D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Scott Christian]

In the real world, of course physical attractiveness has bearing on our interactions. There's no reason it has to be the same way in a fantasy world. "Elves are pretty" is right in their description, but no one is forced to react positively to a random elf.

In fact, player characters aren't forced to interact with Charisma at all, since they are completely allowed to dislike someone with high Charisma! So, as a result, only NPC's care about physical attractiveness anyways, and that's the DM's prerogative to take into account, if at all.

In my OP, I argued the fantasy world would have a different universal appeal. I mean, turtle people, elephant people, people with tails, people with scales, people with silver skin, etc. Maybe in the D&D-verse, there is a universal trait of beauty.

 

[Scott Christian]

I just googled "most charismatic people in history" and the first entry gave me:

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Fidel Castro
3. Winston Churchill
4. Mahatma Gandhi
5. David Koresh
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Martin Luther King Jr.
8. Malcolm X
9. Nelson Mandela
10. Teddy Roosevelt
11. Eva Perón
12. Aung San Suu Kyi

I went further down the page - tons of lists, citing hundreds of different people. Few of them particularly attractive by Hollywood standards. Quite a few of them notably the opposite. It seems that for most people, charisma =/= beauty.

So the claim that beauty is a part of charisma is harmful, not well supported, and totally illogical in a universe in which most sentient beings belong to a plethora of distinct species. Yet, if you still want your character to beautiful as part of your charisma, the rules let you do that. So I'm not seeing what the issue is.

Edit: for good measure, here are various dictionary definitions:

"the magnetic and charming personal quality that draws people to someone"
"a special personal quality or power of an individual making him or her capable of influencing or inspiring large numbers of people"
"the ability to attract the attention and admiration of others, and to be seen as a leader"
"a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure"
"a special quality conferring extraordinary powers of leadership and the ability to inspire veneration"

You left out the very first definition that appears via a Google search: "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."

 

[Scott Christian]

Nah, I’d say that’s still a negative. It should be entirely up to the player if their character’s appearance has any bearing on their Charisma whatsoever.

And that was my claim. Literally. It should be up to the player to allow their PC's "beauty" to be part of their charisma. As the definition exists now - it does not.
Those that argue about the controlling DM, it could just as easily be argued the other way.
DM: "Charisma is not looks. Therefore, how the NPC reacts to you is solely based on your race. Player one, you're an elf, all the humans fawn and admire you. Player two, you're a dwarf, all the humans think you are ugly." That is how the argument of a not very good DM sounds. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

 

[Scott Christian]

You can say you have massive hotness and a terrible personality, but your Charisma modifier remains the same for all purposes. You can describe your high-Wisdom character as near-sighted and gullible, but possessed of an indomitable resolve....and you still have the same modifier for perception, insight, and wisdom saves.

I know in my games, I often have a tiered approach. For example, the captain that likes straightforward talk and values honestly When the players use persuasion in a charming manner (flowery and verbose), the DC is as is. She is not one to be intimidated, therefore, when the players use intimidation, her DC increases. And those that use and value her approach of being honest and forthcoming, have a lower DC. Sometimes I will make it advantage/neutral/disadvantage. It's my own way to mix the roleplay with the mechanics. Not for everyone, I know. But for the tables I have run, it works.

 

[Scott Christian]

There is no inherent benefit, to the player or society at large, to making Charisma explicitly based on appearance.

I don't know how many times this has to be said in order for it to be understood. It is in the original post. It would be a part of the definition, because as of right now, it is not. Meaning you could be scary looking but still persuasive. You could be scarred and missing an eye and some teeth, yet still be charismatic. But you could also be beautiful and charismatic. It would be one part of the definition.

 

[Scribe]

You left out the very first definition that appears via a Google search: "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."

Cant have that now, can we.

 

[Scott Christian]

Cant have that now, can we.

I just don't get misusing sources like that. I mean, the internet is vast, and anyone can find something that supports their argument. The more difficult road lies in understanding the nuance, or, harder yet, the opposite side's evidence of our initial opinion. I know I have a hard time with it.

 

[Scribe]

I just don't get misusing sources like that. I mean, the internet is vast, and anyone can find something that supports their argument. The more difficult road lies in understanding the nuance, or, harder yet, the opposite side's evidence of our initial opinion. I know I have a hard time with it.

Nuance is dead. I'm not sure when it happened, but this whole thread is a perfect example of the state of discourse in the 2020's.

What is being said, no longer matters, only people's initial reaction to it, and their desire to be validated.

I mean just look at how you were misrepresented throughout, and its gone on for 12 pages. It would be more amusing if it wasnt sad.

 

[Irlo]

I know in my games, I often have a tiered approach. For example, the captain that likes straightforward talk and values honestly When the players use persuasion in a charming manner (flowery and verbose), the DC is as is. She is not one to be intimidated, therefore, when the players use intimidation, her DC increases. And those that use and value her approach of being honest and forthcoming, have a lower DC. Sometimes I will make it advantage/neutral/disadvantage. It's my own way to mix the roleplay with the mechanics. Not for everyone, I know. But for the tables I have run, it works.

I do very much like this approach and have used it with important NPCs. (Usually, I abstract all those considerations as part of the d20 result.) It would work with regard to attractiveness also. In some circumstances with some people, appearance can affect DCs and/or provide advantage/disadvantage.

I don't know how many times this has to be said in order for it to be understood. It is in the original post. It would be a part of the definition, because as of right now, it is not. Meaning you could be scary looking but still persuasive. You could be scarred and missing an eye and some teeth, yet still be charismatic. But you could also be beautiful and charismatic. It would be one part of the definition.

This is what makes appearance seem to be not part of the definition of Charisma. If I can be charismatic (and either ugly or beautiful) or uncharismatic (and either ugly or beautiful), how exactly is appearance tied to Charisma? And since I can do that now, without a change to the rules, what is gained by citing appearance specifically in the text? (That's rhetorical. I don't mean to open up a review of all the perspectives already.)

 

[James Gasik]

I just don't get misusing sources like that. I mean, the internet is vast, and anyone can find something that supports their argument. The more difficult road lies in understanding the nuance, or, harder yet, the opposite side's evidence of our initial opinion. I know I have a hard time with it.

I can't speak as to the motives of the poster, but it's not necessarily misusing the definition, since that is not the definition of Charisma as 5e currently uses it.