Who is the fairest of them all?

[littlehewy]

Also, I don't think someone being extremely good-looking with a low Cha runs counter to RAW... Just saying :)

[Apocalypso]

pfsrd wrote:

Charisma (Cha)

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Venn Diagram Time:

Attractiveness =/= Charisma
Attractiveness is a subset of Charisma.
So are personality, magnetism, and ability to lead.

So I'll give rough examples (YMMV):

Examples:

Gandhi: Charisma 25
Personality 20%
Magnetism 30%
***Ability to Lead 48%
Appearance 2%

Darth Vader: Charisma 50
Personality 2%
***Magnetism 70%
Ability to Lead 48%
Appearance -20%

Oprah: Charisma 22
***Personality 50%
Magnetism 20%
Ability to Lead 25%
Appearance 5% (Please no flaming. There are many black women who are spectacular looking. My point is that Oprah's success is more due to her personality than her appearance.)

Khal Drogo: Charisma 22
Personality: 10%
Magnetism 20%
***Ability to Lead 45%
Appearance 25%

Lady Diana: Charisma 22 (I'm trying to come up with a woman who was both physically attractive and successful, where the two characteristics helped each other. She wouldn't have been a princess if she wasn't pretty. But she wouldn't have been a *great* princess if she wasn't a caring human being.)
**Personality 30%
Magnetism 20%
Ability to Lead 10%
**Appearance 40%

A b*tchy homecoming Queen: 18
Personality 5%
Magnetism 20%
Ability to Lead 20%
***Appearance 55%

Anyhoo... these numbers are very mushy. I was just trying to give the idea of Venn Diagrams. Attractiveness is often an asset to being influential with others, but it is not the only factor.

