PDA

View Full Version : Emotionless Character Effects



PersonMan
2010-06-16, 04:52 PM
What sort of bonuses/penalties would an emotionless character get? I've already given immunity to fear and no morale bonuses/penalties, penalties to several skills, situational bonuses to Intimidate and a bonus to Bluff. What other stuff would an emotionless character receive?

I'd also like some thoughts on how one would roleplay such a character.

Defiant
2010-06-16, 04:53 PM
What's the LA on this?

Marriclay
2010-06-16, 04:54 PM
What sort of bonuses/penalties would an emotionless character get? I've already given immunity to fear and no morale bonuses/penalties, penalties to several skills, situational bonuses to Intimidate and a bonus to Bluff. What other stuff would an emotionless character receive?

I'd also like some thoughts on how one would roleplay such a character.

Thoughts on how to roleplay one? take a look at the Races of Eberron chapter on Warforged. sure, they do have emotions, but they're such an odd race that you should be able to glean some inspiration from them

Seffbasilisk
2010-06-16, 04:56 PM
I'd actually penalize bluff. Some of the best lies get people wrapped up in the emotions you're faking.

PersonMan
2010-06-16, 04:56 PM
What's the LA on this?

Aiming for as little as possible, I think it's done, I just don't know what sorts of things an emotionless creature would get.


I'd actually penalize bluff. Some of the best lies get people wrapped up in the emotions you're faking.

Yes, but if someone who never raises, lowers or otherwise changes their voice tone tells you something, how do you tell if it's true or not?

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-16, 04:59 PM
I played a semi-emotioinless Psion in one campaign (he wasn't really emotionless, but between losing his parents, then his sister, and then seeing all the horidness of the world he had become jaded and hid his emotions so well that he forgot he had them, except for with one person). He got a bonus to saves against emotion effects but a penalty to diplomacy checks due to a lack of empathy. I think it was a +2/-4.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-16, 05:07 PM
Rage and similar effects wouldn't work.

You might grant a bonus to concentration checks that don't involve explicit outside distraction (for example, a bonus for using Diamond Mind maneuvers, but not for casting after being shot in the face).

An emotionless character doesn't have an emotional attachment to anything he 'likes.' You could make him immune to charm effects, or if this is too much, grant a bonus to those saves (and have him act like a normal friendly person for the duration if he fails the save). The same goes for a bard's fascinate.

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-16, 05:09 PM
To roleplay an emotionless character, you may want to try saying everthing using a monotone. Emotion tends to cause most of the voice inflection people speak with.

The character's actions should also be very controlled. Don't make the movements stiff and jerky, just make him move with a sense of precision.


I'd actually penalize bluff. Some of the best lies get people wrapped up in the emotions you're faking.

I believe the point is that your not faking an emotion, therefore your lies can't be detected through your emotional response. If the character was trying to fake an emotion on the other hand, it would give him a penalty. Thats only if he believed the emotional response would give credence to his story.

Theodoriph
2010-06-16, 05:10 PM
People don't respond well to emotionless people.

Emotionless people should get negatives to intimidate, bluff, diplomacy and charisma.

Tengu_temp
2010-06-16, 05:10 PM
Your presence alone gives other characters +2 to Perform (Comedy) as long as they use you as the straight man in their antics.

Fri
2010-06-16, 05:11 PM
Your presence alone gives other characters +2 to Perform (Comedy) as long as they use you as the straight man in their antics.

This. Just this.

PersonMan
2010-06-16, 05:14 PM
People don't respond well to emotionless people.

Emotionless people should get negatives to intimidate, bluff, diplomacy and charisma.

Why to intimidate? Wouldn't you be afraid of someone who was completely calm while killing your allies(and even when their allies die)?

And how do you tell if someone is lying if they never change their tone of voice, don't feel anxious about being caught, etc.?

Theodoriph
2010-06-16, 05:18 PM
Why to intimidate? Wouldn't you be afraid of someone who was completely calm while killing your allies(and even when their allies die)?

And how do you tell if someone is lying if they never change their tone of voice, don't feel anxious about being caught, etc.?

