Character appearance affecting gameplay

[Shoelip]

Well I brought this up on another forum and the consensus was apparently a unanimous 'no'.

Does it make sense from a roleplaying standpoint, that characters would hesitate in attacking an extremely beautiful NPC in combat?

[zachol]

Only if the beauty is somehow supernatural.

I could also imagine a feat allowing the character to use the Intimidate skill in a different way, changing the "fluffy" aspects of it to fit seduction instead of intimidation.

However, it would still require a feat, or ability.

[Shoelip]

I was actually talking about roleplaying not game mechanics, but game mechanics would be interesting to hear too since they're allot easier to actually debate then people's feelings.

[LuneMoonshadow]

As for roleplaying it makes sense, but in the heat of combat I think most individuals would attack anyway. Hesitation is death, and anyone seasoned in combat would have that ingrained in them.

There exist no real mechanics for beauty (besides supernatural), so in general I don't bother letting it affect combat in any way. In social settings, however, I do think beauty should be taken into account even if there are no mechanics for it.

[Scythe]

Quite frankly, it's a game. If someone is trying to kill you, you won't hesitate to chop off her legs, even if she looks like some diva. You would have to have some nasty flaw or some code of honor for not attacking beautiful women (or men) even if she is trying to turn you into dust.

/Scythe

P.S: Shouldn't this go into Cognitive Yammering?

[Shoelip]

As for roleplaying it makes sense, but in the heat of combat I think most individuals would attack anyway. Hesitation is death, and anyone seasoned in combat would have that ingrained in them.

There exist no real mechanics for beauty (besides supernatural), so in general I don't bother letting it affect combat in any way. In social settings, however, I do think beauty should be taken into account even if there are no mechanics for it.

Well that's a good point. "Hesitation is death". In D&D that's not actually the case. A skilled Fighter can fairly safely knock an enemy unconscious instead of killing them, and Monks can do it with exactly the safe efficiency as they can kill. Also, adventurers regularly fight enemies that are weaker than them, so showing mercy wouldn't really be that much of a risk.

[Shoelip]

P.S: Shouldn't this go into Cognitive Yammering?

I wasn't sure so I put it here.

[Scythe]

Well that's a good point. "Hesitation is death". In D&D that's not actually the case. A skilled Fighter can fairly safely knock an enemy unconscious instead of killing them, and Monks can do it with exactly the safe efficiency as they can kill. Also, adventurers regularly fight enemies that are weaker than them, so showing mercy wouldn't really be that much of a risk.

Weaker?

*cough, cough*

How are you ever gonna raise level is you keep fighting easy opponents? Opponents should be... on average, either the same power level as your party, or a little stronger.

A level 10 Dark Knight, for example, has no use slaughtering a small village of level 1-2 NPCs, besides amusement of course.

A great man once said: "Pillage, then burn"

*cough, cough*

/Scythe

[Shoelip]

Yes, weaker. In all the games I've played I've often fought numerous weaker enemies. If all the enemies you fought were the same strength as you you'd have to stop and rest after every skirmish... you'd also fight allot fewer enemies so I guess that wouldn't be all bad. Filler combat annoys me.

[Scythe]

Yes, weaker. In all the games I've played I've often fought numerous weaker enemies. If all the enemies you fought were the same strength as you you'd have to stop and rest after every skirmish... you'd also fight allot fewer enemies so I guess that wouldn't be all bad. Filler combat annoys me.

The only time where I have seen battles with many weaker opponents is during the exploration of a dungeon. But even then, the further you progress, the harder the dungeon becomes...

In any case, as Lune mentioned earlier, beauty is not calculated anywhere... so, unless you have a supernatural effect of some sort, it shouldn't bother you. In certain settings, like World of Darkness, you actually have an Appearence score, but WoD is a more social like game, compared to... anything else?

/Scythe

[Shoelip]

Well, even the games I'm playing on ORP tend to have multiple weaker enemies as opposed to just a few enemies of the same power. Lando's games, Zoombie's game that actually progressed to where there was combat. Crazy Eban's game, zachol's Atropos. They're all like that. It's quite strange to consider that you've never experienced that.

[Scythe]

I suppose it depends on the style of play of the storyteller. It also depends on your qualification of "weaker" opponents. Having MANY weaker opponents at once instead of having a few strong is equivalent if we consider the challenge rating and rewarding experience points.