But physical beauty *IS* a subset of charisma.

~~~

And... the devs are never going to put a picture of an unattractive female hero on the cover of their books, even if her charisma is listed as a 5. They want to sell books to a predominantly heterosexual male market.

[littlehewy]

Good looking =/= attractive

I know lots of good looking people that I don't find attractive.

[Jasmine Henderthane]

"I, Lady Jasmine Henderthane am the fairest of them all." At least in her mind, it is also kind of required for her to believe so as an Order of the Cockatrice Cavalier.

I think that charisma shouldn't be too heavily considered in attractiveness, also attractiveness is highly subjective.

[lemeres]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Two players argue about which of their princesses is the prettiest.

Charisma is not attractiveness, but should it be the decider when there's an argument?

No, the DM is.

I think a problem he is trying to avoid is that he doesn't want the players to be angry at him. I mean, who wants to be with the uglier princess (technically true, but didn't my diction make the loser seem worse despite the fact that the difference might be marginal?)

This is basically the problem of who gets to be player 2 in a videogame. No practical difference usually, but you feel cheated.

[littlehewy]

Can I also add that Charisma is a mental stat, not a physical one. It may affect your appearance somewhat in the way you carry yourself and your general presence, but it has nothing to do with the symmetry of your features, the glossiness of your flowing locks, the size of your cleavage, the stylishness of your facial hair, or the depth of your baby blues.

They are physical characteristics, not mental ones. And this is what I hate about the "You can't be good looking unless you have a high Cha" brigade's approach - there's no way I can make a beautiful character without an effective and magnetic personality (with all the attached mechanical benefits), although they will concede that you don't have to be handsome to have a big presence (like a balor).

Appearance is fluff! Let me make a good looking character - none of your NPCs have to like, or lust after, him/her, that's what the mechanics are for.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think Greek myth answered this thread's question, actually.
Hera, Athena and Aphrodite demanded to know who was the prettiest. The winner? The one with the best bribe. The question itself was never answered, just like it can't be answered here.

[gustavo iglesias]

kikidmonkey wrote:

Are you saying personality counts for nothing when determining how attractive someone is?

In pathfinder/d&d, no. Unless you find lich attractive

[Umbranus]

littlehewy wrote:

Can I also add that Charisma is a mental stat, not a physical one.

Good point.

[Kazaan]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

kikidmonkey wrote:

Are you saying personality counts for nothing when determining how attractive someone is?

In pathfinder/d&d, no. Unless you find lich attractive

Actually, it does determine that. But people are conflating "attractive" with "beautiful" when these are different concepts. Attractive, in this context, means attracting attention. Beautiful people aren't Attractive because they're Beautiful; that's putting the cart before the horse. They are Beautiful because they're attractive; they attract your attention first with their Charisma (a Mental stat, btw), their air of confidence and force of personality, and then because you're looking so keenly at them, you notice their physical beauty. A Lich also attracts your attention and then, while you're looking so keenly, you are horrified as you notice their physical deformity. You likely wouldn't be so horrified of the Lich if he didn't possess that attention-demanding quality that made you look so closely. Zombies are scary, but you're not going to be compelled to look too closely at them. Liches are horrifying sitting smack dab in the middle of the Uncanny Valley and they have a mental quality about them that forces you to look at them and take in every detail of their visage. Same goes for a Hag, an Angel, or a Demon. Charisma is how strongly they make you look at them, but offers no inherent quantification as to how beautiful they are. As I cited in the example before of twins with different Charisma scores, they both look exactly the same but you notice it more with the high-Cha girl (or guy or animal or whatever you want to use in the analogy) because her mere presence demands attention; thus you look more closely and notice her beauty. The equal beauty of the low-Cha twin, meanwhile, generally passes unnoticed. Even if the low-Cha comparison were more beautiful, pretty, ugly, or whatever other quality we're using, you'd still notice it less because of their low Charisma. How many times has that played out in both fiction and otherwise?

A Lich is attractive because you cannot look away and it cannot be unseen... much like a horrible train wreck. Attractive, horrifyingly so.

[Andrew R]

My motto on this is if charisma is appearance then squid heads are hot (illithids being all very high CHA)

[mdt]

Since only one person seems to have read it the first time, I'll reiterate my post again.

mdt wrote:

