From the SRD:
CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
As the definition in the SRD states, charisma determines physical attractiveness, amongst other things. Every creature, be it a monkey or a dragon, must necessarily find his or her mate attractive. This is why many birds have bright plumage and we have a huge variety of mating calls. Therefore, I propose that to for a character to find a member of her own race attractive, the potential mate must at least possess an average (10) charisma. Below that stat, and the character is considered relatively repellent and not likely to find a suitable mate.
Orcs and Dwarves have a racial, i.e., inherent and biological -2 to charisma, so the average member of that race will have an 8 charisma. This means that members of this race do not find members of their own race very attractive. Remember, charisma is NOT how you are perceived socially but how literally attractive you are. A human will find a Dwarf unattractive, not because he is a Dwarf per se, but because he has a low charisma. But so will another Dwarf! Non-intuitively, a Dwarf would also find a human more attractive than another Dwarf, since they are objectively more attractive in the D&D universe.
This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Dwarves wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. The race of orcs would have even a swifter end. (Not half-orcs, Orcs.) You must find your mate attractive and these races wouldn't find that attractiveness in their own race. As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
I don't think a person with charisma 8 or 9 would be much less attractive physically. They'd just have a bad personality, and they'd have a sloppy appearance. Also, there is no such thing as evolution in D&D, I think. It's a creationist's dream come true.
As a secondary rebuttal to your proposal I would say that a character with a charisma score of lower than 10 would be forced to settle for a character with a similar affliction when it came to choosing a mate. In reality you can see this in action. Beautiful people go for beautiful people and average people are usually with similarly average people.
Then again, love conquers all, and sometimes physical appearance doesn't mean all that much.
As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
It might also have to do with standards for comparison. Remember that in some cultures more rubenesque women are the epitome of attractiveness. In our culture we tend to epitomize anorexia as beauty. Remember that charisma is also force of personality. Dwarves tend to be a much more group oriented race, they sublimate the desires of the individual for the needs of the masses.
This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Dwarves wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. The race of orcs would have even a swifter end. (Not half-orcs, Orcs.) You must find your mate attractive and these races wouldn't find that attractiveness in their own race. As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
Counter proposal: The Charisma penalty, from the attractiveness perspective, is from the point of view of a human. Therefore, when dealing with one's own race for the social aspects of Charisma, eliminate the bonus or penalty to charisma. Problem solved.
- Physical attractiveness isn't equivalent to Charisma. Charisma is the combined effect of personality, persuasiveness, magnetism, leadership, and physical attractiveness.
- Physical appearance doesn't solely determine how a creature is attracted to its mate. Strength of personality, leadership, and persuasiveness can make up for weaknesses in appearance. Charisma is the overall effect of these attributes. History is full of examples of power and money attracting mates regardless of physical attractiveness.
- The average ability roll using the standard 4d6-drop-lowest technique is about 12.2, not 10. By that argument, any character with less than 12 Cha will have less than average attractiveness.
- Intelligent creatures are not mere animals who react to primitive stimuli of visual, aural, or olfactory senses. Physical attractiveness is but one component of how attractive a person is to someone else. Even in the animal world, more than mere appearance comes into play: sound and smell are part of attractiveness too.
I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
There is no conundrum. A charisma penalty reflects the combination of several attributes, only one of which is physical appearance. In D&D, members of the same race or culture generally know what to expect from each other, so it isn't an issue there.
-A
Evolution and Racial Charisma Penalties
From the SRD:
CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
Remember, charisma is NOT how you are perceived socially but how literally attractive you are.
We are on the same page here right? I can understand what you are saying but it just seems to go against my own form of logic.
Do you find Mindflayers sexy as hell? Because they have a pretty high CHA score.
The average ability score for a race with no penalty in that score is 10, as you say. But, when there is a racial penalty, that average goes down. In the case of dwarves, your "attractiveness argument" should take this into consideration. Namely, the potential mate must possess an average (8) Charisma. Below that stat, the character is considered relatively repellent and not likely to find a suitable mate.
Likewise, a very workable house-rule would be that Charisma-penalty races do not suffer from the penalty when dealing with members of their own race. A corollary to this rule would apply their Charisma penalty to other races dealing with them.
For example, a Dwarf character rolls a 10 Charisma. Applying his racial modifier, he has an 8 Charisma when dealing with non-dwarves, and a 10 Charisma when dealing with dwarves. During his adventuring career, the dwarf meets a human paladin with a 17 Charisma. Applying a circumstance modifier equal to the dwarf's racial modifier, the dwarf PERCEIVES the human to have a 15 Charisma (affecting all Charisma-based skills).
What it means is that you have a slightly tougher time at making a good first impression. For dating and finding love purposes, it would mean that you might need a few extra dates with your chosen one to convince the fair lad/lass that you are Mr/Miss Right.
Remember, when you get to know somebody the first impressions based on Charisma mean less, and you will need to demonstrate through other type of behavior that you are a good person. For a dwarf the Charisma penalty might mean that the first time you meet one he appears gruff, a bit grumpy, and maybe a little rude. But as you get to know him you might realize that he is kind, hard-working and loyal, qualities which most would value higher than the flighty cha-based first impressions. At this point your relationship with him is no longer penalized by the dwarf's low charisma.
Also, a Charisma of 8 is hardly in the extreme low end of the scale. Assuming that the entire population rolls 3d6 to determine their ability scores, about 25% of humans will have a charisma of 8 or lower, and that is a significant part of the population, no? A person with Cha 8 might be slightly rude, slightly arrogant, but there are still plenty of people who'll do worse than that.
Sig
Dwarves would have survived, too. Why? Because they have a penchant for a little thing called ale. Beer-goggles work wonders man. I work in a bar, I see it every night. It's all relative when finding a mate. While physical attractiveness is usually what brings two beings together, it isn't the only means to establishing a relationship. Dwarves like to eat, so finding an unattractive female who can cook a lump of poop into a gourmet meal might be high on the list of priorities. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, and all that jazz . . .
CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
As per the orcs racial adjustments, it's clear that they breed for strength.
As per the elves racial adjustments, it's clear that they breed for dexterity.
As per the dwarves racial adjustments, it's clear that they breed for constitution.
I can't see how the OP can justify that Charisma (a mental stat) represents physical attractiveness. How can someone with the physical stats of Str 14 Dex 14 Con 14 be
less physically attractive than someone with the physical stats of Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8?
If someone with physical stats of Str 8, Dex 8, Con 8 is more attractive than someone with the physical stats of Str 14 Dex 14 Con 14 then it is due to force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism and not to physical attractiveness.
Dwarfs are a race of sensible people. Most probably arranged marriages, certainly financial security is a much bigger issue to a dwarf then attractiveness.
Also keep in mind that charisma merely includes a measure of attractiveness. A person can be very attractive with low charisma, but it means their personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead are proportionally 'worse'.
If you dislike charisma then you can use a home-brew I've considers (but rejected) where all races have the average charisma of 10, but they get penalties or bonuses when interacting with other races. You’d need to write a table that shows how you believe these penalties/bonuses get applied. E.G.
Evolution and Racial Charisma Penalties
From the SRD:
CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
Did you look at the description of what Charisma entails prior to the physical attractiveness? Charisma is personality and it is a vital statistic for interaction. I've known some very attractive people who have the ugliest personalities and therefore have an 8 for Charisma. I've known some unattractive people who have the most wonderful and sparkling personalities. Despite them being "ugly", everyone likes them, so therefore, they have a high Charisma.
Charisma is the force of your personality. While some people could gather info and use diplomacy based on their looks, how about Use Magic Device or Intimidate? "I'm beautiful so you'd better work for me magic item! I'm so ridiculously good-looking that you should be scared of how ridiculously good-looking I am!" Does that sound correct to you? Peace.
CthaS
Also, culture is an important factor. Most species, even if they allow members to find mates outside the species, would consider same-species pairings the norm. Some wouldn't allow different-species pairings at all, and would insist people stick to their own. Individuals of the species really can't help but absorb that message, and so would be likely to look for a same-species mate as the default, finding a mate from another species only if there was some reason for it.
It's also possible that fertility rates would be better in same-species pairings given the greater genetic similarity--which would become obvious through observation, even if they had no scientific knowledge of genetics.
Finally, Charisma is not just physical attractiveness, but is presumably the average of several factors. A person could be attractive but have difficulty interacting with others or be painfully shy, and would likely still have a fairly low Charisma score. I don't think it's reasonable to assume a person's physical attractiveness is always exactly the same as their strength of personality and ability to lead, so Charisma should not be taken as an absolute standard of their physical attractiveness alone.
In terms of evolution... in D&D, it's influenced directly by gods and other entities, so a direct evolutionary argument is difficult to support.