Nope. And neither would any other human. A large part of what we feel is based off of what we perceive others as feeling. I'd be far more afraid of some angry Viking running up to me and yelling in my face about how he's going to chop me up, while brandishing his sword with barely subdued rage, then I would of some guy calmly walking up to me and saying the same thing.

There's a reason all animals and human armies try to look mean and ferocious instead of calm, cool and collected.

PersonMan
2010-06-16, 05:19 PM
Nope. And neither would any other human. A large part of what we feel is based off of what we perceive others as feeling.

Hmm. Because I know I'd be more afraid of someone who expressionlessly slaughtered my allies as opposed to someone who seemed to act more normally while doing so.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-16, 05:22 PM
The emotionless interrogator should get a bonus to intimidate if he questions while he tortures. That monotone would then be quite unnerving.

I agree with PersonMan when it comes to bluffing, although RP-wise no one should really know when he's telling the truth either.

Jack Zander
2010-06-16, 05:46 PM
I believe a study was conducted where people were told to be completely monotone and give no facial expressions and were then told to have several interactions with people who were not told about this study.

The "emotionless" group had a much harder time getting people to donate money to their charity or pass a lie off as truth to (diplomacy and bluff) than the second group which was asked to do the same thing, but as they would normally do so.

I imagine intimidate would also suffer. If a guy calmly killed several people in front of me, it may be unnerving, but that's not what an intimidate check is. If a police officer interrogated me and told me I was going to jail so I'd better fess up, but he had no emotions, I wouldn't take him seriously.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-16, 05:54 PM
There's a difference between someone trying to act emotionless and someone who is emotionless, especially when it comes to bluffing (tells).

Jack Zander
2010-06-16, 05:58 PM
There's a difference between someone trying to act emotionless and someone who is emotionless, especially when it comes to bluffing (tells).

Except there really isn't when the other party has no idea that the emotionless character really is emotionless. Most people would assume that the emotionless character just wasn't even trying to interact with them.

Demented
2010-06-16, 06:04 PM
Does emotionless imply expressionless? If not, such a character could fake the appearance of emotions, the effectiveness of which depends on charisma. Essentially, operates as a normal character, if somewhat psychotic.

However, if a character is simply unable to express, I'd expect there to be penalties all around, even to bluff and intimidate. (But still keeping the immunity to emotion-based effects.) Being expressionless may make a great poker face, but that seems more like it would confer a penalty to an opponent's Sense Motive check than even a situational bonus to bluff.

big teej
2010-06-16, 06:21 PM
Nope. And neither would any other human. A large part of what we feel is based off of what we perceive others as feeling. I'd be far more afraid of some angry Viking running up to me and yelling in my face about how he's going to chop me up, while brandishing his sword with barely subdued rage, then I would of some guy calmly walking up to me and saying the same thing.

There's a reason all animals and human armies try to look mean and ferocious instead of calm, cool and collected.


my thoughts on angry/emotional vs. calm

as someone who went through a few years as a bully (and as someone messed up enough to enjoy scaring people)

i promise both over the top angry intimidation and a lack of apparent emotion can be used effectivly to scare the living hoo-ha out of somoene.

its all about knowing what buttons to push

*note: i have outgrown those juvenile tendencies.... i think :smallsigh:

Il_Vec
2010-06-16, 07:02 PM
I'd say there is no penalty or bonus to any social skills. You see, reactions differ A LOT, meaning that the roll is the important thing there. Some people will be scared of a dead-eyed, emotionless, unnervingly calm person, others might see him as really bored. Such a variation demontrates that there is no innate advantage or disadvantage, it will change in each situation/interaction.

Susano-wo
2010-06-16, 07:11 PM
IT seems that the benefits and penalties are essential contextual. YOu *can* intimidate someone with an eerie calmness, as well as appear weak and unimpressive if your demeanor is too unassuming. So it seems like they should get +X/-X (2 or 4 depending on extremity) depending in each instance. I would probably penalize skill rolls that rely on emotional recognition or communication (sense motive in many cases, bluff to convey secret messages, etc)

And I would probably penalize will, because emotions are a strong part in willpower--if you have no attachment to this or that, its a lot harder to struggle to achieve it.

Of course then there is the issue of Charm. best friend to this person is pretty much the same as worst enemy, aside from utility. So it would severely hamper the effects of charm, though the char would not be specifically immune, per se.