As humans, we tend to find someone attractive in the first five minutes based on appearance (muscle tone, grace, health). After that, it's how well they stimulate us mentally (conversation, common sense, and personality).

Theoretically, this is why in beauty contests we multiple stages. We get to see muscle tone (swimsuit), grace (walking the stage), and health (swimsuit). Then we listen to them talk, answer questions, and communicate (intelligence, wisdom, charisma).

This is why someone who is physically perhaps not as attractive as someone else can win the contest, and why sometimes you find someone attractive at first but lose interest (or vice versa).

So, honestly, the three physical stats plus charisma averaged together gives a good 'first sight' number for attractiveness. The charisma includes confidence and bearing, which are important in 'first sight' attractiveness.

Then, average all the stats for an 'overall' attractiveness. As humans, the farther out on the bell curve (on the positive side) you are, generally, the more attractive you are. It's genetics. We want our children to be superior, and superior people make superior kids, so we are attracted to what we perceive as superior genetics. Even if we don't think of it that way. By the same token, someone with a superhuman strength but below 10's in all other stats comes off as a hulking brute and most are not attracted to them for that reason, inferior genetics.

[Celestial Pegasus]

Who's the fairest of them all? This requires us to define 'fair.'

Fairness is generally thought to be a measure of how fitting the action is to the situation, for all parties involved. One standard fairness is often measured against is adherence to existing rules and precedent. This is generally the purview of Lawful alignment.

Depending on one's biases and morals, the fairest of all would most likely be a creature that is Lawful Good (allows extenuating circumstances to modify how the rule is applied) or Lawful Neutral (always follows the rule, period). So to answer your question, it is whichever of the two creatures that is LG or LN. If both are, continue to apply various Lawful filters (alignment of deity they worship, Lawful aura, casts the most Law descriptor spells, etc.) until the tie is broken.

...Wait, what's that you say? Not that kind of 'fair'? ...Oh. I see. Well, uh, carry on!

[Kazaan]

mdt wrote:

Since only one person seems to have read it the first time, I'll reiterate my post again.

mdt wrote:

As humans, we tend to find someone attractive in the first five minutes based on appearance (muscle tone, grace, health). After that, it's how well they stimulate us mentally (conversation, common sense, and personality).

Theoretically, this is why in beauty contests we multiple stages. We get to see muscle tone (swimsuit), grace (walking the stage), and health (swimsuit). Then we listen to them talk, answer questions, and communicate (intelligence, wisdom, charisma).

This is why someone who is physically perhaps not as attractive as someone else can win the contest, and why sometimes you find someone attractive at first but lose interest (or vice versa).

So, honestly, the three physical stats plus charisma averaged together gives a good 'first sight' number for attractiveness. The charisma includes confidence and bearing, which are important in 'first sight' attractiveness.

Then, average all the stats for an 'overall' attractiveness. As humans, the farther out on the bell curve (on the positive side) you are, generally, the more attractive you are. It's genetics. We want our children to be superior, and superior people make superior kids, so we are attracted to what we perceive as superior genetics. Even if we don't think of it that way. By the same token, someone with a superhuman strength but below 10's in all other stats comes off as a hulking brute and most are not attracted to them for that reason, inferior genetics.

That predicates on the primary premise; that we take 5 minutes evaluating physical characteristics followed by longer analysis of mental ones to base our opinion on beauty. And even Celestial Pegasus brings up a good issue as to what "fair" actually means in context. Fair, as a term for beauty, originated because it referred to a person with very white skin; Fair skin and fair hair means ivory-white skin and blonde as blonde can be. But there are lots of pale, blonde persons who aren't considered "beautiful". There are lots of people who would otherwise match your subjective views on beauty, but you don't really notice them as such "at a glance". This is because of Charisma, or lack thereof in this case. Physical appearance is one thing, but we have a powerful sense of subconscious cues that we never even know about and a lot of them are either non-physical or para-physical. Pheromones play into this as as does body language (paraphysical, speaking your thoughts by your body movement and positioning, not an inherent quality of your physical body but a refraction of your thoughts through it), word choice and word tone, etc. We're attracted in the first few seconds by a person's Charisma; it may take a few minutes to subconsciously process their physical qualities (or lack thereof), but their presence holds our attention regardless of our conclusions. Furthermore, this is a stat and stats are subject to rolls and chance. If you have sufficient force of personality of your