In my personal opinion, when your opponents are stronger, in makes for far more interesting and dramatic role-play combat, instead of just hack and slash.

/Scythe

[Shoelip]

That all depends on whether or not you actually role-play in combat (and whether the other people in the game allow you to) and has nothing to do with the number of your opponents. You can be attacked by ten soldiers and try to convince them to stand down by having used detects thoughts on each of them and realized that they're absolutely terrified of you and are only fighting because they incorrectly think you're there to kill them. Or you could fight a single NPC who seems like they should have an interesting background and kill them without exchanging a word.

[Scythe]

When I meant "role-play combat", I meant more interesting combat. I find that battling equivalent or stronger enemies instead of a cohort of weaker enemies is far more interesting combat wise.

But that is just a personal opinion, and has nothing to do with anything...

/Scythe

[Linklegacy77]

Let the players control their characters as they see fit when role-playing. It's their character. If the creature in question has some supernatural effect, than there will be some mechanical difference. But unless the players aren't even trying to roleplay, don't try to tell them what they can and can't decide to do (non-mechanically of course)

[BigRedRod]

Iron Heroes is the one example of where this happens that springs to mind. There's a trait (everybody gets two and they essentially replace racial features from D&D) called "Savage Appearance" which gives a few mechanical effects to looking quite outlandish (I'm using it in Klotho as my character has been cursed by Aphrodite to be horribly ugly).

[Shoelip]

So do you think being horribly ugly should have mechanical effects but that being wonderfully beautiful should not?

[Tashalar]

I think you need to differentiate a little between role playing and combat. Yes, rp should take place in combat as well, but you need to draw the line concerning some of it at some point.

Avant combat:
PCs and NPCs confront one another (doesn't really matter who is beautiful and who isn't) => rp. The result of the rp could be that a) combat doesn't happen, b) everything goes as usual, c) the 'beautiful who-/whatever' deceives the other side and gets a surprise round or some other advantage due to the hesitancy of the other side or d) something else. ;)

In any case - when combat happens, it happens. If a beautiful being doesn't participate and isn't threatning (or not visibly threatning), then yeah, it might not get attacked. If it does anything offensive though, battle-hardened warriors know that it's more wise to cut the being's throat and find another beautiful woman/man than to assume that it's not a threat simply for being beautiful.

If you play a character, Shoelip, who you want to really hesitate to attack some kind of beauty, then you could use the ready action option as a compromise while you interrogate it (or whatever). If it does something aggressive, slay it.

[Darius]

So far I'm hearing a lot of d20 centric (and more specifially 3.5 centric) views on beauty in combat, which is only fair. Some games tend toward putting a lot more flair into combat that others.

Vanilla 3.5 tends toward simple hack and slash. Iron Heroes puts more emphasis on stunts and using skills as part of combat, and thus makes it more active as oppoosed to the more bog standard "I cast magic missile" or "I swing my longsword". Still, not much there for beauty, but I can see a trait being used to duplicate that effect. Conan d20 has the temptress class which can use looks to deceive/beguile/feint the opposition.

I can see Exalted using charms related to appearance/bearing as a matter of defense.

Vampire (both old and new) had disciplines that made its victims want to fight for you. That goes more to supernatural ability as opposed to "beauty" though.

The flip side of course is if you are playing the beautiful character. The villains might try to capture or kidnap you as opposed to being happy with killing you.

[Gralhruk]

FATE deals nicely with this, where you are more or less allowed to use any appropriate skill when faced with a challenge. So in combat, you could use a social skill to try and counter an attack.

[Shoelip]

Well I guess it's pretty much agreed that from a roleplaying standpoint, any trained warrior would not feel any differently whatsoever about killing a beautiful opponent than a non-beautiful opponent.

I've personally just always thought it was strange that many character's first instinct when seeing a succubus (who's not just beautiful but has a +18 racial charisma bonus) or any other super high charisma character is lethal violence. You'd think if anything it would make some sense to be a little merciful... but whatever.

[BigRedRod]

Succubi and Sirens have some kind of special "too pretty to attack" power don't they (in D&D)? Those are both examples of supernatural beauty though, so possibly not directly relevant for player characters in most systems and settings.