I'm not a fan of Charisma penalties because what Charisma even means is such a nebulous concept, but I don't think finding mates should really be an issue since that isn't based solely on physical attractiveness.
Evolution doesn't always eliminate bad traits. Look at all of the genetic diseases to see examples. In mating, an individual is motivated to find a mate of those available, that will have them,that is acceptable. Look to all of the ugly people who are having babies to see an example of this. If attractiveness were the sole determinant, using the bell curve brought about by rolling for ability scores, only approximately 55% of people would be able to mate by your logic. In reality, most people mate and have children. Availability, sadly, is probably the biggest determinant.
Attractiveness, even if you define it to be physical attractiveness, is an indication of "fitness". While there is debate within the evolution literature on how to define "fitness", generally all would agree that physical attractiveness indicates a level of health that is suitable for a mate. Since we have already established that mating does not eliminate disease, we see that physical attractiveness only goes so far to get one a mate. Since it is just one component of "mate-ability", even the most attractive potential mate will fail to find his better half if he does not engage in activities that prove his "fitness." That being said, different species do have different ideas of what is attractive. If this were not so, there would be a much higher incidence of bestiality.
Your original idea is interesting, but the logic does not support the argument, and the whole thing breaks down to absurdity if considered in depth. Besides, where does evolution come in when the gods created the races in a complete form to mimic themselves? If you do not believe me, then cast a legend lore. If you don't believe that, then cast a commune with nature. That should set you straight.
Once the species begin interacting, that's when things start becoming problematic. Dwarves can only mate with other dwarves, (and if you read about their sociology, their society tends to revolve more around a communal "good for us all" psychology which precludes individual choice- IE, the concept of 'I'm marrying you because you're beautiful' doesn't have to exist in dwarven culture, per se,) and thus will choose to marry and have children with other dwarves because it's what's socially expected of them.
Also, you're assuming that Charisma is physical attractiveness, and that's it. When Charisma is quite clearly a combination of:
* force of personality,
* persuasiveness,
* personal magnetism,
* ability to lead, and
* physical attractiveness.
Now, assuming they're all represented more or less equally (IE, no one thing weighs more than the other), then the presence of a little bit of ugliness can be overcome by the presence of a lot of other things (natural leadership ability, strong personality, etc.) Likewise, natural beauty can be overcome by other things as well (think Britney Spears here - totally hot, but completely lacking in anything resembling charisma in my opinion.)
However, I could posit that charisma is only minimally physical attractiveness, specifically because it's named last in a list that doesn't appear to have any logical order save, perhaps, importance. (IE, "force of personality" is the most important, "physical attractiveness" is the least important.) In such a system, then all dwarven females can be babes - they just have serious personality problems.
You stated that all Dwarves would be physically drawn to humans as mates more so than other Dwarves. But take a dragon for instance, many of whom have above average charisma. Wouldn't humans go extinct due to their attraction to such an attractive creature? I think that I would chalk the survival of the species up to instinct.
I grant you that intelligent races, especially in a world that counts more races on the level of human intelligence than just humans, are capable of reasoning around their instincts and breeding with other species. Half-elves, half-orcs are evidence of that. I simply think that eliminating charisma penalties on an evolutionary basis would require a similar nixing of charisma bonuses based on race.
*shrug*
Here are a few ideas just off the top of my head:
- Dwarven marriages are arranged between clans before the dwarves in question are even born!
- Clan ties result from inter-marriage creating venues for both political and economic gain.
- Clans use marriage as a vehicle to produce children and further the clan's line.
With dwarves I would assume that marriage and child-bearing has socio-economic forces behind it, driving it. As long as their clans remain traditional and strong there is no reason that marriage (and therefore, the race itself) would die off.
For orcs, I present the following reason: Take what you can get. We already know that orcs are very rowdy bunch and often they **** the land and pillage the women. I'd say they're in no trouble of dying out.
In the D&D world, races like dwarves, orcs, and far less charismatic (stat-wise) creatures have flourished and prospered, and continue to do so to this day. Since such creatures (good-aligned dwarves at the very least) usually incorporate voluntary choice into whom they mate with, it can be concluded that dwarves do indeed find one another attractive, at least enough to continue producing offspring and increasing their numbers.
This would suggest that even average dwarves with a charisma of 8 can and do find mates, and that therefore Charisma as an ability score is not an objective measurement for all races but a relative one - a dwarf with a Charisma of 9 or 10 might have better than average features and disposition for a dwarf, and therefore be more attractive than the average dwarf, but would not need a charisma of 10 just to be considered average. He is, by definition, not an average dwarf.
Starting with the state of the D&D world leads me to conclude the exact opposite of what you've theorized, and I'm not sure how that conclusion negatively affects the game in any way. Why can't charisma be relative, and all creatures just other members of their race against the average charisma for that race? Why on earth would dwarves find humans more attractive than themselves?
Since this rule doesn't seem to add much to the game and actually suggests making a change to the game that has no suggested way to balance it (you want to take away dwarves'/orcs'/others' Charisma penalties but suggest no replacement penalty to balance the race), I wouldn't consider adopting it at this time.
Remember you said "relatively repellent" and beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. While having low charisma will probably decrease your odds of mating, having an 8 charisma does not make you a disgusting freak. Saying that people below 10 cha aren't attractive and therefore will rarely mate doesn't account for things like friendship, how well two people connect, and a number of other factors in humans that are hard to represent numerically. Have you ever seen two ugly people together IRL? It happens; just about everyone can find a mate, especially if they stick to people of their own level of attractiveness.
Not to mention the fact that when you have races beyond stupid stuff like skin color you would end up with likely much MORE pressure to mate only within your race than IRL (and there is plenty of pressure IRL).
charisma is NOT how you are perceived socially but how literally attractive you are
Well actually, it is how you are perceived socially, but, like attractiveness, that is only one bit of it. All of those other factors you listed at the top play into the equation.
This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Dwarves wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. The race of orcs would have even a swifter end. (Not half-orcs, Orcs.) You must find your mate attractive and these races wouldn't find that attractiveness in their own race. As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
No, just flat out no. Whether one can find a mate or not has many many more factors than "Are they hot?" Even factoring in just plain attractiveness and saying that is represented by charisma there are still many more factors. There is no conundrum because to put it frankly, even ugly people can get laid.
1) Physical attractiveness is not required for mating. It helps animals find healthy mates, that's it. In animals with higher levels of sentience it matters even less. Hormones man, hormones! The claim that in order to breed you have to have at least a 10 charisma is completely preposterous! I've seen people with 3 charisma breed.
2) Charisma is not ONLY physical attractiveness.
3) Nothing in the orc description makes me believe they would care what someone looks like. Again I will cite hormones. I won't go into what I think their view on correct mating practices are, but it would involve more violence than attraction.
4) To be truly successful at breeding you need one thing. Money. (In other words, the ability to feed and support mate and potential offspring.)
You put way too much emphasis on physical attractiveness if you think it is the end-all of a race's survival. Just look around and count how many couples of ugly people have lots of kids. There are thousands of ugly people and they have kids just as often (if not more often) than "attractive" people.
A better argument could be made for Constitution. Constitution represents health. Unhealthy individual would be naturally unfit, and faster to die, thus less likely to pass on their genes. This would make elves illogical. Further, it could be argues to extremes. A con 12 person will be more likely to survive than a con 10. A con 14 more than that. One might argue everyone should have 18 con, since anything less would result in the death of the species.
Overall, I think what it comes down to is, 8 isn't too terribly bad and there's some innate bonus to physical attractiveness for staying in the species. A Pit Fiend has a lot of charisma, but I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with one.
A dwarf raised amongst dwarves will not suddenly go out into the world, and realize, "Hey, there are all of these hot humans out here! I want to go out with all of them, because they are so much better looking than my race." He would probably see them as being too tall, having a lack of beards, etc...
If you wanted to have a system of attraction based on charisma, you should use a +/- system based on race/size. There can be other penalties/bonuses added in as well, depending on the circumstances. But it's just much easier, in my opinion, to ignore this whole deal and say, "My character isn't interested in that waitress because he dislikes weak women," or something like that.
If this is not enough (even though it should be), whenever you see stats of non-human creatures, you've got to remember that they all are being compared to humans. What I mean by this is that yes, a Goliath has +4 Strength, but if it was a Goliath-centered world, they'd have no bonus to Strength and humans would have a -4 to that stat. So, in my opinion, while a dwarf has a -2 to charisma (And let's think for a second it only means physical attractiveness), a female dwarf is not going to consider a human more beautiful because they have a different definition of what constitutes beauty.