own, it takes a greater degree on someone else's part to impress you to the point of holding your attention. A Cha 18 person is going to be more attractive (read, higher chance to captivate) to a Cha 12 than they will be to a Cha 16 and there's still a chance that the Cha 16 will be captivated while the Cha 12 will not. Furthermore, the Freudian concept that everyone is motivated by the same basic thing is questionable at best and it has been demonstrated by his contemporary, Carl Jung, that while being motivated by hedonistic desire does work, it only seems to work for a sub-set of the population as a whole and there are other types of people who are fundamentally motivated by things other than hedonism. But, whatever motivates us, a person's Charisma is their force of personality and ability to demand attention. Attractiveness, for better or for worse, is that ability to attract people to pay attention to you; it is a mental stat, thus it doesn't stem from physical appearance but rather uses physical appearance, among other things, as a tool. We're attracted first by Charisma, and then we make beauty decisions based on our predilection towards Hedonism (how physically beautiful they are), Stoicism (how socially acceptable and demure they are), Altruism (how kind and loving they are), or Pragmatism (how reasonable and beneficial they are) as well as personal gauges (ie. blondes over brunettes or vice versa). Charisma grabs our attention first and jumpstarts the second process of evaluating them on our preferred criteria and, subsequently, on the other three criteria. With lower Charisma, it will take longer for that second phase to get started and, in fact, it might never. And these are just the criteria for determining beauty; parallel to these will be criteria for horribleness, logical sense, usefulness, and a slew of other subjective labels, each of which will be approached differently depending on what temperament you are. The 22 Str, 7 Cha hulking brute may not turn heads by his Charisma, but sooner or later, there's a chance that some girl with a thing for muscles will take note of him and spend more time looking closer. And, given his mere 7 Charisma indicating a lack of confidence and force of personality, our hulking brute may very well start to blush under the attentions of this nice girl who pays him heed while scorning all the "pretty boys". It took a while longer to get to that point than it took the pretty boy with high Charisma to attract the attention he gets, but our hulking brute is no less handsome to the muscle-weirdo girl; she just took longer to notice because his personality didn't make him stand out much. If he had been both muscle-bound and had high Cha, she may have been smitten with love at first sight even if he had only 20 Str rather than 22.

[Tacticslion]

littlehewy wrote:

Yeah, as I said, I appreciate the thought you've put into it, and like any RPG subsystem it has its pros and cons. I wasn't trying to disparage it at all, just explain why my mileage varies in this case :)

Very cool. :)

[mdt]

You're predicate that it is not a good snapshot is that one person in a thousand will see past it?

See, I see that as an argument that it's a good measurement. Attractiveness in a specific case is a specific case.

Attractiveness en mass is statistical.

Look at movie stars. The 'heart throbs' (Brad Pitt, Matthew McConaughey, Benedict Cumberbatch, Will Smith, etc) can all be described as 'athletic, coordinated, with good skin, good teeth, pecs, a winning smile, and confidence'. That's your 'average physical stats and charisma' first look. And it's not 5 minutes. It's on first 30 seconds.

Look at the 'hot' starlets (Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johanson, Halle Berry), same thing. Athletic, graceful, good skin, good hair, good teeth, confident. This is, again, something you notice without ever talking to them directly. It's just what you see on pictures and in movies when they act (IE: Not their own personality).

To stay with someone though, you need more than just 'that spark', you need some mental compatibility. That's where the longer one comes in (the overall average). And your 'perfect' person is going to be someone with similar int/wis to you, and the higher the 'spark' factor the better.

[gustavo iglesias]

Kazaan wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

kikidmonkey wrote:

Are you saying personality counts for nothing when determining how attractive someone is?

In pathfinder/d&d, no. Unless you find lich attractive

Actually, it does determine that. But people are conflating "attractive" with "beautiful" when these are different concepts. Attractive, in this context, means attracting attention. Beautiful people aren't Attractive because they're Beautiful; that's putting the cart before the horse. They are Beautiful because they're attractive;

Problem is that I can tell you a model in a magazine is beautiful, without sensing her presence at all. She might be shy, boring and even depressive, but if I take a picture of her, and show it to you, you'll say she is beautiful and (sexually) attractive, even if you find her dumb and lame 2 minutes after starting talking with her. On the other hand, you'll find Batman charismatic, even if he is hidden behind a mask.