I'm sure GURPS has mechanical rules for this. I'll check if I get a chance.

[Shoelip]

Succubi and Sirens have some kind of special "too pretty to attack" power don't they (in D&D)? Those are both examples of supernatural beauty though, so possibly not directly relevant for player characters in most systems and settings.

I'm sure GURPS has mechanical rules for this. I'll check if I get a chance.


Dunno about Sirens but Succubi definitely do not. The only creature I know that has anything similar is the Nymph.

Unearthly Grace (Su (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities))

A nymph adds her Charisma modifier as a bonus on all her saving throws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows), and as a deflection bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#deflectionBonus) to her Armor Class. (The statistics block already reflects these bonuses).

[LuneMoonshadow]

People don't attack a succubus just out the blue, though. A succubus feigns weakness or whatever and befriends the player. Typically players don't kill someone trying to befriend them no matter what their beauty or charisma score is.

People using lethal violence against a succubus know that something horrible is wrong or even know that the woman is actually a demon. You need to keep in mind that people don't "see a succubus and attack" typically. That only really happens when the succubus isn't polymorphed into human form and is still recognizable as a demon, at which point killing the demon makes perfect sense.

Her "beauty" in this case is used through friendship and trust, not through mechanical means.

[LeadPal]

In normal circumstances, hesitation to attack someone beautiful is well enough represented just by penalties. A nymph gets a deflection bonus to AC possibly because enemies don't really want to attack; they're just attacking because it's the smart thing to do.

A few feats and options could help, too. You could try "intimidating" the opponents by playing up how wrong it is for them to attack such a beautiful person, instilling more penalties for their hesitation; perhaps your DM could allow a special diplomacy check instead for the special circumstances. And, of course, a rushed diplomacy check itself (at a -10 penalty) can stop fights with a good roll.

I believe that the PHBII contains a feat that allows you to look meek and defenseless, and hence influence enemies to ignore you in combat; that could be a possibility. The Book of Erotic Fantasy has a similiar feat, if you're willing to use such a sourcebook. (In fact, it has full rules for appearance scores... but they suck.)

And don't forget that the personality of whoever's attacking. Some might be willing to forgo attacking just out of sloth. Fighting is dangerous, dirty and difficult work; just because it's easy for a player to say that they charge and power attack for five doesn't mean that it's easy for the characters to do so, and if the beautiful target doesn't seem threatening they might save the effort.

Others might not care that they're attacking someone beautiful. If they're sociopathic or fairly unintelligent, they may not really appreciate beauty or how to treat it, or may not care. And (unless you're playing a nymph), not all beauty is universal. In my current game, a human character made some seductive motions towards some goblins: goblins, however, find their own kind much sexier.

[Shoelip]

That's interesting because the only female goblins I've ever seen are in Thunt's comic and they're extremely hot, in a human like way, even though one of the characters can apparently see a meaningful difference. In fact I've only ever played one game where I encountered a female goblin, and that was the only one in which I've even heard about one.

There are tons of half breeds. People say "Well mating doesn't necessarily mean attraction." Right, right, it could just be that the person just likes having sex with creatures that don't arouse him and thinks about things that do to facilitate it. Makes perfect sense.

[LynMars]

There are tons of half breeds. People say "Well mating doesn't necessarily mean attraction." Right, right, it could just be that the person just likes having sex with creatures that don't arouse him...

Or her, let's be fair here. Women have been known to sleep with males they aren't attracted to for a variety of reasons, from survival to subterfuge. There are a lot of half-breeds that are blatantly stated to often be about because of circumstances like rape, which attraction plays no part of--it's a power issue. In a fantasy game again, there could be supernatural reasons, sexual and otherwise, that make a half breed.

Warcraft's setting has female goblins, as do most D&D settings and other fantasy realms. They just aren't seen very often for whatever reason in most places, often due to GM oversight if nothing else (or the PCs don't know how to tell the difference, like with Tolkien-style Dwarves).

