D&D 5E The Misrepresentation of Charisma

[FormerlyHemlock]

Historically, beauty and wealth have correlated - there have been times that being overweight was a sign of wealth, and considered attractive. In medieval times, (for white people) being thin and tanned wasa sign you are poor and work in the fields; being fat and pale was a sign you were comfortable and did not do manual labour. Corresponding standards of beauty tracked with that.

These days, the reverse seems to be true. Millionaire movie stars are often thin and fit. It's a sign of wealth and success.

Wealth and health correlate even more strongly. Being poor could mean dying of malnutrition. So the beauty-wealth-health signalling mechanism was doing its job properly there, telling you who was the "fittest" mate from a Darwinian perspective. (I doubt that grossly obese people were considered beautiful even back then even though gross obesity is a clear marker of extreme wealth--"pleasantly plump" is about as far as I'd find plausible based on what I know of art from the period.)

Nowadays, thin and fit people are likely to live longer than overweight people, so it's not at all inconsistent to see that as the new standard of beauty. Dying of malnutrition simply isn't a risk for most people any more, so plumpness no longer carries any information about a (Darwinian) fitness advantage.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No no no no.

Look, if we want to get deep on this, the "wealth" signifier in terms of "fitness" from an evolutionary standpoint is much more simple, and it is not health (as you have been defining it). It is that this person is likely to be a good match to bear children because this person can provide for the children. If you're looking at it from a reductionist and Darwinian standpoint.

Obviously Darwinian fitness is not synonymous with health. I've been drawing this distinction all along every time I wrote "(Darwinian) fitness" instead of "fitness." It's unfortunate that the two terms overlap, but I assure you I'm not confused about the two terms.

A wise choice of mate is one who is likely to produce lots of healthy, fertile offspring who likewise live to have offspring of their own. Some fitness factors are invisible (like the ability to metabolize lactose in a culture which has recently domesticated cows); some are visible (glowing health as a marker for low genetic load); some aren't genetic per se at all (plumpness = relative wealth = children will have plenty of food).

If you want to run it some other way, knock yourself out. But using Con as a proxy for physical attractiveness works just fine in 5E, as well as any other stat abstraction we use. (E.g. Intelligence being independent of Wisdom--in real life there's a positive correlation between higher IQ and lower time preference.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yunru]

I hate to burst your bubble, but since half-orcs are a thing, someone had to find them pretty [emoji14]

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pdzoch]

My problem with the comeliness score is the subjective nature of beauty or attractiveness. I list both beauty and attractiveness separately because, though related, they are separate. As cited in many post above in this thread, there are numerous ways in which attractiveness or beauty can be represented, and they vary not only in culture and evolution but from person to person. The inevitable argument of the question "Ginger or Mary Ann?" comes to mind. Even the adolescent and patronizing attractiveness rating scale 1-10 has broad parameters. (Is he a 7, 8, or a 9? Why did she rate him a 5? etc.) Too many parameters to create an unneeded mechanic of an element not relevant to functional role play game.

The charisma is a different factor, certainly influenced by and influencing attractiveness. I'm not sure it is as subjective, though it may have its nuances. Again, it is an ability and not just a descriptive trait. This assumes charisma to be fairly fixed and universal. Generally, a jerk is a jerk and is pretty much recognizable as a jerk by everyone. Though...... a jerk has buddies. So do they think he is a jerk, too, making charisma relative? Or do they recognize he is a jerk, but they are less affected by the negative effect of jerkiness because they are also jerks or perhaps it is just a phase a jerk is going through but his friends are tolerating it because they know his true self?

Constitution and health are separate issues. Sure they could affect charisma, but so could intelligence, wisdom, strength, as well as a host of many other attributes not in the ability scores -- religious, wealth, social background, nice car(or horse), snappy dresser, knows how to dance, etc. But it might not. So I am not a fan of automatically making the ability scores relative to each other.

I do not mind any player describing her character as pretty. That attractiveness can be based on anything they want it to be based on, even charisma (with my occasional eye roll). It may or may not become relevant to the story. And certainly not every NPC will find the character attractive, regardless of how they describe their character.

 

[Yunru]

You mean you don't roll 1d10 to determine how attractive you are? [emoji14]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Uh huh.

And as I've stated several times, the various mental abilities (IWCha) and physical abilities (SDCon) will have correlations. But they are not the same.

What I have yet to see is a compelling justification for mapping D&D constitution to physical attractiveness.

The most beautiful princess in the kingdom, as well as the toughest orc? 20 Con.

Because constitution is already mapped so heavily on in-game abilities such as endurance and hit points, it doesn't seem to map on to the extraneous function of "physical attractiveness."

Not to mention all the retconning you'd have to do. The Volo's Gauth, for example, has a 16 Constitution. Want to get all snuggly with a Gauth?

In short, for reason I have laid out (historical) and much more important reasons that apply to the game, this makes little sense.

Which leads to my common sense observation- either re-purpose an existing stat that kinda sorts RPs in the game to it, however poorly (charisma, the social skill), create a new one (comeliness), or do as I do, and just let players describe their characters (super attractive, like a Gauth!).

All three of your proposed solutions have the exact same problem that using Con does--they don't differentiate between the attraction that a human feels for another human, and the attraction that a human feels for a Gauth (or vice versa). Sane DMs just say, "Gauths aren't attracted to humans".

I don't find your arguments particularly cogent, but hey, play your magic elf game in whatever way appeals to you. No skin off my nose either way.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*