Charisma is the force of personality. It doesn't need to be an attractive personality to be a strong one: some people is just scary and intimidant, and you never feel any attraction to them, but they are just a personality too overwhelming.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Who's the fairest of them all? This requires us to define 'fair.'

Fairness is generally thought to be a measure of how fitting the action is to the situation, for all parties involved. One standard fairness is often measured against is adherence to existing rules and precedent. This is generally the purview of Lawful alignment.

Depending on one's biases and morals, the fairest of all would most likely be a creature that is Lawful Good (allows extenuating circumstances to modify how the rule is applied) or Lawful Neutral (always follows the rule, period). So to answer your question, it is whichever of the two creatures that is LG or LN. If both are, continue to apply various Lawful filters (alignment of deity they worship, Lawful aura, casts the most Law descriptor spells, etc.) until the tie is broken.

...Wait, what's that you say? Not that kind of 'fair'? ...Oh. I see. Well, uh, carry on!

Your forgetting that often fair means a quality of skin. Having fair skin (void of blemishes) is usually considered a good thing.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

Which is why I made an earlier post about about the fairy tales. They are probably only referencing how they look. Nothing else.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

If we go to the op, the parameters need to be defined what they are looking for. Without an actual mechanical equation of justifying who is "fairest ", someone's feelings are going to get hurt.

[Kazaan]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Charisma is the force of personality. It doesn't need to be an attractive personality to be a strong one: some people is just scary and intimidant, and you never feel any attraction to them, but they are just a personality too overwhelming.

Again, "attraction" =/= "attracted to them because of their beauty". Dracula is charismatic, ergo, he is attractive; he attracts your attention. What he does with that attention once he has attracted it is nothing you'd like, but he attracts it none the less. Pass a train wreck with mangled bodies and it will attract attention and some will find themselves unable to look away. Face down a demon and he will command your attention and you shall not look away; hence, he is "attractive". But Beauty is an entirely different factor. If a person is attractive, it's easy to notice their beauty. If they're attractive, it's also easier to notice their hideousness. Don't conflate "attractive" in this context with the colloquial meaning in casual conversation; that's a the meaning you presume by default, but not the only meaning so you must keep context in mind.

[Elosandi]

Umbranus wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Psyren wrote:

30 Charisma.

8 Charisma!

Now I know! Beauty is the inverse of charisma. The more charisma you have the uglier you are. The PF pictures proof that I am right.

Maybe they just have different standards of what is attractive in Golorian when compared to modern earth.

[MrSin]

Elosandi wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Psyren wrote:

30 Charisma.

8 Charisma!

Now I know! Beauty is the inverse of charisma. The more charisma you have the uglier you are. The PF pictures proof that I am right.

Maybe they just have different standards of what is attractive in Golorian when compared to modern earth.

One that encompasses quiet a bit if they do IMO. Succubus having high charisma might make sense, but think of all the other creatures with exactly the same charisma... yeesh. Gotta wonder what standards they have goin' on.

[mplindustries]

mdt wrote:

Look at movie stars. The 'heart throbs' (Brad Pitt, Matthew McConaughey, Benedict Cumberbatch, Will Smith, etc)

Er, what? I have no idea who that Benedict guy is. Even after googling a picture, I don't recognize him at all. Checking his wikipedia, I've never seen any of the things he's been in, and I've only even heard of the Hobbit series (which he was only sort of in). He doesn't even have a "heartthrobby" look like the others.

Ok, maybe I'm just being picky because I understand your overall point, but that example is just so bizarre.

mdt wrote:

Look at the 'hot' starlets (Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johanson, Halle Berry), same thing. Athletic, graceful, good skin, good hair, good teeth, confident.

I have to disagree with this one. "Hot starlet" in the media means two things: "Skinny" and "Big boobs and/or butt." But, I've found "women the media says are attractive" and "women that men actually find attractive" don't intersect as much as you'd think.

[mdt]

mplindustries wrote:

mdt wrote:

Look at movie stars. The 'heart throbs' (Brad Pitt, Matthew McConaughey, Benedict Cumberbatch, Will Smith, etc)

Er, what? I have no idea who that Benedict guy is. Even after googling a picture, I don't recognize him at all. Checking his wikipedia, I've never seen any of the things he's been in, and I've only even heard of the Hobbit series (which he was only sort of in). He doesn't even have a "heartthrobby" look like the others.

Ok, maybe I'm just being picky because I understand your overall point, but that example is just so bizarre.