PId6
2010-06-16, 07:12 PM
I'd say you should gain a bonus to bluff against people who know you, but a penalty versus those who don't. Being completely emotionless means that those who know you can't get emotional tells from your voice and won't have any way to recognize whether you're lying or not. Against those who don't know you, they'd just be unnerved by your lack of emotion and distrust what you have to say on instinct.

Alternatively, it depends on the situation. If you're trying to convince someone you didn't commit a crime, it should be easier since you're neither angry nor afraid of getting caught. If you're trying to convince someone of specific facts, however, it might be harder because they can't empathize with you.

NMBLNG
2010-06-16, 07:26 PM
This thread has gone on far too long without the mention of Spock or Vulcans.

Spock doesn't really talk in a monotone voice, he always has a calm demeanour. I don't think he gets a penalty or bonus to social skills. Even though he cannot appeal to the emotional side of people, he can still present well constructed logical arguments. (It's really hard to argue with a Vulcan). You also see Spock not lying, but rather omitting details or implying other things.

So no penalties/bonuses to social skills, though maybe a few circumstantial ones. Immunity to fear, and a bonus to charm and mind-effecting abilities.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 07:28 PM
given thel iberal interpretation of bluff including both quirks and "poker faces", I'd say a creepy monothone character would be as good a bluffer as he trained himself into. It's probably easier to make the default initial reaction a step lower, before the person becomes actively hostile.
The "Unfriendly" attitude fits quite well the first impressions of such character: Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult

Guidelines on immunities would count basically immunity to fear (maybe just nonmagical?) effects and stuff related to strong emotions(like rage, or anything a Calm Emotions would sate)

druid91
2010-06-16, 08:00 PM
There's a reason all animals and human armies try to look mean and ferocious instead of calm, cool and collected.

What do you mean? Think about it, most of the best armies try to look calm, collected, and disciplined. Take the revolutionary war british for example. I mean they would wear red just so that it was hard to see their soldiers bleed, and the effect of watching them calmly continue fighting as their allies dropped dead after every barrage had to be terrifying. It seems to me that most of their intimidation was by saying "you can't hurt us", and then doing their best to show that.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 08:06 PM
What do you mean? Think about it, most of the best armies try to look calm, collected, and disciplined. Take the revolutionary war british for example. I mean they would wear red just so that it was hard to see their soldiers bleed, and the effect of watching them calmly continue fighting as their allies dropped dead after every barrage had to be terrifying. It seems to me that most of their intimidation was by saying "you can't hurt us", and then doing their best to show that.

Most warfare, however, was barely composed of trained troops. Effective spread of discipline is a very post-gunpowder concept. When swords won wars, infantries were, basically, "hit here", "charge there" and "don't move from here". The most soldier-level organization was the proper lining up and replacing downed ranks. Archers and cavalry was much more disciplined, but that's because of the intrinsic need of lots and lots of training for those units. Playing "raging horde" was a powerful intimidation technique for infantry-infantry situations.

Ubercaledor
2010-06-16, 08:49 PM
I've got to query whether or not a non-emotional character would think to try to bluff or intimidate. Straight diplomacy would surely be a more logical approach.

Let's not forget that one unable to feel emotion would also be completely non-empathetic, so would have compromised sense motive/perception and would likely lose some ability to bluff/intimidate as you'd need to guage how effective the tactiv was

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 09:00 PM
I've got to query whether or not a non-emotional character would think to try to bluff or intimidate. Straight diplomacy would surely be a more logical approach.

Let's not forget that one unable to feel emotion would also be completely non-empathetic, so would have compromised sense motive/perception and would likely lose some ability to bluff/intimidate as you'd need to guage how effective the tactiv was

that is rather tricky. Psychopaths are, by definition, completely non empathetic to other beings, and don't feel most emotions the same way we do. That's a major factor in how they are so good at not looking like freaks without close observation.