But as many here have stated, unless there's a supernatural circumstance going on (Vampiric Presence in White Wolf, a D&D Nymph's aura, etc), a lot of times characters aren't going to be overly affected by a really pretty character--especially if he or she is trying to kill them back. If the pretty character--or any other--is no threat or inactive or trying to make friends, then few players are going to just outright attack it in my experience. They'll go for the more obvious and immediate threat first. The exceptions to this may be the loons who want to prove how "badass" and "evil" their character is (and usually failing miserably at portraying anything other than a moronic coward with a curly mustache and cackling laugh).

Depending on the social interactions of the characters, if a pretty person makes it so they're hated for some reason, again, it's not going to matter how stunning they are when a throw down happens in most cases. Hesitancy there may be for other reasons, but it's unlikely beauty will be a part of it.

A lot of newbie players, especially girls (guys do it too, but I think it happens more with new female players) tend to often make the mistake in thinking that playing an OMG GORGEOUS character will save them from the worst of combat, and that they'll be able to just make a 1 second roll of dice and suddenly have seduced someone to not attack them. That's not how seduction works; it takes time and involves body language, facial expression, voice tones, and often words exchanged over a short amount of time.

In a bar where someone's looking to get laid, this can work in a couple minutes to a few hours depending on various things. In combat, where time is compressed down to a couple seconds per round and survival is more on the combatants mind, it's not going to work unless again, supernatural means are involved like some sort of Charm spell (or discipline use to go back to the White Wolf vampire examples) that befuddles the attacker. And then usually, no one on the opposing side can attack the charmed player, not just the pretty person because it's a spell and not an actual physical effect.

Instinct often puts survival over physical attraction. Procreation can only be achieved when the one wanting it is safe and comfortable usually (or again, in the case of sickos, in a position of power but again, relative safety to exert it). Unless a person has very specific and stringent ideals/codes/etc put over them that they follow ardently, it's unlikely that physical beauty, or lack thereof in most cases, is going to affect their need for survival in a combat situation until/unless supernatural means are involved.

Ugliness can be another matter, depending on the characters and the circumstances again, although I would say that people may be more inclined to attack a hideous or scary looking being with less provocation than they might need from a prettier creature. Most Human brains tend to accept aesthetically pleasing things more easily and react negatively to things that don't fit those aesthetics. So while a player may not automatically attack an ugly or scary character right away, it probably would take less to make them think badly of it. But it again comes down to, in a combat situation, who or what is the more immediate and actual threat for many, unless other social circumstances are involved 9grduges, prejudice, the character's charisma score as opposed to how they look, etc).

[Shoelip]

Sure, women are better at getting men to do what they want by convincing them it's what they want through sexual attraction. It's hormones. It's the reason why I still don't get how beauty can be considered irrelevant. As a straight man you don't exactly have much of a choice in the matter. If your opponent is a beautiful and you're sexually aroused by them you're going to have a harder time killing them than if you aren't, unless you're a psychopath. It's not about an reasoned decision, it's about your body reacting.

Hm, I always thought female goblins didn't show up because they're kept in pens by the males. Considering that the one thing goblins really have going for them is numbers, it'd make sense that they're very protective of their females, to the point of cruelty. They make certain that they stay safe by not allowing them any freedom.

Of course that's politically incorrect so I can see how it might be rejected for the less offensive; "They exist. There just aren't any here." That and allot of people just have a harder time harming women. Even if they're not human.

[LuneMoonshadow]

Really there isn't anything more to be said about it. The answer boils down to: "There are no mechanics for it so roleplay it if you want."

Aside from that... not much else.

Also do stay on topic. I don't think where female goblins are housed really makes much of a difference on appearance affecting combat.

[Shoelip]

This thread is named Character appearance affecting gameplay. So if it's got to do with non-combat game play it's not off topic. I guess the strain about female goblins isn't really related though.

[LeadPal]

There are tons of half breeds. People say "Well mating doesn't necessarily mean attraction." Right, right, it could just be that the person just likes having sex with creatures that don't arouse him and thinks about things that do to facilitate it. Makes perfect sense.The only thing a hippopotamus thinks is sexy is another hippopotamus. Try to seduce a hippo, and you'll see what I mean.

[Shoelip]

The only thing a hippopotamus thinks is sexy is another hippopotamus. Try to seduce a hippo, and you'll see what I mean.

Um... I'm not going to ask how you learned that, but I guess it explains why there are no Half-Hippopotamus's.

[LeadPal]

Well, except in Spelljammer.