You loose all geek cred if you don't recognize Kahn Noonian Singh from the new reboot of Star Trek. The main bad guy.

mplindustries wrote:

mdt wrote:

Look at the 'hot' starlets (Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johanson, Halle Berry), same thing. Athletic, graceful, good skin, good hair, good teeth, confident.

I have to disagree with this one. "Hot starlet" in the media means two things: "Skinny" and "Big boobs and/or butt." But, I've found "women the media says are attractive" and "women that men actually find attractive" don't intersect as much as you'd think.

The last time I checked Angelina Jolie started out with A cups, and only upgraded after she was a big star (and even then didn't go D cups). Natalie Portman isn't 'skinny with big boobs' either. Scarlett Johanson is, but Halle Berry isn't either (she's got a nice figure, but she's not skinny and big boobed).

Do you even watch any major movies? Seems like you've skipped several X-Men, Swordfish, Star Trek, several Star Wars, Hackers, Mr. and Mrs.Smith, and Tombraider.

Edit : And one last thing for Mr. Cumberbatch, he's a British Actor, and is quite the heart throb in England. He's considered a bright and upcoming star.

[TOZ]

mdt wrote:

You loose all geek cred if you don't recognize Kahn Noonian Singh from the new reboot of Star Trek. The main bad guy.

I thought you lost all geek cred for admitting to liking the Star Trek reboot.

[mdt]

TOZ wrote:

mdt wrote:

You loose all geek cred if you don't recognize Kahn Noonian Singh from the new reboot of Star Trek. The main bad guy.

I thought you lost all geek cred for admitting to liking the Star Trek reboot.

Depends on the geeks in question. But note I said you lost it for not recognizing him. I didn't say you had to like the movie. :)

[lemeres]

mplindustries wrote:

mdt wrote:

Look at the 'hot' starlets (Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johanson, Halle Berry), same thing. Athletic, graceful, good skin, good hair, good teeth, confident.

I have to disagree with this one. "Hot starlet" in the media means two things: "Skinny" and "Big boobs and/or butt." But, I've found "women the media says are attractive" and "women that men actually find attractive" don't intersect as much as you'd think.

Is there something wrong with me when I am a male interested in women, but can't find any of those listed particularly attractive? I mean, I just do not like their faces. I apparently do not find breasts and butts attractive enough. I somehow prefer looking women in the eyes.

Also hair, but that tends to be more variable.

[TriOmegaZero]

What if you don't recognize him as Kahn because he's just a cheap knockoff and the only Khan there will ever be is Ricardo Montalban?

[Umbral Reaver]

I started this thread because I was bored and wanted to spark the obvious argument, but it's taken off in whole new ways!

[littlehewy]

Umbranus wrote:

littlehewy wrote:

Can I also add that Charisma is a mental stat, not a physical one.

Good point.

For some reason I expected more discussion of/responses to this point, but as it pretty much precludes Cha from having anything to do whatsoever with a character's appearance in a physical sense I guess acknowledging it would just diminish the fun of arguing about it.

[mdt]

lemeres wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

mdt wrote:

Look at the 'hot' starlets (Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johanson, Halle Berry), same thing. Athletic, graceful, good skin, good hair, good teeth, confident.

I have to disagree with this one. "Hot starlet" in the media means two things: "Skinny" and "Big boobs and/or butt." But, I've found "women the media says are attractive" and "women that men actually find attractive" don't intersect as much as you'd think.

Is there something wrong with me when I am a male interested in women, but can't find any of those listed particularly attractive? I mean, I just do not like their faces. I apparently do not find breasts and butts attractive enough. I somehow prefer looking women in the eyes.

Also hair, but that tends to be more variable.

Dunno, I just picked 4 high ticket starlets who are quite often sited as attractive.

Personally I preferred Jolie back before the augmentation. And Johanson isn't my type. Berry on the other hand I've always thought had the most expressive eyes I've ever seen. Most of her memorable scenes I remember that I liked were closeups of her face. Natalie Portman I think has a very trim figure (which she rarely 'shows off') and is a very attractive woman in my opinion.

Everyone's different though. My suggestion on those average physical stats plus charisma is the 'average' response. Individuals will vary.

I'd say you're outside the bell curve if you don't find any of the four attractive (I picked what I felt was a diverse list).

[mplindustries]

mdt wrote:

You loose all geek cred if you don't recognize Kahn Noonian Singh from the new reboot of Star Trek. The main bad guy.

If it involves watching a reboot of Star Trek, I don't think I want that cred anymore. The original series was fun, but I've never liked Trek in general.

mdt wrote:

The last time I checked Angelina Jolie started out with A cups, and only upgraded after she was a big star (and even then didn't go D cups).