I think ultimately you've got to remember that all non-human creatures are statted based on humans, since that's what we can relate to. I use this same way of thinking when I talk about alignment, and other matters that are subject to point of view.
I'd say that a better fix for the problem you perceive would be to eliminate charisma penalties when dealing with members of your own race.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few dwarven couples got together just because the guy was amazed at the girl’s ability to hold down her ale (high constitution) Or was more impressed with her ability to split an orc’s skull.
There's still some amount of worth places on aesthetics, careful beard trimming, adornment of armor, etc. but as far as I know the higher Charisma the base species has, the more emphasis they place on looking good, while low charisma races place less emphasis on looking good.
Also, for in game terms, an average Dwarf has just as good a chance at picking up a dwarf in a bar as a human does another human. a -1 vs a -1 is no real difference than 0 vs 0.
CHA = mental STR
INT = mental DEX
WIS = mental CON
Your character can look however attractive you want him to, regardless of CHA.
I do like the idea of the "-x" modifier being reciprocal between races. For some reason, that had never occurred to me. Thanks, Veneficus!
The average ability roll using the standard 4d6-drop-lowest technique is about 12.2, not 10. By that argument, any character with less than 12 Cha will have less than average attractiveness.
Commoners and most other average NPCs use 3d6, average 10.5.
There is no conundrum. Despite what the PHB says, Charisma is not a measure of physical attractiveness. It's sense of self, confidence and empathy.
Do you find Mindflayers sexy as hell? Because they have a pretty high CHA score.
Listen to this man. He speaks the truth: either the PHB is in error on this point, or spellcasting is incorrect, the social skills don't make sense (a dwarf wouldn't think an 8 Cha on a dwarf was a hindrance at all, for example), and a large number of monsters are extremely attractive when they are clearly not. Ockham says we go with option A.
As the definition in the SRD states, charisma determines physical attractiveness, amongst other things. Every creature, be it a monkey or a dragon, must necessarily find his or her mate attractive. This is why many birds have bright plumage and we have a huge variety of mating calls. Therefore, I propose that to for a character to find a member of her own race attractive, the potential mate must at least possess an average (10) charisma. Below that stat, and the character is considered relatively repellent and not likely to find a suitable mate.
Herein lies your first flaw. You propose an addendum to the rules that does not reasonably coincide with the rules in the first place. That addendum creates your problem, which illustrates that the problem you outline is not an inherent problem with the rules.
Another flaw to that argument is that 10 charisma is average for every race. The average for a dwarf is 8, not 10. 10 is the average for a human The average for a Satyr is 12 (or 13, depending on whether it's a PC or NPC). For a dwarf to be "below average" the dwarf would have to be at a 7 or lower charisma. Likewise A satyr with 10 charisma is below average for it's race, but would be average for a human. The concept of all 10s being average applies for humans only. There are races that are obviously stronger and weaker in certain characteristics than humans.
Orcs and Dwarves have a racial, i.e., inherent and biological -2 to charisma, so the average member of that race will have an 8 charisma. This means that members of this race do not find members of their own race very attractive. Remember, charisma is NOT how you are perceived socially but how literally attractive you are. A human will find a Dwarf unattractive, not because he is a Dwarf per se, but because he has a low charisma. But so will another Dwarf! Non-intuitively, a Dwarf would also find a human more attractive than another Dwarf, since they are objectively more attractive in the D&D universe.
Here is another flaw that many people mentioned. You are, yet again, defining a variable to much smaller parameters than it was initially defined. In addition, as we know as humans, that physical attractiveness is not the only factor in choosing a mate, so saying charisma is the only trait and it must be a certain amount to be able to mate is an unrealistic model.
This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Dwarves wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. The race of orcs would have even a swifter end. (Not half-orcs, Orcs.) You must find your mate attractive and these races wouldn't find that attractiveness in their own race. As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
You may note that if you were to follow the model as you set forth, if cross breeding between dwarves and humans were possible, dwarves would not die out, but rather evolve to be half human, due to the fact that they would prefer to mate with humans. That is, assuming that the humans were willing. By the same note, humans would prefer to mate with more charismatic races than themselves.
Orcs are clearly biased towards strength in their breeding, though that may be less from being turned on by it and more a matter of the strongest male drives off the weaker ones, or they are killed earlier in their childhood before they can breed. Kobolds breed rather freely with their own kind, so the early death explanation of selective breeding applies to them as well; dexterity is more relevant to their survival tactics than con or especially str.
If you're using your own str instead of mechanical advantage or sorcery, or if you're getting hit in the first place, you've already done something wrong and it's going to get you killed. Basically, each race has certain preferential traits that either through death or mate selection leads to certain attributes being more important to successfully breeding than other attributes. The attributes that are most important in determining successful breeding within a race are the ones that have/maintain racial bonus, the least important ones have/maintain racial penalties.
With Lord of the Rings and Discworld, female Dwarves have beards. PHB has a picture of a female Dwarf with no beard. I don't know any DM who applies the beardless female Dwarf picture. That rule always bites the dust, just like silly names for Hobbits to avoid copyright restrictions.
If low Charisma stopped you breeding, why are there so many ugly humans in Real life?
[Regdar notes that the OP was making a point about how Charisma was written to work in D&D and was adjusting stats to reflect this worldview. He was not commenting on how the “real world” works.]
Every creature, be it a monkey or a dragon, must necessarily find his or her mate attractive. This is why many birds have bright plumage and we have a huge variety of mating calls. Therefore, I propose that to for a character to find a member of her own race attractive, the potential mate must at least possess an average (10) charisma. Below that stat, and the character is considered relatively repellent and not likely to find a suitable mate.
By this logic, 50% of humans will never find a suitable mate. Yes, attractiveness is valuable. But, especially in a sentient species, there a lots of qualities a person might have that make him a desirable mate despite a lack of physical attractiveness.
Plus, life experience has shown me that people who are ugly, both physically and in terms of personality, still reproduce at an alarming rate. A really low Charisma does not seem to inhibit their chance of successfully mating. Especially when there are people of similarly impaired charisma who are of the opposite gender.
Sure we'd all like a mate whose charisma is 18 or better. But, realizing that we can't all have such a mate, most of us settle for less.
Now with CHA as a mental ability there is nothing physical about it.
On the lack of a score to use for physical attractiveness, I liked the comeliness score in 1st ed Unearthed and I know of several home games that use it.
Another popular example: the girl behind the bar could be beautiful, have low CHA, and only get attention for her looks. A high CHA girl could be very average looking, but everyone wants to talk to her and be her friend because she is ‘charismatic.’ A woman that every guy wants to sleep with does not necessarily have high CHA. A woman that can attract a hundred suitors that would die for her if she asks politely does have high CHA. Eye candy does not equal CHA, wow! factor equals CHA.
CHA does not mean that you are likeable either. A high CHA sorcerer might be the biggest jerk in the world but will still have a feeling of power and exoticness about him thanks to his draconic (or otherworldly) heritage mentioned in the flavor text. Appearance and personality are just role-playing. If you have high CHA there is something about you that makes people who see you go wow! Look at the high CHA dragon and try to suppress a fearful shudder. Try to be unimpressed when the mindflayer radiates so much psychic energy that just being near him makes your head hurt. If centaurs have more charisma then humans, that’s because even the average centaur looks majestic and exotic enough to make normal humanoids stare in awe. If dwarfs have less charisma, it means most humanoids don't feel like giving them a second glance. This does not mean centaurs are more attractive than dwarves to a human, it means centaurs impress a human more. The wow! reaction is the best and most consistent way I can think of to measure Charisma, it is a good way to blend the PHB definition, and it gives you the freedom to role-play it however you want. (Physical attractiveness, force of personality, etc.)
Just why Orc and Elves can crossbreed with humans isn't clear, but it probably goes back to the roots of D&D - Lord Of The Rings. LOTR had half-Orcs and half-Elves, so D&D does too. There's also that Gimli-Galadriel thing...
This has been the basic assumption behind every argument that says CHA:8 = CHA:8 in ability to find a mate (in addition to emphasising the other, ignored qualities of charisma the FP didn't qualify).
Now, as to the claim that evolution is at work here. It is a fictional world with deities who actively participate in the affairs of mortals. There was no evolution, just creation. The fact that there are deities who meddle in the affairs of men every day shows us that it isn't the same universe that the ancient Greeks believed in, or a more happy version of the Christian view of the universe, in D&D the gods are real. And they made the races, this fact has only been touched upon about three times, yet it is most important.
The problem with the first post is not that is exaggerates the importance of one characteristic of a given ability score, but rather that it doesn’t understand the universe the game is set in. Only when you understand the world you are talking about (be it this world or another) can you properly explain it. And this person doesn’t seem to understand the world.