At any rate, the expression does get across, vividly, that not everyone's tastes match. You may say that the goblin women in Thunt's comic are very hot, but those are comedic line drawings, and even still have non-human attributes (like the ears) that some might find repulsive. Yet goblins probably take these attributes as signs of beauty.

What if orcs find severe scarring very attractive? What if ogres consider tumours and warts to be signs of vitality? What about a dwarf who thinks that a good woman is big, round, and has a beard you can really hang on to? Heck, what about locathah? What do they find attractive in their fish-women? Or Lizardfolk? You can say that yuan-ti are the product of a reptile fetish, but can you say that's not a perversion?

[Shoelip]

Then again maybe they don't... All we know for sure is that there are tons of half-breeds. I'm just going with the most simple and logical conclusion.

[omni-roach]

Ugliness can be another matter... people may be more inclined to attack a hideous or scary looking being with less provocation than they might need from a prettier creature. Most Human brains tend to accept aesthetically pleasing things more easily and react negatively to things that don't fit those aesthetics.

I always imagined that a low enough charisma would give you bonuses to skills like Intimidate. Something hideous will most likely appear scarier than something beautiful. It just makes more sense to be afraid of an orc than a nymph, if only because the orc is generally a lot uglier.

I figured that since the subject seemed to focus mainly on "OMGHAWTNESSIWANNABANGTHAT", that I may as well bring up the other side of the beauty - ugly spectrum. :P

[Shoelip]

That's a good point. Orcs get a negative to Charisma, and that makes them less intimidating than your average halfling. But that seems a bit far off topic.

[Candleman]

Would that mean that Intimidation should get a bonus with low Charisma...?

[Shoelip]

Not at all. That would mean that a Balor would take a -8 penalty on Intimidation checks... This is one of the things they should have been fixing in 4E...

[Tashalar]

On topic:
Really there isn't anything more to be said about it.

Off topic:
The charisma debate... oh noez!
Intimidate is not
Player: "I use intimidate"
DM: "k, roll."

The intimidating character should rp it out (at least he/she has to say something).
Obviously the nymph would not say "Me stronger than strongest giants! Me crush you like puny fly!"
Nope. She'll say something much craftier than that, playing on the other's fears, on her powers of nature, on her magical powers and the like. And her charisma will help her a lot with this.

It is true that common sense will indicate the one should not really mess with that incredibly strong brute that is threatening you. But that doesn't mean you are intimidated rules-wise.

I don't really see anything in need of fixing. If you as a DM think a strong character should get some bonus in a situation, go ahead and give him a circumstance bonus. That's not difficult at all, hm? Now if you're strong character tries to intimidate a giant... heh. I'm positive that a charismatic character playing on his/her sorcerous powers might be much more successful, hm?

[Shoelip]

That's exactly what's broken about it... Weak characters with high charisma are more intimidating than strong characters with low charisma. Thus, people who are bigger, stronger, uglier and scarier are more likely to be attacked than those who are weaker and more charismatic. If anything, intimidate should be called seduction... Except of course, fighters and barbarians get it as a class skill and either suck at it, or at fighting, while Bards, Sorcerers, Beguilers, and even Paladins have it as a cross class skill.

Intimidate (Cha)

Check

You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear)). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).
If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts.
Demoralize Opponent

You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#shaken) for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll), ability checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#abilityChecks), and saving throws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows). You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.
Action

Varies. Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction. Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions).
Try Again

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial check succeeds, the other character can be intimidated only so far, and a retry doesn’t help. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly resolved to resist the intimidator, and a retry is futile.
Special

You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a -4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target.
A character immune to fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear) can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.
If you have the Persuasive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#persuasive) feat, you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
Synergy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#skillSynergy)

If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm), you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.Anything beyond this is you fixing what you deem to be a flaw in the rule.

[itches]

You don't seem to understand what charisma is. Charisma isn't how pretty someone is, it's their force of presence. You can have a horribly ugly guy with a high charisma.

If someone has a low charisma it just means that they are easier to overlook, dismiss, disregard. They don't come across as important.

[Shoelip]

You don't seem to understand what charisma is. Charisma isn't how pretty someone is, it's their force of presence. You can have a horribly ugly guy with a high charisma.