Flickerdart
2010-06-16, 09:12 PM
Joystealers can create emotionless people by CHA-damaging someone to 0. Those people can't rage and aren't affected by morale penalties or bonuses. I forget what else it does, but I think that's all.

retkin
2010-06-16, 09:18 PM
Why does everyone think of emotionless as straight monotone people. Just because they don't feel it doesn't mean they can't fake it. They would probably be trying to fake them their entire lives to make dealing with people easier on themselves. Sociopaths are some of the most charming people in the world, and its not because they talk in some monotone voice.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 09:22 PM
Joystealers can create emotionless people by CHA-damaging someone to 0. Those people can't rage and aren't affected by morale penalties or bonuses. I forget what else it does, but I think that's all.

Isn't a cha=0 character someone who doesn't even have a sense of identity?

Thurbane
2010-06-16, 09:34 PM
No ability to rage/frenzy, penalties to some social skills (notably Bluff & Intimidate)...but all of this has been covered...


Why does everyone think of emotionless as straight monotone people. Just because they don't feel it doesn't mean they can't fake it. They would probably be trying to fake them their entire lives to make dealing with people easier on themselves. Sociopaths are some of the most charming people in the world, and its not because they talk in some monotone voice.
Like Dexter. :smallsmile:

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-16, 09:39 PM
Isn't a cha=0 character someone who doesn't even have a sense of identity?

That's Cha -. Cha 0 is unconscious. The joystealer just gets an extra thing where people they reduce to Cha 0 are rendered emotionless. Like how Shadows that Str drain people to 0 kill them and make more shadows.

Brendan
2010-06-16, 09:44 PM
I would say Mr. Teatime is more intimidating and downright scary than some angry thug with a knife. both can kill you, but one is likely to stab first and then leave then be bargained with and convinced not to stab.

Deme
2010-06-16, 09:48 PM
Realistically, this character would not be a good adventurer. This is mainly because adventures are all about making choices, and do you know what happens to people whose emotional system is damaged to the point of not functioning? They don't make decisions. They can lay out the arguments for any choice perfectly well, but when the time comes to pick an option, they can't, because the part of them that says 'this sounds like a good idea and it's going to work out great for me' or 'this sounds like a bad idea and I'm not going to like it' doesn't work.

I would argue that psycopaths are bad examples of emotionless people -- they're completely non-empathetic, but not emotionless, given that a major trait for psycopathy is impulsive behavior, which is all about feelings.

PersonMan
2010-06-16, 10:18 PM
Realistically, this character would not be a good adventurer. This is mainly because adventures are all about making choices, and do you know what happens to people whose emotional system is damaged to the point of not functioning? They don't make decisions. They can lay out the arguments for any choice perfectly well, but when the time comes to pick an option, they can't, because the part of them that says 'this sounds like a good idea and it's going to work out great for me' or 'this sounds like a bad idea and I'm not going to like it' doesn't work.

I would argue that psycopaths are bad examples of emotionless people -- they're completely non-empathetic, but not emotionless, given that a major trait for psycopathy is impulsive behavior, which is all about feelings.

The character in question unquestioningly follows the orders of a specific other person, who has ordered her to amass as much wealth as possible in a short time. Adventuring is a very profitable business.

And I think that one could use pure logic to decide to do things. It's when faced with random choices(Door A or Door B?) that she might have trouble, and even then she could just go with one randomly.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 06:07 AM
Realistically, this character would not be a good adventurer. This is mainly because adventures are all about making choices, and do you know what happens to people whose emotional system is damaged to the point of not functioning? They don't make decisions. They can lay out the arguments for any choice perfectly well, but when the time comes to pick an option, they can't, because the part of them that says 'this sounds like a good idea and it's going to work out great for me' or 'this sounds like a bad idea and I'm not going to like it' doesn't work.

I would argue that psycopaths are bad examples of emotionless people -- they're completely non-empathetic, but not emotionless, given that a major trait for psycopathy is impulsive behavior, which is all about feelings.

I'm not sure about their incapability of making decisions. It's more likely an incapability to develop new goals. Once they have a set goal, they'll simply strive to that one. They'll do what they have to do when they have to do it, they'll plan ahead for eventualities, and his logic will be very close to an algorithm weighing in only external factors. Such absolute incapability to care about others makes him evil, as his actions will only rein evil deeds (cutting my path through this mob is the fastest way to leave the city and proceed to the <mcguffin area>. <slashes away>) is his own smartness about the side effects of such deeds (cutting my path through this mob is the fastest way, granted the city defense will not catch me. They are likely to catch me. cutting my path is not the fastest way).