This score has absolutely no mechanical effect in-game except to answer the question "am I prettier than this man?"
There is no conundrum. Despite what the PHB says, Charisma is not a measure of physical attractiveness. It's sense of self, confidence and empathy.
Do you find Mindflayers sexy as hell? Because they have a pretty high CHA score.
Yep. And the Aboleth. What a beauty that one is. ;) Seriously, cha isn't about looks. Creatures with a high strength are always strong. Creatures with a high dex are always agile. Creatures with a high con are always healthy. Creatures with a high intelligence are always smart. Creatures with a high wisdom are always perceptive and strong-willed. Creatures with a high charisma are sometimes good looking. Sometimes they're ugly as hell. They are always persuasive however. Charisma is not about looks.
It shouldn't be fixed, it should be ignored. Because circumstantial bonuses already exist. Circumstantionally speaking, a dwarf reacts better to another dwarf or to a human who can act or portray themselves positively compared to the dwarf ideal, and thusly no matter what their charismas are, a few +2 circumstantial bonuses as per the job of the DM to actually think while running his games instead of doing it entirely from the books themselves, would easily negate this seemly anti-evolutionary element to the book.
Plus, NPCs don't have straight 10s across the board, there is a variance in all of it, plenty of dwarves with high charismas. The species will survive.
Also, there is no such thing as evolution in D&D, I think. It's a creationist's dream come true.
Wow, I can't believe no one has countered this. The githyanki and githzerai are the best example, but there are a myriad of other species groupings that imply evolutionary processes at work.
In eons past, the mind flayers enslaved entire races, including the forerunners of the githyanki. ... However, these survivors soon split into the racially distinct githyanki and their mortal enemies, the githzerai. - MM p129
Obviously, the gods are also at work and D&D, not to mention spellcasters that can create their own planes. Every world-view seems to have a place (and a splat book) in D&D. It's part of the appeal - it's everyone's dream come true.
If stats were an objective judgment, humans would have + in Dex, Int, Cha and Wis, and - in Str and Con.
Perhaps dwarven women simply prefer a guy with stamina over someone attractive.
Physical attractiveness is also very vague. Is the 8 Str, 16 Cha guy more attractive than the 16 Str, 8 Cha guy? On what basis? Some women like muscles. Some prefer personality.
Counter proposal: The Charisma penalty, from the attractiveness perspective, is from the point of view of a human. Therefore, when dealing with one's own race for the social aspects of Charisma, eliminate the bonus or penalty to charisma. Problem solved.
That's one thing I've never liked about the system. It always seems like everything is compared using humans as the base point. Now, maybe this makes sense to us (as humans, the only intelligent race in this world), but it's always bothered me from a fantasy standpoint, with dozens of intelligent races in the world.
It seems like all too often, if a races is perceived as "odd" or "goofy", they automatically take a -2 Cha penalty. Halflings, gnomes, and elves all are fairly human-like, so they get no penalty. Dwarves are grumpy: -2 Cha! Nevermind that they're quite stubborn, and you think that that extra force of will could balance out. Half orcs are seen as outcasts, so they too are penalized. Now, why not half-elves? By this logic (as they have "no place" in human or elven society), they should be penalized too. Instead, they get a bonus on Diplomay and Gather Information.
It just seems like their is a very slanted, arbitrary metric used for when to apply the -2 Cha penalty. Should half-orcs and dwarves be worse sorcerers and paladins for it? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me mechanically, logically, or thematically. This is why I've done away with the -2 Cha on half-orcs and switched it to -2 Dex for dwarves. I just feel that the "standard" -2 Cha penalty was thrown around too loosely in the original game implementation.
) Since most DMs don't take appearance into account, that's just fine. Also, BOEF says that inter-species relations take a -2 to appearance checks, except for Fey, Half-elf, and Elf. Simply because, while the idea of doing it with a dwarf is abhorrent to me (I have Hair issues i guess) To another dwarf, there is nothing hotter, except fey who are just hot. Okay, resume laughing at the fact that I actually read the BOEF instead of just looking at the pictures. ;)I think it should apply regardless of whether or not they are dealing with their own race. Creatures with lower Cha probably have a harder time getting along with each other. This is certainly the case with orcs -- they are naturally inclined to be warlike and disagreeable.
The fluff in the PHB about dwarves does say that they can really hold a grudge. I imagine dwarves would get into some pretty nasty arguments just because they come off as being pompous jerks or stubborn jackasses to each other. Afterwards, they wouldn't talk to each other for decades.
This is not to say that races with Cha bonuses are all peachy-keen with one another. In the case of evil societies, creatures like ogre mages, mindflayers and drow (and needless to say, devils and demons!) have conflicts that stem from their strong personalties clashing. The lawful evil ones would cover the hostility with a thin veneer of politeness and engage in wrangling Bluff check-filled diplomacy as they mercilessly snipe back and forth while plotting how to kill the other.
As opposed to the low-Cha orcs, who start shouting, then fling poo.
Every world-view seems to have a place (and a splat book) in D&D. It's part of the appeal - it's everyone's dream come true.
I really appreciate this statement. Everyone's world view can exist in D&D. I personally am a Christian, but a great appeal of the D&D universe is that anything could happen. The gods are at work, and so are strange and magical arcane processes, along with natural (evolutionary) changes. And since it's all make-believe, it doesn't matter one bit which is right or wrong, and everyone can get along and play together, regardless of those types of beliefs. And I love that. Because people argue plenty about politics and religion in real life. D&D, being a game, is an escape from that. I love D&D!
Also, there is no such thing as evolution in D&D, I think. It's a creationist's dream come true.
This is purely a campaign-setting-dependent issue and is not a 'D&D truism'. Not all games have interventionist deities.
I think the fact that low Charisma == Low Population/Extinction has been debunked... but what about the social implications of low Charisma?
The average dwarf will have a -1 penalty to diplomacy checks - referencing the PHB (Pg. 72) on Influencing Attitudes, we see tjat rolling less then 1 on your diplomacy check when influencing an indifferent person's attitude will yield an unfriendly attitude. This means that, on average, the average dwarf will be unfriendly towards every 20th person he meets.
What does this mean for the society of Dwarves?
Should a human with Cha 10 be more attractive for a dwarf female than the Cha 8 Dwarf?
No… Answer: Circumstance penalty, in most of the cases (-2), which means that the human needs Cha 12 to be as attractive to the female as the 8 dwarf.
Though I will really like an elf female for me (not penalty on the roll)…. Maybe it’s a character flaw… :P
Circumstance penalty should resolve all interracial mating issues. Is possible but not probable and definitely not easy.
On the other side:
When a character is created the player generally assume is as attractive as possible, and often (if not a paladin, bard, sorcerer, etc) his charisma doesn’t show it.
This makes Charisma a especial ability, purchased not for the purpose of martial (or spellcasting) prowess, in some cases even for roleplaying
EX: A female monk preferred to put 10 in her Wis score only to have a positive Cha, because she was female, and she preferred to be a hot babe than a better monk (style decisions). As a male player with a female character she didn’t want a mate (in the game) what so ever, she didn’t used seduction techniques because even gorgeous he preferred his character to be sober (a monk indeed).
Constitution as Physical attractiveness
So for example, two female characters with 18 Cha each, which one is more attractive…Which one has the hottest body…
Constitution has the answer, if my female character has Con 8, she must be skinny, not well shaped, on the other hand with 18 Con, she must be hot.
So constitution must be the key ability for body attractiveness, and charisma for everything else.
Remember, a good body might carry a really ugly face. So leave the face to Charisma score.
However, the area where the ****-centricity does come out more than can be excused by lack of required experience, is the assumption that humans are the most prevalent race. Looking at the stats provided, I would assume that of the ECL:+0 races, Dwarves and orcs would be more prevalent, with humans taking the spot Dwarves do in the current ladder of racial prevalence.
And then there is the fact that everything in D&D is human-centric.
If stats were an objective judgment, humans would have + in Dex, Int, Cha and Wis, and - in Str and Con.
Why, exactly?
Only when you understand the world you are talking about (be it this world or another) can you properly explain it. And this person doesn’t seem to understand the world.
You're getting close to what I was thinking. Here's how I look at the stats:
It only appears that racial bonuses and penalties are relative to humans. It's not that at all. Rather, an ability score of 10 represents the universal median in that area, and whether by chance or design, humans just happen to be the race that most closely mimics that universal constant. In other words, we're talking about the "laws of physics" as they exist in the D&D universe (which is not our universe). Of course, from a metagame perspective, it's clear that the game mechanics were set up this way simply because it's humans that play the game. But our characters are not playing a game. This is their life and the world they inhabit.