If someone has a low charisma it just means that they are easier to overlook, dismiss, disregard. They don't come across as important.

Oh I understand that perfectly, which is why I think it's really stupid that an Ogre gets a minus four penalty to Charisma.

[LuneMoonshadow]

Okay, first of all Intimidate is NOT being big and scary. I hate it when people assume this because it is so unfounded in any kind of mechanical argument that all that can come up with to support it is "well I wouldn't attack it!".

Think about what intimidation really is: coming up with a way to make your opponent not attack you. Now, who would be better at thinking on the fly - someone well versed in social situations or the barbaric orc? That's right, the diplomatic individual who knows how to play off people.

A person with high charisma can read people and use what they see to play off the person's emotions - specifically fear. That means a person with high intimidate check would see hesitation when a sword is drawn and with a cocky smirk, step forward and ask just how certain they are about their swordplay. What would the orc do? Typically just swing his axe.

Now, at this point I'm sure you're going to say "But that means all the crazy scary monsters don't ever intimidate!" and you'd be correct. Is that realistic that the monsters don't have an 'intimidation' effect? I actually think so. When you unveil an ogre to the players they hesitate to attack because they know it is big and huge, but once the party gets up in its face the battle is all out - and that hesitation is kind of like intimidate, it's just from the players and not PCs. It works perfectly fine too. Along those same lines, you need to keep in mind that typically PCs are expecting to come across monsters, meaning they are prepared to fight horrible creatures bound to the planes of Hell and what-not. So seeing a disfigured orc, while probably discomforting, isn't going to be horrifically intimidating because PCs will be expecting something of the sort and will react appropriately.

So basically intimidate is not how ugly you are, it is how well you use your words to convince the other person that they should think twice about attacking. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that a streetwise rogue could never be more intimidating than a disfigured half-retarded aggressive orc. Should ugliness give a bonus to intimidate? Sure. But it is NOT the skill itself.

Edit: Here (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showpost.php?p=197666&postcount=167) is an excellent example of intimidation that involved no looks at all, but rather a great rhetoric.

[LynMars]

I really hate the "Charisma = Appearance!" mindset. I actually had a GM make us roll a separate Appearance stat once to end the argument. It ended up being the dump stat not surprisingly, because it has no game mechanic relevance. Should it? Maybe. Some game systems have that in place. D&D doesn't, and isn't likely to again. It makes it moot from a mechanics standpoint, but not a Roleplay standpoint.

Charisma is your ability to be sociable (as someone else said, understand people and use that). Which is why several races get penalties for it due to various reasons. There are ways to get around that penalty--from putting a high roll in that stat so the penalty isn't that bad (which most players won't do for twinking reasons), to taking feats that give bonuses, to just putting points into the skill, if one really wants to.

To give detailed examples of what Lune stated, people are already going to be intimidated by the 9 ft tall burly ogre with a tree for a weapon. It doesn't need a skill to shake people or make them hesitate a moment, they're going to naturally because it's obviously dangerous--hence, intimidating. Likewise, in a Modern game, the 2 big burly bodyguards you know are packing guns and martial skills while you're weaponless and can barely fight hand-to-hand is an intimidating situation already.

A 5 ft tall, 90 lb half-elf girl with a lute though, can use the skill and her force of personality to make her vocal inflection, facial expression, and body language present a picture of someone scary to deal with despite her apparent physical lacking. She can also use her Charisma (and associated skills and maybe feats, from a mechanical instead of RP standpoint) to seduce someone into doing what she wants.

And she can be totally plain or even ugly while doing it, because Charisma =/= Appearance. But she has a natural ability honed by social interaction to work with people. Most monster races aren't going to have that given they don't really socially interact, or at least not the same way people do. Neither are some PC races or classes for whatever reason, like spending your life outcast or tormented for being a Half-Orc and so not really getting the social niceties you were excluded from while growing up, and again, if raised by Orcs, the social rule for monster races applies.

In that game I mentioned at the beginning, eventually people forgot about the Appearance stat, even though we all had clear mental pictures of what everyone looked like, but it didn't matter; how people Roleplayed their mental and social stats--Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma--and used their skills and abilities as tools and not restrictions, mattered far more.

