pretty if you want ugly be ugly. I notice you dont seem to be argue that people can't mbe uglier than their CHA would allow by your standards. or even that that should have penalties. Only that being prettier is an issue.
Just because it's never come up in your games doesn't mean it never has any where else. And besides, it's it better to be proactive rather than reactive? With that attitude, you would only ever incorporate ideas into your game AFTER they've become an issue.
A high score allows for greater control over one's abilities. An example would include an 18 INT wizard not using all of his vast intellect to solve a simple problem. Likewise, a high charisma would allow for a drop-dead appearance but would not be required (stated over and over.. X is always Y, but Y is not always X). My argument has only included prettier because it is much more obvious to see bonuses from it. Sure, being horrifically ugly might give you bonuses to intimidate, or this might do that, yadda yadda yadda, but regardless, being pretty brings advantages most people can instantly think of. There is no need for me to refer to both, because they are tied in a way that fixing one would fix another.
As previously stated, I see both sides and really its up to your GM to arbitrate how your charisma effects your appearance.
To pour more fuel on the fire however, consider the Icons.
Merisiel, charisma 10
Valeros, charisma 10
Esren, charisma 9
Kyra, charisma 12
SELTYIEL, charisma 10
Sajan, Charisma 8
Lini, charisma 15
Harsk, charisma 6
Seelah, Charisma 14
Seoni, charisma 17
Lem, charisma 17As heroic fantasy characters they look just how the artist wants them to look. In this instance, does not seem to be closely linked to appearance. However, if you insist upon a mechanic for appearance, then charisma is all you have, and your GM is entitled to make you wear your charisma. Bear it in mind when you make the character, or just begin the unending charisma debate...
Even Merisiel, Valeros, and Seltyiel have 10 for their charisma... Do the iconics have it wrong? Or is it that they believe that Amiri is ugly?
Regardless of whether you use a appearance stat, note that while charisma may affect appearance so does every other stat: Strength, Health, Intellect, Sensibility, and Gracefulness. So if anything it should be based on the average of all the stats not just charisma.
While not an average of all stats, that's kind of the idea with my stuff above.
Okay, guys, look, here it says:Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
It says that right there. See that? Bold mine.
Point is, it's presumed that CHA, to some extent, equals appearance. It's an abstraction. I generally don't play that way - a one-to-one CHA=beauty, but charisma certainly does affect appearance, one way or the other. I'm just sayin'.
Also, it's like a mathematical proof.
Example: all poodles equal dogs. Do all dogs equal poodles? No.
Example: charisma controls appearance. Does appearance control charisma? No.
They are not the same, but appearance is, at least in part, based off charisma by RAW. In real life, notsomuch. Ergo my home brew up above. But I must admit - it's homebrew. The nice thing is that, much as the OP indicates beauty =/= appearance.
Also re: the demon-blood sorceress: succubus. I'm just sayin'.
Also, also, re: Tenacious D: I've heard people call them hot. I'm just sayin'. (You must admit: they do have a distinctive... appearance!)
Anyway, I don't have a pony in this race. I got my home brew and I use it. It's just that, by RAW, CHA does influence appearance. I'd be totally fine if they (or you) changed that, however. :D
EDITED for linkies
I'm just sayin'.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm just sayin'.
Dude, you do that a lot. I mean, a lot. I'm just sayin'.
Dude, you do that a lot. I mean, a lot. I'm just sayin'.
Dude! I know, right?! Have you ever seen his posts?! Sheeshe, the guy could learn to just up every once in a while! He goes on and on...
To add the whole "official NPC/Iconics" list...
It's not really a spoiler in any way, but just in case someone is utterly allergic to any mention of an npc present at the very start of an AP, I'll put it in tags:
While a CHA of 13 is above average, I'd say that if CHA was that tightly linked to appearance I'd expect her to be a lot closer to the top of the 3-18 range.
To add the whole "official NPC/Iconics" list...