It is because humans (and half-elves, come to think of it) are so close to this universal median that they are more likely to engage in any endeavor that occurs to them. They can take levels in any class without advantage or penalty. Races with penalties or bonuses are naturally going to gravitate toward classes they are suited to based on how they compare to this universal baseline, because it works for them. Dwarves and orcs, even when living within their own cultures where they don't worry about how they compare to other races, are less likely than other races to produce bards and sorcerers. Their lower CHA, relative to the universal baseline, means that there is simply less racial tendency toward such classes. Elves, long before they encountered humans or any other race, learned that they fought better with bows than with swords. Not because "we're better with bows than they are", but because "we have more success with bows than we do with swords". They could have discovered this simply through hunting for food, or even fighting amongst themselves. Meanwhile, orcs, living amongst themselves, learned that they had better luck when they clubbed their food over the head instead of lobbing things at it.
This is actually best illustrated by looking at magic. We accept that the forces of magic are a universal constant in the D&D world. Casting a spell of any type carries the same prerequisites, whether that means a verbal component, a somatic component, a material component, a focus, (or some combination of these) and a minimum ability score. A 1st-level human adept with an INT score of 10 (minimum ability score for casting a 0-level spell) who wants to cast light must speak the same words and use the same firefly or piece of phosphorescent moss as a 9th-level wizard who has an INT score of 18. The only difference between the two is that the wizard can cast 4th-level spells, while the adept is limited to 0-level spells. When it comes to 0-level spells, both must follow the same "recipe".
Now take a race that carries a –2 penalty to INT. For that race, 8 will be the median INT score, and so the vast majority of people of that race are going to find even 0-level wizard/adept spells to be out of reach. Not because they don't measure up to humans, but because they don't meet the universal standard for casting those spells. They can recite the words, make the gestures, and sprinkle the material components all they want. The spell won't go off. The result? That race is not going to produce many wizards. Partly because they weren't inclined to try in the first place, and partly because those who did try met with little success. It didn't work for them, so the race is very unlikely to establish any kind of wizardly tradition. They may even develop a mistrust of arcane magic due to their lack of success with it. The lack of a tradition makes it even less likely that a member of that race will pursue this path. I'd point out that even an unusually intelligent member of this race is unlikely to pursue the path of the wizard, due to the absence of a tradition.
However, this same race might carry no penalty to WIS. This leads to that race being more likely to produce clerics or shamans. Not because they thought, "We're not smart, but we're wise", but because somebody tried it, intentionally or accidentally, and it worked for them. It worked because members of this race met the minimum universal standard for casting such spells. Because it worked, the tradition was established, and once the tradition was there, more members of this race chose to practice divine magic.
For that matter, a race might not even make a distinction between "arcane" and "divine" magic amongst themselves. Maybe to them it's all simply "magic". A highly intelligent but not especially wise race might even call its arcane casters "priests", believing that their power is granted by their deity.
Anyway, I could go on about this, but I don't want this to be any longer than necessary. Hopefully I've made some sense here
What some would call a beauty mark, others ridicule as a mole. Who some would call arrogant, others would boast confidence. So its entirely possible for a person with a Charisma of 10 to be viewed as often and as arbitrarily as you please, the single most repulsive and pretty thing at the same time.
By the math, with a modifier of +0, Mr. 10 Charisma must be equally insulted and complimented for this Stat.
For the sake of the argument, you can say that 1/5 of 10; 2, is the number of charisma points earned SOLELY for being pretty. If you want to demand a statistical accounting for every point... BUT, that means that every five times (if you want to lord over the accountability of a person's charisma) a person ensures their character has improved in physical appearance, their Charisma should inherently improve by a point il-facto. Or, conversely, go down if neglected.
BUT because it is an arbitrary number, it, in fact, represents what the PLAYER wants it to represent.
---
Races with Charisma penalties don't view each other any different, for the simple fact that their on even ground trying to persuade one another. Lets pretend were rolling dice instead of RPing out a date:
Dwarf #1: Diplomacy check avg. 9
Dwarf #2: Sense Motive check avg. 10
-Vice Versa-
This does not reflect that Dwarf #1 will have a hard time dating Dwaf #2, because Dwarf #2 has just an equal challenge (and by equal I mean to clarify that BOTH sides have the same MINUSCULE modifier) of wooing #1.
What this DOES reflect, quite accurately, is that a far more meaningful union will take place after TIME has been put down, and sense motives overcome. The attitudes of each creature will improve slowly, building a history of relations with each other. In, again, the example of Dwarves, this explains perfectly their slow but eventually absolute trust and love for friends, brethren, and mates.
Races with shorter lifespans find this more difficult to overcome. And so, in the example of Orcs, they find each other more abrasive because they lack the same longevity and patience.
NOW neither of those explanations, which I believe are expertly portrayed; even touched the subject of physical appearance. Why? Because .2 of that -1, a whole whopping -1, is statistically related to physical attractiveness.
To boot, it is a waste of time and effort to try and fix something already properly portrayed; by saying that the racial penalty applies only in consideration to other races. This is because most of the people who replied, seemed to forget the second party ALSO has the same penalty, already canceling out the problem.
---
Why, as old people are icky, does Charisma not also wane? Simple, the physical attractiveness of an old person remains the same as always. Where youth and beauty once upheld a 14 charisma, they now appear solemn and are inherently respected as those same age marks add to the first impression that they're more witty and personable (proven true by the int and wis mods).
---
The best way, in my opinion, to keep Charisma relations balanced and correct, is to leave them as-is and use your imagination to describe WHY the results of the dice are what they are. Isn't that what we do anyway?
But if you just can't get out of your system the fact that the old man's wrinkles NEED to punish his charisma-related roll, ad-hoc a -2. Its well within your rights. But then, your players will expect you to give all creatures negatives based on the personal preferences of every antagonizing roll. "I don't like this guy's haircut Mr. DM. Could you give him a -2?" In addition, if you were FAIR about circumstantial penalites, in the end ALL offending parties would be suffering, bringing you back to square one, where there was no difference to begin with.
A waste of time.
-Dowjin
As for outsider ratings...those are in the Ravenloft Campaign Setting. Those help distinguish how people view other races. The more exquisite you are, maybe the more they'll like you. Or not...
*CHA is physical attractiveness.
*Humans are objectively more attractive than Orcs.
But now about evolution. If there is one thing to be said about evolution; it's that we do not understand evolution. Of course there is the theory, but we can't use it. We can't tell what is going to happen to a certain race (at least not yet). The idea of the evolution theory is explaining how things got the way they are.
So let's look at D&D: I will only discuss humans, elves and orcs. Because these races are (per PHB) proven to be genetically compatible. I have never heard of, or seen a half-dwarf, or half-gnome; I'm sure that if such crossbreeds where possible, they would exist :P
So we're talking about humans, elves and orcs; these races are closer related to each other than humans are with any kind of apes. The DNA of humans, elves and orcs are so alike, that they can crossbreed and (I assume) breed fertile offspring.
Now let's get back to the evolution part of this idea:
Hundreds of thousands of years ago (if not millions) a group monkeys started walking upright and using tools. These evolved into some sort of primal humans. These days, we have 3 different, but genetically compatible races. So apparently the primal humans split in 3 groups who later became humans, elves and orcs.
The question that remains is: why do elves get DEX bonus, and orcs get STR bonus.
To explain this using evolutionary theory is very simple. Darwin tells us that the fittest survive. Amongst those who evolved into elves, being fit means having great DEX. The orcs on the other hand prefer STR.
Back to the original post, we can't say This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Orcs wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. Instead we have to say Hey, here we have orcs, they are similar to humans, but with greater strength. Apparently to be fit means to be strong among orcs.
Now I have neglected dwarves a bit because (I believe) they are not compatible with humans, but we can still say something about the evolution of dwarves. To survive one has to be fit, in dwarven culture this mean having great CON.
Hope this helps,
-SchemerRat
now back to D&D, where we have gods and magic, and don't need to worry about evolution ;)
I'm playing a lich character. According to to Monster Manual, that gives him a +2 charisma bonus. However, he is clearly not more attractive because of being a lich: he's a rotting corpse! Charisma isn't just attractiveness; it's also force of personality and persuasiveness.
Just throwing that out there.
-Count Dravda
Actually, in an age where people know of evolution, one should have an idea of why a race is as it currently is.
However, I do disagree with the idea that one should assume that all came from the same primordial non-sapient stock. This is a game where the gods are real (unless you play in my campaigns...) and created the game worlds as we know them.
But while evolution is not needed in order to created the races, it is helpful to explain divergences or just how the races came to be now as opposed to how they were several hundred millenia ago when the first uber giant empire was formed on prime-material.
Now, about all your stuff about the stats.