Anyone from a fugly 15 Charisma Ogre to a gorgeous 5 Charisma Elf, can roll an Intimidate check. What matters is the result, and how the GM/player RPs. In fact, in many cases, the social skills are there mainly for when RP does fail the player in question, and/or more time than is realistically available for the game session is required for something (often represented by extended rolls). If a group fringes the borders of ERP territory, rolls can be used in place of actual description.

But most GMs and games worth a darn are going to have the player make an attempt to RP, and give Bonuses and Penalties accordingly, especially if they still require a roll or not based on not only what the rule and sheets say, but also how the player did. Players and their characters are going to react more to a GM who sets the mood and RPs the scariness of the Ogre or the seductiveness of the sorceress than they are to just a roll of the dice and a line in a rulebook that says so.

So I think I'm going back--yet again--to points made at the very beginning of this thread. Roleplay it as one sees fit. The rules are there to create some common ground and order only so it doesn't end up like kids games of Cops 'n' Robbers ("I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!"). They aren't the end-all be-all, and many people houserule a lot of things anyway. Don't make the rules a crutch that hinders RP. They're tools to represent aspects, but can be used to facilitate player experience, not hold it back.

[Shoelip]

Okay, first of all Intimidate is NOT being big and scary. I hate it when people assume this because it is so unfounded in any kind of mechanical argument that all that can come up with to support it is "well I wouldn't attack it!".

Think about what intimidation really is: coming up with a way to make your opponent not attack you. Now, who would be better at thinking on the fly - someone well versed in social situations or the barbaric orc? That's right, the diplomatic individual who knows how to play off people.

A person with high charisma can read people and use what they see to play off the person's emotions - specifically fear. That means a person with high intimidate check would see hesitation when a sword is drawn and with a cocky smirk, step forward and ask just how certain they are about their swordplay. What would the orc do? Typically just swing his axe.

Now, at this point I'm sure you're going to say "But that means all the crazy scary monsters don't ever intimidate!" and you'd be correct. Is that realistic that the monsters don't have an 'intimidation' effect? I actually think so. When you unveil an ogre to the players they hesitate to attack because they know it is big and huge, but once the party gets up in its face the battle is all out - and that hesitation is kind of like intimidate, it's just from the players and not PCs. It works perfectly fine too. Along those same lines, you need to keep in mind that typically PCs are expecting to come across monsters, meaning they are prepared to fight horrible creatures bound to the planes of Hell and what-not. So seeing a disfigured orc, while probably discomforting, isn't going to be horrifically intimidating because PCs will be expecting something of the sort and will react appropriately.

So basically intimidate is not how ugly you are, it is how well you use your words to convince the other person that they should think twice about attacking. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that a streetwise rogue could never be more intimidating than a disfigured half-retarded aggressive orc. Should ugliness give a bonus to intimidate? Sure. But it is NOT the skill itself.

Edit: Here (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showpost.php?p=197666&postcount=167) is an excellent example of intimidation that involved no looks at all, but rather a great rhetoric.

Ok, for a moment let's ignore the fact that you accused me of making an argument that is "so unfounded in any kind of mechanical argument that all that [they] can come up with to support it is "well I wouldn't attack it!"." without actually backing such accusations up with any kind of basis in reality.

First of all it's Wisdom, and not Charisma, that allows you to read people and sense their motives.

Second, what does the person with high charisma do when they don't see a mighty warrior who could easily beat their puny hide to pulp hesitate, because after all, he's fighting a jerk with a dirk. Insult his mother? That's how he got into this mess.

Third... "all the crazy scary monsters don't ever intimidate!" I'm going to assume you aren't talking about the crazy scary monsters that actually do intimidate like the Pit Fiend, and are only talking about the ones that specifically support your argument that big scary monsters with low charisma scores aren't intimidating. I can sort of see where you're coming from with this but you are failing to take far too many things into account.

Take this for example. A typical Storm Giant has 16 Int, 15 Cha, and a +12 Intimidate modifier. He's big and scary right, but he's also intelligent. Now a Succubus has Int 16, Cha 26, and Intimidate +19. However, a Succubus is much smaller and weaker than a Storm Giant, she relies specifically on her ability to not be intimidating but instead seem harmless, using her +19 Bluff check and her +12 Diplomacy to isolate a party member so she can charm/suggest them or suck them dry. Then we have a Vrock who is less intimidating than a Succubus, but more intimidating than a Storm Giant, has lower intelligence than both, Cha 16, and is two CR lower than the Giant, while being two CR higher than the Succubus...

