CHA, huh, what is it good for?

[Sunseeker]

D&D can claim whatever it wants. It makes claims on what is and what is not evil and good. It is a game, it can define things however it likes and people might disagree with that but it doesn't change what the rules say.

D&D can claim what is right and wrong because it has it's own moral system, and it's own gods who define morality in their own ways.

D&D can't claim what is or isn't beautiful because they would get sued. They're already in the hot-seat for some of their art of women already.

Did you think they were using "she" instead of "he" in their publications for kicks? No, it's because "she" is a more socially acceptable pronoun than "he", and they get less flak for using it.

 

[Crothian]

D&D can't claim what is or isn't beautiful because they would get sued. They're already in the hot-seat for some of their art of women already.

What?

Do you have something to back this up?

 

[Sunseeker]

What?

Do you have something to back this up?

Google. 5 miniutes around women. A day in a race and gender studies course. This website(and the millions like it) Demonomicon | All Girl Army

The fact that there's very regularly a topic on this very website about sexism in D&D. ENWorld is in fact, the first site to pop up when you search for D&D and "sexism".

And if your doubt a company like WotC with it's depictions of women in it's books and accessories is not in the sights by people who look for any excuse to cry sexism, then well, wow.

 

[billd91]

Uh, shidaku, I don't think any of that, in any way, indicates that WotC is in some kind of "hot seat" over depictions of women. There have been criticisms about cheesecake art or passive women in the art for years. WotC is actually not doing all that badly with it compared to the days of TSR.

I don't think there's any threat of lawsuits being filed over it, nor would there be if D&D included a beauty trait again.

 

[Crothian]

Google. 5 miniutes around women. A day in a race and gender studies course. This website(and the millions like it) Demonomicon | All Girl Army

The fact that there's very regularly a topic on this very website about sexism in D&D. ENWorld is in fact, the first site to pop up when you search for D&D and "sexism".

And if your doubt a company like WotC with it's depictions of women in it's books and accessories is not in the sights by people who look for any excuse to cry sexism, then well, wow.

How does Physical Attractive as part of Charisma get us there? Note that in no way is it saying "If they try to enforce "buff men" and "busty women", they'll get in trouble, if they try to push the opposite, they'll get in trouble. " it is not enforcing anything like this. Those are items you brought to this discussion seemingly to move this towards some sexism conversation.

 

[Sunseeker]

How does Physical Attractive as part of Charisma get us there? Note that in no way is it saying "If they try to enforce "buff men" and "busty women", they'll get in trouble, if they try to push the opposite, they'll get in trouble. " it is not enforcing anything like this. Those are items you brought to this discussion seemingly to move this towards some sexism conversation.

Uh, shidaku, I don't think any of that, in any way, indicates that WotC is in some kind of "hot seat" over depictions of women. There have been criticisms about cheesecake art or passive women in the art for years. WotC is actually not doing all that badly with it compared to the days of TSR.

I don't think there's any threat of lawsuits being filed over it, nor would there be if D&D included a beauty trait again.

Exactly, as long as it's a stat you can roll, or a stat you can put points into, it's fine for them to claim "if your numbers in the Beauty Stat are high, your character is very attractive." What I'm saying they can't do is go around saying that "attractive" equates to big boobs.

EDIT: and yes, I think I'm going off topic, so I'll end it all. All I was trying to get across is that while WotC can claim a certain stat defines how attractive you are, they're not going to claim any social standards for what attractiveness is.

 

[billd91]

EDIT: and yes, I think I'm going off topic, so I'll end it all. All I was trying to get across is that while WotC can claim a certain stat defines how attractive you are, they're not going to claim any social standards for what attractiveness is.

I don't think they would ever try even if they were to include some new attractiveness trait. It's important to remember that the stats that D&D has are abstract enough as it is to cover a wide range of things. Attractiveness, comeliness, whatever you call it would do the same and reflect the PC's beauty abstractly with a stat, leaving it to the individual player to define.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Not according to how the game defines it. Physical attractiveness is one of the components to how D&D defines Charisma.

Mind flayers are well known for their supermodel looks.

Gibbering Mouthers have a higher charisma then your average commoner.

Hell, the kraken has charisma 20. It is by these standards literally more beautiful then even the most radiant level 1 noble.

No, charisma is not physical attraction. There is no physical attraction stat. It's dumb.

 

[renau1g]

Krakens are beautiful. They are the ultimate underwater engines of destruction... any PC's on a boat of between 7th and 12th level will certainly encounter one...

 

[Crothian]

No, charisma is not physical attraction. There is no physical attraction stat. It's dumb.

Dumb is intelligence so leave that to a different thread.

Heck, it could be Wizards agrees with this line of thinking as Physical Attractiveness is not part of Charisma in 4e. But there has been a stat for it, comeliness. And other games like White have had one as well (appearance).