Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8928014" data-attributes="member: 6901101">So everyone can misquote everything I have said, here you go:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think charisma should only be based on looks.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think charisma should have a one word definition - beauty.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think charisma can only be tied to pretty, and only in human modern-day standards.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">(Of course, all of this is sarcasm.)</li>
</ul>You can use these as quotes to constantly and purposefully misstate what I have said. It's ridiculous, just like the DM argument. I have repeatedly espoused it be part (part, not all) of the definition. How everyone can read it as anything other than that is incomprehensible to me.I appreciate people who don't want it in the definition due to gut reactions or some negative consequences. But the misrepresentation of my argument is, I don't know, just bizarre to me. The definition of charisma for 5e is: &quot;confidence, eloquence, leadership,&quot; and &quot;... your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.&quot; Its related skills are: deception, intimidation, performance, persuasion.So I will drop the whole thing once someone answers this question: How does confidence, eloquence, leadership, being charming or commanding work with things like species, cultures, languages, religions, etc? For clarification, I mean, if there is no universality to beauty, then why would there be a universal marker for leadership or charming or eloquence - especially when other languages, decorum, and social morays are involved?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8928014, member: 6901101"] So everyone can misquote everything I have said, here you go: [LIST] [*]I think charisma should only be based on looks. [*]I think charisma should have a one word definition - beauty. [*]I think charisma can only be tied to pretty, and only in human modern-day standards. [*](Of course, all of this is sarcasm.) [/LIST] You can use these as quotes to constantly and purposefully misstate what I have said. It's ridiculous, just like the DM argument. I have repeatedly espoused it be part ([B]part, not all[/B]) of the definition. How everyone can read it as anything other than that is incomprehensible to me. I appreciate people who don't want it in the definition due to gut reactions or some negative consequences. But the misrepresentation of my argument is, I don't know, just bizarre to me. The definition of charisma for 5e is: "confidence, eloquence, leadership," and "... your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality." Its related skills are: deception, intimidation, performance, persuasion. So I will drop the whole thing once someone answers this question: How does confidence, eloquence, leadership, being charming or commanding work with things like species, cultures, languages, religions, etc? For clarification, I mean, if there is no universality to beauty, then why would there be a universal marker for leadership or charming or eloquence - especially when other languages, decorum, and social morays are involved? [/QUOTE]

Verification