All that only works if you are talking about sexual selection based on the preconceived idea that the race should be like that (ie: An elf woman rejecting a male elf because he is too tough, because tough is socially undesirable for some reason. The end result: low con.)
However if you are basing your(races) society on natural selection (who just survives better, rather than who can get a mate better) Con, Dex and Str will be most needed (and in my assumption, in that order) so that Dwarves, Orcs, Hobgoblins would be most likely to survive in the long sun (although there is an argument to be made for the rodent like races: goblins, kobolds and the like, being prevalent just through sheer presence, like rats and rabbits).
But, on the topic of evolution, one cannot ignore alignment.
I will take alignment to be changeable (not in the munchkin sense) in that the general alignment of a society will change over time through economic necessity.
At the start of a races history(and by start I mean the period of barbarism and such) the general alignment of the race will be chaotic with a tendency toward neutral rather than good or evil, and only with the rise of property will a tendency toward law build up. And with it, the tendency toward good and evil will be seen in isolated individuals. Only with the development of the state, or at the earliest in the upper stage of barbarism, will we see the actual rise of good and evil in a social manner. And then it will be concentrated in the various classes. Good in the case of the oppressed: the slaves, the craftsmen, later in the period of feudalism in the serfs and artisans, evil in the case of the landlords, slaveholders, in feudalism in the lords.
However, not all will of course will be good or evil. One might see a neutral or evil individual, or even a large group of them given the right environment, just as one will see here and there a good landlord, one who doesn't exact huge rents and such.
The problem with D&D is that it takes the society of the feudal era with the religion of the slave-holding era. This confusion, if held to by DMs will only make complete nonsense (even if extremely fun nonsense) and an incoherent game world, one in which the morality of a capitalist world is implanted on the economy of a feudal world with pre-feudal religion as the source of the post-feudal morality...
Goblins.
Goblins are cowardly, weak-willed, and submissive. They don't command well and they are easily browbeaten into obeying. Because of the lack of strength in their conviction, they have a charisma penalty. The only charisma skill one might imagine a typical goblin to be particularly good at is bluff. (Of course, ironically their most likely arcane spellcasting classes - Sorcerer and Warlock- are charisma-based and thus they make better Wizards. Go figure.)
But Goblins love to mate. They are the most amorous, most excitable, most lecherous race in all of D&D. They love to mate with one another. In fact, they love mating with one another as much as cute little bunnies do.
So clearly a charisma penalty is no barrier to mating.
Face it, D&D is a game with lots of abstractions. A character with CHA 8 could be fabulously beautiful or handsome, but have a horrible personality.
This said, we do tend to assume that high CHA equates to greater beauty in addition to improved people skills and all. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how individual players want to play the character, dunnit?
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
However this thread is not very relevant to D&D at all, since 99% of all games will have worlds and races created by real gods and completely no notion of evolution.
The problem with D&D is that it takes the society of the feudal era with the religion of the slave-holding era. This confusion, if held to by DMs will only make complete nonsense (even if extremely fun nonsense) and an incoherent game world, one in which the morality of a capitalist world is implanted on the economy of a feudal world with pre-feudal religion as the source of the post-feudal morality...
:heeheeEvolution and Racial Charisma Penalties
From the SRD:
CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
I know it says.. right there.. you even bolded it.. but I really do not consider Charisma a succinct factor of physical beauty. I never have. Furthermore the assertion that Dwarves do not find themselves as attractive as other races may seem rational when considering the SRD statement above.. but it does not reflect the narratives (books) that have featured them. I recall (but cannot precisely place) a D&D book in which a Dwarven male character waxed poetic regarding the delicate cheek fuzz of a Dwarven maiden.
Insomuch as "physical beauty" is concerned .. men are far more concerned with such things than women. Women are attracted to attitude and confidence first, economic status second, and physical appearance a distant third. The implication there is thusly; A male's charisma has more to do with their attitude, and a female's charisma is more about her beauty. However beyond that single reference to "attractiveness" all other uses of charisma are focused on the "power of presence" "force of persuasion" and "leadership score" etc etc etc.
It has been my long held belief that when mating and etc is brought into question matching level is more important. Really confidant guys get hot chicks. Goofy meepish dudes get less hot chicks. Nice people (read high charisma) hook up with nice people, and annoying bothersome people end up with .. annoying bothersome people. Somebody with a charisma of 6 is equally as likely to mate and procreate as a person with a charisma of 17... just the 6 ends up with a 6 (a 7 with luck) and the 17 ends up with another double digit.
Lastly - As far as evolution is concerned "quantity wins over quality". Two 6s willing to have seven babies is equally as evolutionarily viable as a single 16 who leaves cabbage patch kids across the countryside. More so actually cause the 6s are gonna make sure their kids make it to adulthood. I have always assumed that Orcs are polygamous, breed like rabbits, and are relatively disregarding of physical appearance. Quantity over quality. Thats evolution. If ugly people didn't breed then there would be no ugly people in the world.. but there are.
Lastly - As far as evolution is concerned "quantity wins over quality".
Not quite so Book, as Stalin said (and this quote is frequently mistakenly attributed to Lenin): "Quantity has a quality all of its own." That is, in short what you are saying, but this is incorrect. Without going into the actual dialectic of quantity/quality, and staying in evolution we can simply say that rats and ants have a infinite quantity advantage over humans, though they have never reached the evolutionary quality to have an opposable thumb, to be able to labour and to be able to make a simple flint knife.
Humans have conquered the planet, on the other hand, and while the effects of their actions generally cause effects unknown at the time of action, they are still able to plan and to rectify their mistakes (regardless of whether or not they actually do!) and every day the ability to plan, so that there are no mistakes, no unforeseen consequences is pushed further and further ahead, now 10 years into the future, now 50.
Ok, apart from my ****-centric rant, Bill:
That's why attractive Hollywood stars end up with attractive Hollywood stars, and the rest of us don't.
No, it isn't. Attractive Hollywood stars end up with Hollywood stars or non-Hollywood stars regardless of whether the other partner is attractive.
However, the partner generally is attractive because they are generally a Hollywood star and Hollywood stars are generally attractive.
They get together because of status, not hotness (that is not to say that the hotness factor is not present, but rather that it doesn't have such a decisive factor).
However this thread is not very relevant to D&D at all, since 99% of all games will have worlds and races created by real gods and completely no notion of evolution.
Actually, it is very relevant:
This presents a problem, evolutionarily speaking. Dwarves wouldn't have survived as a race because the would rarely mate. The race of orcs would have even a swifter end. (Not half-orcs, Orcs.) You must find your mate attractive and these races wouldn't find that attractiveness in their own race. As a result, I propose that no intelligent race should get a charisma penalty to eliminate this conundrum.
The whole point is that these races, once created would henceforth dwindle as the less charismatic members of these races died out without providing offspring. The result would either be no Orcs or Orcs with no Cha penalty.
However, not all games are run with deities, and some are set millions of years after the creation, and some not. The point however is:
1. argue about the rules, that all may be more knowledgeable there-of.
2. Argue because we like to argue, it is fun, and it will (hopefully) descend into a crusade.
3. Because some people may actually find some of this enlightening and may adopt some changes to the way the game is run based on the discussion here.
Anyway, a thread is very rarely irrelevant, and even if it is, (like the alignment threads) it is still fun to watch (though sad to have people who just cannot read the rules properly...)
Actually, it is very relevant:
The whole point is that these races, once created would henceforth dwindle as the less charismatic members of these races died out without providing offspring. The result would either be no Orcs or Orcs with no Cha penalty.
However, not all games are run with deities, and some are set millions of years after the creation, and some not. The point however is:
1. argue about the rules, that all may be more knowledgeable there-of.
2. Argue because we like to argue, it is fun, and it will (hopefully) descend into a crusade.
3. Because some people may actually find some of this enlightening and may adopt some changes to the way the game is run based on the discussion here.
Anyway, a thread is very rarely irrelevant, and even if it is, (like the alignment threads) it is still fun to watch (though sad to have people who just cannot read the rules properly...)
Your argument is confusing. My argument is this: Ugly people have sex with ugly people. Ugly people hook up everyday. Similarly declaring that an un-ugly person is more likely to procreate is wrong. There are plenty of ugly chicks in the world.. and thusly do ugly and not-confident guys have sex, have babies, and impact the larger gene pool. When it comes to evolution (the rate of change of gene pool frequency) appearance matters very little. Quantity is a quality all its own" right? and that is exactly my point.
The OP suggested that the low charisma races are unlikely to be evolutionarily dominate, but the truth of the matter is that Charisma does not effect your possibility of procreation. The only factor that effects your possibility of procreation is your willingness to settle for a chick of your own level. Dwarven males with a charisma of 8 have kids.. with dwarven females of charisma of 8.