It's not really a spoiler in any way, but just in case someone is utterly allergic to any mention of an npc present at the very start of an AP, I'll put it in tags:
** spoiler omitted **
Meh, in King Maker, there's a guy who's
called "frighteningly intelligent" with an intelligence score of... 14.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not really that "frightening" considering most wizards. As in at all. I'd say it's more of a case of people talking it up rather than actual in-world comparison. Then again, anything over 12 is "rare", comparatively (that is, comparative to the average), if not quantitatively (that is, there's a lot of NPCs out there with high scores).
Also, Mergy: yes. Aaaaaaaaand that's all I'll say about it.
EDIT: funny thing though, regarding
One again, I win D&- er, I mean, Pathfinder!
My group uses Comeliness. We adjusted the point buy to accommodate the new score and adjust rules as needed on the fly. Everyone is happy with it and it fills that gap in charisma.
Personally, I consider Charisma to be force of personality. Beauty is more like height or weight, which rarely effect gameplay beyond racial size category. That is, the Charisma scale runs from meek to bold rather than ugly to beautiful, if you see what I mean.
Hi... OP here.
I see Charisma as presence. Pure presence. It's something you're born with or not, but can also work on... "exercise" it, by challenging yourself both socially and motivationally. Just like with strength, you're born with the body you get, but you can also make it better or let it slide.
Someone who has drive and a sense of power over the world around them... it's something that you notice. Monty Burns from the Simpsons is an example of an ugly, frail and malicious little prick who has high Charisma - you remember Monty, and when he's in a scene, you know it.
How this translates to SLAs and Sorcerers, in my mind is that when you "fill a room", "turn heads" and are memorable, the it's not just a humanoid social thing, but even the gods notice it, and so do the "spirits" of the trees and sky... so your drive, your influence, your presence, gives raw power to your magic - it's more "real", more potent. The cosmos acknowledges you and it manifests as raw power.
My group also houseruled sorcerer's using INT instead of Charisma. I believe that designers only chose charisma for the class because it is often considered a metagame dump-stat and they were trying to make it worth something.
To me INT is a more logical choice, or perhaps WIS.
....This is still a thing? Sigh....
Charisma affects appearance, if the PC wants their appearance portrayed in a positive light, then guess what: it affects the PCs beauty. They can just as easily make their character varying degrees of ugly using charisma, much like most undead do.
I would like to add my thought process on this. I have not read the whole thread, but here's how I think of it. Sorry if these ideas are beating a dead riding dog.
RAW, Charisma is defined in Pathfinder as general appearance and social acceptance, but it also includes personality. The wording is very vague but seems to support both conceptions.
I prefer the 3.5 Charisma, as it was straight up force of personality, like Spiritual Pressure in Bleach. (Hate that anime, but it's a good example of effectual Charisma)
Here's why. We have, firstly, the argument from intelligent undead, the cruel tyrants, and the hideous powerful sorcerers and clerics. They have a high charisma to reference the fact that they have very high spiritual power. They can simply command themselves because of their force of personality, not because they are attrative and beguiling but because of their command over themselves and others.
Second, we have the argument of other attribute scores. All other attribute scores refer to things that are essential to living beings. Strength is the power to exert force. Dexterity is the ability to move yourself. Constitution is your life force. Intellect is your ability to learn and reason. Wisdom is your ability to observe and connect dots. Without any of these, you are not a being. You are either dead, mindless or incapable of acting. If Charisma is only how other perceive you or appearance, then having zero will not kill you. To be an attribute score, a score of zero to a corpreal mortal being means that you are, for all intents and purposes, dead. This only works if Charisma is more than appearance, but is your sheer ability to define yourself from your surroundings, and your ability to exert force on yourself and others. It should be the Strength equivalent of the mental abilities.
I have no trouble with the idea that being ugly or cruel may reduce charisma based skill checks, but I have had several DM's (And even RAW in some instances) insist that such things harm your Charisma ability SCORE. This is blatantly untrue for the reasons stated above- How you appear is irrelevant to the score itself. It's all about how well you command yourself and others, pretty or not.
@malignor
I tend to think of sorcerers as having magic inherent in them. Thier Charisma allows them to look deep into themselves and pull forth that power.