How often do you check famous people's boob sizes? ;)

mdt wrote:

Natalie Portman isn't 'skinny with big boobs' either.

You're right, she's just skinny. She does have a forehead that rivals Peyton Manning, though. And hey, Jolie has huge lips. Maybe it's "skinny" and "big (insert any feature)." Yeah, then that explains why people seem to think Ann Hathaway is attractive--it's the huge eyebrows!

mdt wrote:

Do you even watch any major movies? Seems like you've skipped several X-Men, Swordfish, Star Trek, several Star Wars, Hackers, Mr. and Mrs.Smith, and Tombraider.

Wait, why are you correlating seeing a movie with thinking someone in said movie was attractive? I saw the first three X-men movies (and didn't really like them), every Star Wars movie (including the Holiday special!), and Hackers. I didn't suddenly walk away from Episode II thinking Natalie Portman (or Hayden Christianson for that matter) was attractive.

I've seen the real Wrath of Khan, but never had any interest in any other Trek related things.

And since when are Swordfish and Mr. and Mrs. Smith major movies? Weren't they bombs? I only even ever heard of Swordfish from comedy articles mocking the scene where the guy "hacks" while getting blown or whatever it was.

mdt wrote:

Edit : And one last thing for Mr. Cumberbatch, he's a British Actor, and is quite the heart throb in England. He's considered a bright and upcoming star.

Silly England :P

Ok, sorry, I know this is getting away from the real topic, but I guess it does kind of prove that there's no objective way to measure this stuff.

Edit: If it makes you feel better, I think Brad Pitt and Halle Berry were the best looking ones of the 8 you listed (and Cumberwhatever and Portman were by far the worst), but neither especially do it for me.

[Mikaze]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I started this thread because I was bored and wanted to spark the obvious argument, but it's taken off in whole new ways!

How very Chaos God.

[MYTHIC TOZ]

We're always good for entertainment.

[Umbral Reaver]

Mikaze wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I started this thread because I was bored and wanted to spark the obvious argument, but it's taken off in whole new ways!

How very Chaos God.

Hail Eris!

[Craig Frankum]

The prettiest princess is the one that lives with a group of dwarves that some slightly less pretty queen attempted to kill with a kind-hearted ranger.

[Mikaze]

Craig Frankum wrote:

The prettiest princess is the one that lives with a group of dwarves that some slightly less pretty queen attempted to kill with a kind-hearted ranger.

....I always thought the queen was more attractive when I was a kid.

Up until the alter self bit of course.

Same for Sleeping Beauty, honestly....

>_>

<_<

[TOZ]

Mikaze wrote:

Same for Sleeping Beauty, honestly....

Huh. I would have said after the change...

[Sissyl]

I always felt sorry for the queen. To be an accomplished sorceress, taming demons, changing shape as she wished... and have all her self-worth predicated on her being the fairest in the land. Pfff.

[Grimmy]

DM Fiat!

[strayshift]

As a DM I would ask the players to break it down a little.

SOMETHING about a character influences NPC's to a lesser or greater degree. Somewhat bizarrely it influences everyone to the same degree, so we can safely assume it must be a multitude of factors. So, what factors about your character/npc lead to the appropriate positive/negative reaction?

Ask the players to list one for each +/- of charisma score, then discuss with you as DM. So the 20 Charisma Sorcerer has to name 5 things about themselves which positively influence others. The 5 Charisma Barbarian has to list 2 things about them which would provoke a negative reaction.

It makes the character's appearance a little more 'real' to the game world.

An example, during one of my games an npc Bard, female, who had long curly hair, strands of which kept escaping no matter how tightly she tied it, she had a little foible of blowing her fringe away from her eyes as she spoke. The pcs loved it, one went as far as to say that she was 'really sexy' and of course they pandered to her beauty, but her high charisma felt real within the context of the game. As a DM job done, an npc the players positively engage with.

[Kazaan]

@strayshift: In your example, if the Bard in question cut her hair, she'd logically lose Charisma. Now, granted, if she was really invested in her hair, she may suffer a loss of Charisma, but the loss of the hair was simply a stimulus; what's really happening is a shot to her confidence and force of personality. What should really be happening is that she has a Charisma stat (which represents her confidence/force of personality), but physical qualities can grant circumstantial bonuses when trying to influence others (intimidate, diplomacy, bluff, and opposed Cha checks, primarily). Lets say, for example, she has 16 Cha. Her hair is not a component of that 16 Cha; that's her base strength of personality. Her hair, however, can act as a convenient talisman, focus, whatever for her attempts to influence others who like her hair. For those who like that quality of her hair, she gains a circumstantial bonus to appropriate skills. People who are indifferent to her hair garner no bonus and those who dislike that kind of hair may apply a