Evolution is all about who makes more kids, and nothing is stopping a low charisma dwarf from convincing another low charisma dwarf into birthing a clutch of kids. Honestly in my experience its the high charisma individuals that have the evolutionary disadvantage. Whens the last time you heard about a supermodel having 7 kids? Now .. whens the last time you heard of some not so hot chick giving birth to 7 kids?
Quantity over quality" is the name of the evolution game. Darwin was totally wrong with the whole "survival of the fittest" thing. Evolutionary scientists know that now. I mean Darwin was a gorram bird watcher for goodness sake. Sure he wrote a book an all, but real scientists have taken over the studies these days. Quantity of progeny is the primary measure of genetic viability. hence spiders and fish beat Humans on the "likely to survive the nest mass extinction phase" equation.
Admittedly, intelligence has thus far proven to be the A number one selectable hereditary trait. Thats why raccoons are the species most likely to generate recognizable intelligence. They have the heaviest selective pressure for intelligence. Humans on the other hand are functioning almost entirely on a intelligence/beauty (male/female) pattern of expansion.
Evolution works on an expansion contraction philosophy.. and chicken are occasionally born with teeth. Know what I mean?
1) Physical attractiveness is not required for mating. It helps animals find healthy mates, that's it. In animals with higher levels of sentience it matters even less. Hormones man, hormones!
Definitely. An animal mates thusly (1) that female is in heat (2) she is a female (3) I am a male.
3) Nothing in the orc description makes me believe they would care what someone looks like. Again I will cite hormones. I won't go into what I think their view on correct mating practices are, but it would involve more violence than attraction.
Well said, though it may not be hormones. An orc female looks fine to a orc male. And reading the description, orcs do not put much emphasis on courting or who they court with - they're polygamous. Just because I would not like to see jutting tusks and a porcine snout on a female, doesn't mean an orc wouldn't.
here are my
Charisma by dictionary is "a personal attractiveness or interestingness that enables you to influence others"
Implying Physical Attractiveness
Look at this definition from the PHB "This ability represents the actual strength of personality"
This implies it's more how you act
But also look at the spell Touch of Idiocy, the spell takes away from INT, WIS & CHA. This makes charisma a mental ability
Now look at what in the DnD realm does not have charisma. "Objects or something equally incapable of distinguishing itself from something else has no charisma"
When you put that all together Charisma less of attractiveness and behavior, but more about something mental that somethings lack. Charisma is the measure of how sure of yourself and of others you are.
Consider the dwarf. Average? 8 charisma. Now lets see what he's sure of.
"I'm sure I'm not him" 1 CHA (single) [This is all a zombie knows]
"I'm sure I'm shorter than him" 2 CHA (differences)
"I'm sure I'm a dwarf" 3 CHA (groups)
Now this is where it gets fuzzy. Since 3 is the lowest PC stat there can be we can assume that having any charisma means you can interact with others somehow.
But what goes next? I can't tell, maybe you can. All I know is that as the scores size progresses it gives the creature a greater "sureness" of themselves.
You can also assume that intelligence hinders charisma because the more you know, the less likely you will think that you are capable of something.
Now, a dwarf knows he's able to talk to others but because of the isolationism (even amongst themselves!) most dwarfs experience a hesitance to talk or interact with others because they are unsure of what is good to say and what is bad.
This all fits because this like sorcerers have a strong personalities and abilities because they have faith in themselves. Sure they may make blunders, but their innate boldness causes people to take them seriously. Their spells are similar in that they are affected by a sorcerers personality the power follows him around because now that he has full faith in himself he can control the spells around him.
Rogues? similar, their CHA stems from the fact that they have to have faith in themselves or they would never be able to solve locks. The extra "faith" they have left over is their force on others, giving them a strong personalty. By the definition of behavior and physical attractivenesses, no one would like a rogue, but by this description they are liked because of how much faith they have in themselves.
With that I'm going to say that
"I have almost full faith in myself" CHA 10
"I have perfect faith in myself and my actions" CHA 11
But what about further? not going to go further because everything past that is how much your faith in yourself affects others (make sense because of the bonuses you get) but some examples? lets look at some monsters shall we?
The Succubus. She is a glittering demoness with an alluring figure that could make any man's jaw drop. She has full faith in herself and her actions (beauty goes a long way) she also knows her beauty has an affect on others this gives her the ability to seriously affect others perception of her.
The Beholder. Beholders know how strong they are, they know that they have the ability to kill things easily? how could they possibly doubt themselves? they won't the remaining force of personalty shows how well he can show others how powerful he is through intimidate checks.
Animals. Animals know their own species attractiveness. Their cha of 10 shows that they are almost completely sure that they can do something within their physical limits. (does a cat hesitate in leaping 5 feet onto my roof? no. Does a wolf hesitate to fight another wolf unless he is physical wounded? no.) However I believe that most of this comes from instinct and from their lack of thinking "hey, maybe that wolf is a druid's pet" or "hey maybe that roof is slippery and I'll fall."
Animals are sure of themselves because they have little reason to believe the can't do something. (cats will still chase that toy string even though they've missed 5 times because they are sure they will get it next time.)
Now from my long and tedious research here is what I have learned:
Charisma is how sure of yourself you are and how that faith in yourself affects others views of you.
- CHA 1 represents you knowing you are yourself
- CHA 2 represents that you know how you are different from other things
- CHA 3 represents that you can now classify things together based on similar traits.
- CHA 9 and lower shows self doubt (that is not something that makes you able to talk to others or do something without hesitating; hence the penalty)
- CHA 10-11 represent almost to perfect faith in yourself (hence there is no penalty or bonus)
- CHA 12 and more represent how well you can project your faith in yourself. (People will be less likely to think your a push-over, they will more likely think of you as an equal and the bonus represent that you know how to act to affect others.)
- CHA is a mental ability and comes from the mind
- The less knowledge you have of what could be your downfall the more you'll be able to trust that you will accomplish something. So I believe that if you know there are things that can best you, you will 1st calculate the probability of meeting them/it in your current situation and then you will know whether to doubt your abilities or not. CHA decreases as you learn of more things that are stronger then you. Animals do not understand there are things that might cause their downfall and so they believe they will accomplish whatever they want to do. (run away, win a fight, jump a gap, you name it). The animal have full faith in it because they cannot see the hidden variables. But you may say that birds run away from us, but that comes from the fact they know we are stronger and they know that we will kill them easily, I'm talking more along the lines of things that have hidden variables like oil that is out of sight or magic.
I hope that you understood my theory of what CHA is, also try and disprove it. (not a challenge, but a favor I ask of you)
Nto be able to labour and to be able to make a simple flint knife.
You know nothing about ants...
Humans have conquered the planet
Ants too, and way before us.
Attractive Hollywood stars end up with Hollywood stars or non-Hollywood stars regardless of whether the other partner is attractive.
However, the partner generally is attractive because they are generally a Hollywood star and Hollywood stars are generally attractive.
They get together because of status, not hotness (that is not to say that the hotness factor is not present, but rather that it doesn't have such a decisive factor).
I think they end up together because they work together, or at least are in the same social group. The same way that you date boys/girls in high school.
However this thread is not very relevant to D&D at all, since 99% of all games will have worlds and races created by real gods and completely no notion of evolution.
Hum I don't think this percentage should be that high... given the fact that the Eberron setting doesn't have real gods, and that this world have been created by 3 powerful dragons.
Not quite so Book, as Stalin said (and this quote is frequently mistakenly attributed to Lenin): "Quantity has a quality all of its own." That is, in short what you are saying, but this is incorrect. Without going into the actual dialectic of quantity/quality, and staying in evolution we can simply say that rats and ants have a infinite quantity advantage over humans, though they have never reached the evolutionary quality to have an opposable thumb, to be able to labor and to be able to make a simple flint knife.
Actually it sounds like you're arguing my point.. "ants and rats" outnumber us 10 to 1 or more. Yep! They may have low charisma.. but they are still procreating. My point was that having a low charisma does not effect your evolutionary viability. Low charisma creatures simply mate with other low charisma creatures. So long as you do so.. you are evolutionarily viable.
Bugs outnumber us.. we claim the opposable thumb and talking is that "great" but by the numbers we are "middle runners" and.. in the end... in the bitter end.. numbers are all that matters to evolution. You can take my word for it.. Evolution isn't some philosophical dialectic. Its a numbers game. Chicken have teeth (we just rarely see them pop out the beak). One capable producer may be worth more to the state than an average man.. but evolution cares about rate of change of gene pool frequency. Numbers. Thats it.
