the power of a good illustration

[Kae'Yoss]

It's the other one. That having high confidence makes you more physically attractive: you stand taller, you square your shoulders, you just your jaw, you make eye contact, you aren't afraid to show off your good traits.

I do think it can go both ways.

She may be beautiful, but she's also retreating into a hood -- she's shy, unassuming, retreating, she doesn't want to be seen, doesn't want to be noticed, doesn't want to be judged.

She's got a level of rogue. Of course she wants to go unnoticed from time to time

Plus, hooded chicks are mysterious, exotic, that turns some people on

Maybe she was the fat kid in her psionics class and never quite got over the taunts of the other students. She doesn't want people to see her, she's afraid of not being "good enough" for them. She won't speak up, and when she does, she stutters and slurs her words. She's not confident. She's beautiful (and the artist caught that), but she can't use it to her advantage.

You know, it just struck me: If you're discussing the personality, background and history of someone who is only a picture and a set of roleplaying stats, you must be a hardcore roleplayer

I guess we're all guilty as charged.

But, basically, I agree that the incredulity at her being CHA 8 is ridiculous. It's absolutely possible to look like that and be CHA 8. If she was CHA 3, you might have a slightly harder time convincing me.

Ridiculous. Really? Not "I can't quite agree with that" but "ridiculous", as if I suggested that dwarves in 3.5e are underpowered and bards are only played by the worst munchkins because they're so powerful?

Look at the picture: She's quite comely, she doesn't exactly dress like a shy person, and the look on her face doesn't really suggest low cha, either. That only leaves a really nasty personality or some serious disfunctions that make her undesirable to have around. Other than that, I think that her looks and bearing should go long ways of preventing any Cha penalty.

I still think someone just screwed up while statting her.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I've spent way too much time searching for pics to use as illustrations in my Vikings book the last year, but seeing this thread gives me I hope that it will be worth it. Obviously I'm not the only one who see the value of having just the right illustration!

Here's a one of my favorites, by Hans Fredrik Gude. This should give the readers a pretty good what a Norwegian fjord looks like.

 

[Jolly Giant]

...and how about these Vikings skiers, by Knud bergslien? Or the Valkyrie, by P. N. Arbo? Or the armies of Asgard, also by Arbo?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still think someone just screwed up while statting her.

In my litmus test, I'm going to have to go with what's more likely.

What's more likely? That WotC, which has been known to be obsessed with getting things right in the past, let a minor stat/picture discrepency slip past them completely unaware?

Or that characters with an 8 CHA can actually be fairly physically lovely and STILL only have an 8 CHA for other reasons? Something that I've seen many examples of in the game, in art, and in real life?

Hmmm....the first isn't exactly unlikely, but I've played characters like the latter, so I'd have to say that the latter is MORE likely.

More on-topic, the one image that lead me to buying the idea of the Beastlords of the Beastlands:

 

[Klaus]

In my litmus test, I'm going to have to go with what's more likely.

What's more likely? That WotC, which has been known to be obsessed with getting things right in the past, let a minor stat/picture discrepency slip past them completely unaware?

Or that characters with an 8 CHA can actually be fairly physically lovely and STILL only have an 8 CHA for other reasons? Something that I've seen many examples of in the game, in art, and in real life?

Hmmm....the first isn't exactly unlikely, but I've played characters like the latter, so I'd have to say that the latter is MORE likely.

More on-topic, the one image that lead me to buying the idea of the Beastlords of the Beastlands:

I had to personally compliment Toni DiTerlizzi on that one. "Cat Lord" is his best female ever, bar none.

 

[phindar]

disagree on your opinion that it's dumb, and I want to point out that you did ask about the rules. And I did talk about the rules.

No, what I said was:

Putting physical attractiveness under CHA is just lazy thinking on the part of game designers, though surprisingly common across the various rules systems. I prefer to think of CHA as the force of one's personality, their personal magnetism, their confidence and ability to lead. Physical Attractiveness is a function of What You Look Like, it doesn't really need a stat requirement. It's fluff.

I didn't ask about physical attractiveness linking to CHA because I looked it up in the book, saw that it was, and said, "that is absolutely horrible." And decided to attack that specific point because... well... no good reason really. Just on the grounds of being horribly ill-considered game design. Its possible you are confusing me with another poster, and if so, no harm no foul.