In fact, all demons other than the Nalfeshnee and the Quasit have higher Cha than Int and the latter has 10 in both while the former is 20 in one and 22 in the other. In fact, the Dretch has lower int than an Ogre but higher Cha.

That's right, a mindless Dretch is more intimidating than a Psychotic Ogre. Then there's the simple fact that most of the classes to which Charisma is important don't get Intimidate as a Class Skill... And you're trying to say it's not screwed up...

[LynMars]

You were the one talking about Orcs, Ogres and low charisma score monsters first. Not Pit Fiends. Don't change up the rules of the argument because you don't like where it's going (as in, not agreeing with you).

Charisma is a way of reading people in a different way than Wisdom--the important difference being, in knowing how to act and react. While Wisdom will let you sense motive or call a bluff, Charisma is what lets you intuitively figure out how to give a person what they want or need. Or don't, if you're trying to bully them. They're different aspects of a similar ability, the focus being different.

Intelligence really isn't the factor. It's knowing people and how to manipulate them, which is what the Charisma ability and related skills is about. Someone can be a moron and get by on their looks or on how scary they are, just like a totally socially ignorant and non-scary person can get by on their brains.

It's called "people are different." And so are monsters, the rules are just imperfect representations of that, and no matter how many edition revisions you go through, it's always going to be an imperfect representation. What matters is how a Gm uses those imperfect rules in their game against the PCs and the effects are roleplayed. And I guess how many hitpoints one has left and what shiny loot comes out of it, if that's the important thing, since number crunching is so darned important here.

[Shoelip]

You were the one talking about Orcs, Ogres and low charisma score monsters first. Not Pit Fiends. Don't change up the rules of the argument because you don't like where it's going (as in, not agreeing with you).

Charisma is a way of reading people in a different way than Wisdom--the important difference being, in knowing how to act and react. While Wisdom will let you sense motive or call a bluff, Charisma is what lets you intuitively figure out how to give a person what they want or need. Or don't, if you're trying to bully them. They're different aspects of a similar ability, the focus being different.

Intelligence really isn't the factor. It's knowing people and how to manipulate them, which is what the Charisma ability and related skills is about. Someone can be a moron and get by on their looks or on how scary they are, just like a totally socially ignorant and non-scary person can get by on their brains.

It's called "people are different." And so are monsters, the rules are just imperfect representations of that, and no matter how many edition revisions you go through, it's always going to be an imperfect representation. What matters is how a Gm uses those imperfect rules in their game against the PCs and the effects are roleplayed. And I guess how many hitpoints one has left and what shiny loot comes out of it, if that's the important thing, since number crunching is so darned important here.

I'm pretty sure Lune can speak for himself, but since you seem not to be I'll go ahead and answer your concerns. First of all, he's the one that tried to 'change the rules of the argument' if anyone did, considering that he basically just started throwing out wild and unbased accusations and hostile sarcastic comments at me. Possibly because he didn't like the way the argument was going.

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.

That text is directly from the SRD.

Considering that he was pitting his charismatic rogue against "a disfigured half-retarded aggressive orc" he obviously thought Intelligence was a factor.

Alright... I'm right, but it doesn't matter. That's all I wanted.

[Palanthias]

I think a major problem with the intimidation argument is a confusion of symantics.

Intimidation= a skill based on the Cha stat which is a measure of a characters persuasiveness.

Intimidating= the result of intimidation OR something dangerous presenting a threat.


Now for the ON TOPIC conversation. I think beauty is a matter for roleplaying. We try to define who a character is and how they might react to any given situation with a few numbers on paper or in cyberspace. The character has to be so much more than that and it is up to a player to try to make that come to life for the betterment of the story. Even if it is not so good for the characters immediate future.

I know I have had a few drinks but I can still remember seeing a guy in real life stopped in the middle of a gnarly fist fight cold by a beautiful woman who just showed up and expressed disgust. So I know it can have a very real effect on violence. It just matters how the Players want to play their Player Characters.

Or you can mindlessly hack and slash your way to Godhood. I have done that too.