You want to say that we humans are "evolutionarily" superior to anyone because we have opposable thumbs, cars, and computers.. well you are simply wrong from an evolutionary biologist's perspective. Rate of change of gene pool frequency.. and I am quoting. It's not a philosophy.. it's mathematics. Simply put Robespierre can you answer this question?
How many flies go up?
A famous evolutionary science example. Like chicken with teeth and small mammals born pregnant. The up and down flies.. is an experiment that has been running since the 70's. Still running actually.
AND!
No, it isn't. Attractive Hollywood stars end up with Hollywood stars or non-Hollywood stars regardless of whether the other partner is attractive.
However, the partner generally is attractive because they are generally a Hollywood star and Hollywood stars are generally attractive.
They get together because of status, not hotness (that is not to say that the hotness factor is not present, but rather that it doesn't have such a decisive factor).
Try that again? I mean I may be pedantic, but with cause and without wishy washy "yes, but not really, but actually yeah" kinda arguments. Seriously... half the reason you become a rockstar/actor is so you can be in the "rockstar/actor" gene pool. yeesh. Everybody knows that. BillTheManiac knows it. I don't know how you managed to miss that little factoid. There are really three sub pools of human genetics.. the "rich/super hot/or famous" gene pool. (read Micheal Jackson marries Princess Presley) The average human being (most of ya'll - me am rockstar!
and the "well.. I best settle for Darleen or I ain't never gonna get any" gene pool. They cross, but segregating gene pools is one of the ways higher order species deal with the "doomline" percentage. If there are more males in a gene pool than there are females.. that gene pool is doomed.. mathematically. Now, our good OP's article seemed mainly to call out the evolutionary viability of Dwarves and Orcs. The simple fact of the matter is that attractiveness is one of a dozen factors in an evolutionary process. Guess what the A number one, hands down, wins every round evolutionary factor is? Being Alive. Being there and in heat. You don't have to have a high con to attempt to impregnate your mate (or mates) once a day...
For instance:
Take the best looking guy ever. Now give him 5 CHA (-3 modifier), and he will stay good-looking, but: He's a crappy liar, he's not persuasive, he's not charming and he doesn't have a chance in hell to convince someone to give him a pencil. That doesn't mean he's not beautiful.
Charisma is defined as force of personality… what about physical attractiveness?
Should a human with Cha 10 be more attractive for a dwarf female than the Cha 8 Dwarf?
No… Answer: Circumstance penalty, in most of the cases (-2), which means that the human needs Cha 12 to be as attractive to the female as the 8 dwarf.
Though I will really like an elf female for me (not penalty on the roll)…. Maybe it’s a character flaw… :P
Circumstance penalty should resolve all interracial mating issues. Is possible but not probable and definitely not easy.
On the other side:
When a character is created the player generally assume is as attractive as possible, and often (if not a paladin, bard, sorcerer, etc) his charisma doesn’t show it.
This makes Charisma a especial ability, purchased not for the purpose of martial (or spellcasting) prowess, in some cases even for roleplaying
EX: A female monk preferred to put 10 in her Wis score only to have a positive Cha, because she was female, and she preferred to be a hot babe than a better monk (style decisions). As a male player with a female character she didn’t want a mate (in the game) what so ever, she didn’t used seduction techniques because even gorgeous he preferred his character to be sober (a monk indeed).
Constitution as Physical attractiveness
So for example, two female characters with 18 Cha each, which one is more attractive…Which one has the hottest body…
Constitution has the answer, if my female character has Con 8, she must be skinny, not well shaped, on the other hand with 18 Con, she must be hot.
So constitution must be the key ability for body attractiveness, and charisma for everything else.
Remember, a good body might carry a really ugly face. So leave the face to Charisma score.
This still doesn't work. Lets take the spell "alter self". It is conceivable that a low charisma/constitution wizard might use that spell to make her face and body more "Hot". The spell does not, and can not, alter either her constitution or charisma. This spell does, however, show that charisma does not determine how pretty you are. Well, this spell and the beholder picture above. Think about it; when is a Str: 20 character not strong? Only when his strength is reduced/drained/damaged. When is a Dex: 20 character clumsy? Only when his dexterity is reduced/drained/damaged. When is a Cha: 20 character ugly? Only when he looks ugly. Imagine your Cha: 20 sorcerer polymorphed himself into a troll. Even if he then enchanted himself with eagle’s splendor he'll still be ugly. The reason is that charisma has nothing to do with looks. It is called a mental ability score for a reason. The mention of "physical attractiveness" in the description is a mistake as far as I'm concerned. Physical attractiveness is subjective. Ability scores are universal.
I think they end up together because they work together, or at least are in the same social group. The same way that you date boys/girls in high school.
That is pretty much what I said in the passage you quoted...
Book, you're going hard on me here, multiple posts before I get a chance to reply? ow.
Actually it sounds like you're arguing my point.. "ants and rats" outnumber us 10 to 1 or more. Yep! They may have low charisma.. but they are still procreating. My point was that having a low charisma does not effect your evolutionary viability. Low charisma creatures simply mate with other low charisma creatures. So long as you do so.. you are evolutionarily viable.
Bugs outnumber us.. we claim the opposable thumb and talking is that "great" but by the numbers we are "middle runners" and.. in the end... in the bitter end.. numbers are all that matters to evolution. You can take my word for it.. Evolution isn't some philosophical dialectic. Its a numbers game. Chicken have teeth (we just rarely see them pop out the beak). One capable producer may be worth more to the state than an average man.. but evolution cares about rate of change of gene pool frequency. Numbers. Thats it.
Ok, you are missing the point. I (and most of the others here, including you) had already established that such low CHA critters would be evolutionarily viable. What I was doing was merely highlighting that the argument that they are viable does not translate into dominance. Look at Kobolds (in D&D canon, not the dreams of certain players).
Sure ants and rats may be higher on the numbers scale, but do they dominate? Not yet. That is all I was saying there.
Now, the remark about the dialectic: philosophical dialectics is just a reflection in thought of the relation of matter to matter, or, more clearly, it is merely the way matter exists and the brain, being matter, may(in the mind of Hegel), translate that relationship into the realm of pure thought, as Idealism often does, regarding thought as primary and matter as a by-product of mind.
Now, away from the philosophical background.
You want to say that we humans are "evolutionarily" superior to anyone because we have opposable thumbs [...] Simply put Robespierre can you answer this question?
Did I say evolutionarily superior? If I did, please let me know, I surely did not intend it. I do, however, believe I said dominant, not evolutionarily dominant, but just dominant.
As in we rule the world dominant, they are more and more being used to serve our needs.
Try that again? I mean I may be pedantic, but with cause and without wishy washy "yes, but not really, but actually yeah" kinda arguments.
I apologise if I was being a bit dense, I will try to clarify what I said, though it seems you agree with it, partially:
Seriously... half the reason you become a rockstar/actor is so you can be in the "rockstar/actor" gene pool.
Just this. I was only saying that while hottnes plays a part in determining who the rockstar will choose as a stable partner (as opposed to just which groupie they decide to screw after a gig), that hottnes factor will usually only play a part within the confines of the social group.
The celebrity chooses from among other celebrities. Hotness is only one factor. This one factor opperates within the realm of the chosen social group, in this case, celebrities.
We can try another example, though greatly different: established rich people.
Here I mean people who have inherited their riches, and have been 'well bred' and all of that.
Here, matting is not for the sake of just sex and having a good time, just the opposite, it is an investment. The offspring will not only inherit your genes, but your money as well.
There is a whole diferent set of inputs needed to make a decision there. But, once again, when people come with equal scores in everything else, yes, the hotness factor, here comes out.
And darwin: Meh, all he did was take the Malthusian law of population and apply it to animals, and determined that only the 'fittest' (with, of course, a variable definition of 'fittest') will survive...
Chech out Engels' Dialectics Of Nature.
The struggle for life.[264] Until Darwin, what was stressed by his present adherents was precisely the harmonious cooperative working of organic nature, how the plant kingdom supplies animals with nourishment and oxygen, and animals supply plants with manure, ammonia, and carbonic acid. Hardly was Darwin recognised before these same people saw everywhere nothing but struggle. Both views are justified within narrow limits, but both are equally one-sided and prejudiced. The interaction of bodies in nonliving nature includes both harmony and collisions, that of living bodies conscious and unconscious co-operation as well as conscious and unconscious struggle. Hence, even in regard to nature, it is not permissible one-sidedly to inscribe only “struggle” on one’s banners. But it is absolutely childish to desire to sum up the whole manifold wealth of historical evolution and complexity in the meagre and one-sided phrase “struggle for existence.” That says less than nothing.
And there are many things I forgot to remark on, I bet... However, I shall leave that for the next post...