Linking beauty to a stat is as close to an indefensible argument as I can imagine. Here are the only two things I can think of that make any sense:

1) Beauty has to link to something, CHA is the most applicable thing. (This I think is simple false, there's really no reason a character can't look like anything you want. Its fluff.)

2) If beauty links to CHA, then the mary sue players that insist npcs swoon over their tweaked out combat gods can't use CHA as a dump stat. (This, honestly, I am not unsympathetic to. If your group consists of mary sue players that insist npcs swoon over their tweaked out combat gods, you have to do everything in your power to stop them. Make beauty inversely proportionate to attack bonus, do whatever you have to do.)

I have two real world examples I'll trot out. Hitler. Not an attractive man. And yet, he somehow got an entire country to buy into a scheme slightly less well thought out than the local Amway concern. (In fact, all the world leaders circa WWII were dogs. Churchill looked like a cigar someone had half stubbed out. All the current world leaders are dogs too, except for Vladimir Putin. I admit I sometimes get lost in the ocean that is his eyes.)

The second example requires a leap of imagination. Let's say you had total amnesia, the kind you find in bad romance novels, and you remember nothing from the past 4 years. I show you a picture of Paris Hilton. You'd probably think, "Well, she's kind of skinny, and the nose is a little weird, but she seems like a sweet person." Then, you watch any five minutes of any season of the Surreal Life. I confound you sir, to say that beauty and CHA are linked. (You could of course say you don't find Paris Hilton attractive, which I will accept. Put that only proves my next point.)

Whether or not you are attractive is a subjective decision on the part of the viewer. CHA is a stat, it does something, it is a part of who you are. Let's say my character was a beautiful, beautiful Sorcerer with a 22 CHA, and because of poor decision making, he gets his face cut off. His cheeks, his lips, his nose; amputated. Until Regeneration is cast, he is a vaguely human-looking, skull-visaged monstrosity; a bloody snot-bubble blowing, terrifyingly hideous thing. His CHA? Still 22. Unaffected. Because when you actually think about it, it makes no sense to link appearance to Charisma.

Beauty is only skin deep. Beauty... is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, Kae, never doubt that a small number of snarky comments can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

 

[Jesus_marley]

With all due respect, if I was DMing a character that had a total facial amputation, I would apply a charisma penalty until such time as the damage was corrected.

whether you like it or not, physical attractiveness is a fundamental but not overwhelming part of Charisma. True, personality supplies the majority but physical attractiveness cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

 

[Felon]

With all due respect, if I was DMing a character that had a total facial amputation, I would apply a charisma penalty until such time as the damage was corrected.

Better yet, penalize those skills that facelessness would detract from. I imagine such a character might still manage an Intimidate check, he could still Use Magic Devices, and the save DC of his spells wouldn't be affected by his ugliness....

 

[Hypersmurf]

I didn't ask about physical attractiveness linking to CHA because I looked it up in the book, saw that it was, and said, "that is absolutely horrible." And decided to attack that specific point because... well... no good reason really. Just on the grounds of being horribly ill-considered game design. Its possible you are confusing me with another poster, and if so, no harm no foul.

Kae'Yoss asked:

So because you think cha doesn't have anything to do with looks, Wizards may ignore their own rules?

You replied:

What rules?

Several people pointed you to Wizards' own rules where they state that Cha incorporates physical attractiveness.

Nobody was confusing you with another poster; you asked what rules one would have to ignore to divorce Cha from looks, and people responded with the rules one would have to ignore to divorce Cha from looks.

-Hyp.

 

[Felon]

Several people pointed you to Wizards' own rules where they state that Cha incorporates physical attractiveness.

Nobody was confusing you with another poster; you asked what rules one would have to ignore to divorce Cha from looks, and people responded with the rules one would have to ignore to divorce Cha from looks.

Maybe he was wondering what rules about Cha affect "wizards", the class, not "Wizards", the company? That was a mite confusing.

At any rate, I always thought the spiked chain was one good illo away from being accepted by those who deride its "lack of verisimilitude" (or whatever it is they grouse about).