penalty. Animals and magic items would garner no bonus nor penalty because they are unimpressed by the qualities of your hair (except, possibly, for Intelligent magic items and Awakened animals). Taming the hair would cut off these bonuses and penalties. But the important point is that they don't constitute parts of your natural confidence; they are tools used by your confidence in the same way that weapons are tools used by your Strength stat. You wouldn't say that wielding a Longsword makes you stronger because it increases your damage output, nor would you say that wielding the Longsword is a "component" of your high Strength modifier (My Str bonus is +3 because 1) I wield a sword, 2) I lift, and 3) I've got a big, sturdy frame). There's only one thing about the 20 Cha sorcerer that positively influences others; his strong sense of confidence and force of his personality. Technically speaking, the d20 roll is supposed to represent the "variance" for how people respond to your natural personal magnetism (or repulsion in the case of a penalty). There's only one thing about a magnet that makes it attract ferro-magnetic substances; that one thing may be stronger in a strong magnet or weaker in a weak magnet, but it's still just magnetism.

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

We shall cut both princesses in half...

[strayshift]

Kazaan wrote:

@strayshift: In your example, if the Bard in question cut her hair, she'd logically lose Charisma. Now, granted, if she was really invested in her hair, she may suffer a loss of Charisma, but the loss of the hair was simply a stimulus; what's really happening is a shot to her confidence and force of personality. What should really be happening is that she has a Charisma stat (which represents her confidence/force of personality), but physical qualities can grant circumstantial bonuses when trying to influence others (intimidate, diplomacy, bluff, and opposed Cha checks, primarily). Lets say, for example, she has 16 Cha. Her hair is not a component of that 16 Cha; that's her base strength of personality. Her hair, however, can act as a convenient talisman, focus, whatever for her attempts to influence others who like her hair. For those who like that quality of her hair, she gains a circumstantial bonus to appropriate skills. People who are indifferent to her hair garner no bonus and those who dislike that kind of hair may apply a penalty. Animals and magic items would garner no bonus nor penalty because they are unimpressed by the qualities of your hair (except, possibly, for Intelligent magic items and Awakened animals). Taming the hair would cut off these bonuses and penalties. But the important point is that they don't constitute parts of your natural confidence; they are tools used by your confidence in the same way that weapons are tools used by your Strength stat. You wouldn't say that wielding a Longsword makes you stronger because it increases your damage output, nor would you say that wielding the Longsword is a "component" of your high Strength modifier (My Str bonus is +3 because 1) I wield a sword, 2) I lift, and 3) I've got a big, sturdy frame). There's only one thing about the 20 Cha sorcerer that positively influences others; his strong sense of confidence and force of his personality. Technically speaking, the d20 roll is supposed to represent the "variance" for how...

The rules are a framework for STORYTELLING. You play through your single lens of war-gaming if you wish, I'll create characters, relationships, back-story, plot hooks and epic adventures with the stats being a mere mechanism not the be all and end all.

[TriOmegaZero]

strayshift wrote:

The rules are a framework for STORYTELLING.

The rules are a framework for playing the game. It's up to the player whether they use that framework to tell a story or play a wargame.

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

strayshift wrote:

The rules are a framework for STORYTELLING.

The rules are a framework for playing the game. It's up to the player whether they use that framework to tell a story or play a wargame.

When there's competition between two players, its the rules that make the judgment of those players fair.

[The black raven]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Two players argue about which of their princesses is the prettiest.

Charisma is not attractiveness, but should it be the decider when there's an argument?

Don't bring Comeliness into this. Please god no.

Barring special abilities, the decider is the highest Diplomacy roll among the 2 PCs ;-)

In a pinch, Bluff could be used too. Not sure about Intimidate though.

[Thac20]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Two players argue about which of their princesses is the prettiest.

Charisma is not attractiveness, but should it be the decider when there's an argument?

Don't bring Comeliness into this. Please god no.

Whichever one has the most gold. :-)

[Titania, the Summer Queen]

Thac20 wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Two players argue about which of their princesses is the prettiest.

Charisma is not attractiveness, but should it be the decider when there's an argument?

Don't bring Comeliness into this. Please god no.

Whichever one has the most gold. :-)

I would say the winner is whose kingdom has the strongest military.