Chrono22
2010-06-17, 06:31 AM
Whatever it might give mechanically, I'd say being emotionless gives a -5 on roleplaying checks. Getting into character, empathizing with the situations of the NPCs/PCs, it's closely tied with having an emotional connection with your PC and his circumstances.

Theodoriph
2010-06-17, 06:52 AM
Why does everyone think of emotionless as straight monotone people. Just because they don't feel it doesn't mean they can't fake it. They would probably be trying to fake them their entire lives to make dealing with people easier on themselves. Sociopaths are some of the most charming people in the world, and its not because they talk in some monotone voice.

Sociopaths aren't emotionless. Neither are psychopaths. That would be why most people haven't related them to the situation....because they don't apply. As to faking it, psychopaths and sociopaths know what the feelings feel like. They don't necessarily feel them in certain situations, but they know what they feel like. It's not so much them learning to fake feeling as them learning when to ascribe those feelings that he knows to other people.

And to the person who mentioned Spock...the reason no one brought him (or any other fictional character) up is because they don't actually exist, are scripted, and the interactions they have with others are not realistic.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-17, 07:16 AM
I read of a man who was, because of birth or brain injury, was literally without emotions. Instead of becoming Spock, he. . .dithered, like the donkey that starved between two haystacks.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 07:26 AM
I read of a man who was, because of birth or brain injury, was literally without emotions. Instead of becoming Spock, he. . .dithered, like the donkey that starved between two haystacks.

That's the lack of drive right there. He feels hungry, but that doesn't make him want to eat. An entire planet was wiped out for that reason when some plumbing got clogged.

Morph Bark
2010-06-17, 07:41 AM
True emotionlessness will be nigh impossible to pull off.

That being said, I would assume this character is very much Lawful, which makes the bonus to Bluff seem a little odd. :smallconfused:

prufock
2010-06-17, 07:41 AM
What sort of bonuses/penalties would an emotionless character get? I've already given immunity to fear and no morale bonuses/penalties, penalties to several skills, situational bonuses to Intimidate and a bonus to Bluff. What other stuff would an emotionless character receive?

I'd also like some thoughts on how one would roleplay such a character.

If it's a single character, don't bother with penalties to any skills. Just don't give them ranks in that skill. If you're working on it as a template, just give them a straight charisma penalty and be done with it; all necessary skills included.

Other than that I think morale bonuses and fear pretty much covers the range of D&D emotional effects. Oh, I suppose make them immune to Calm Emotions.

RP-wise, well, there are a lot of different ways to portray an emotionless character:
- He could try to fake it to fit in. There might be something a little "off" about his persona that people can't quite pin down, like his smile doesn't really touch his eyes or something.
- He could be cold, calculating, logical. Note that an emotionless character doesn't HAVE to be entirely rational, but you could play him much like Spock or some intelligent robot.
- He could simply be detached, aloof, etc. Non-reactive. Probably not too much fun to play.
- What's his motivation? That's important. If he has no emotional reason to be an adventurer, perhaps he has some arbitrary, or logical, or random, or default reason.

PersonMan
2010-06-17, 08:09 AM
True emotionlessness will be nigh impossible to pull off.

That being said, I would assume this character is very much Lawful, which makes the bonus to Bluff seem a little odd. :smallconfused:

Why? Lawful people can bluff. I don't see why they couldn't.

And yes, the character is very Lawful.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-17, 08:25 AM
Why? Lawful people can bluff. I don't see why they couldn't.

And yes, the character is very Lawful.
To bluff someone, it helps to know what they want to hear, a twisted kind of empathy. If you have no emotions, how can you understand others, their motives and desires?

PersonMan
2010-06-17, 08:32 AM
To bluff someone, it helps to know what they want to hear, a twisted kind of empathy. If you have no emotions, how can you understand others, their motives and desires?

I can see where you're coming from, but when I think of the Bluff bonus situations, it's times when you're just outright lying, and there's no way to tell if it's true or not from your voice, tone, body language, etc.

I was also just wondering why M-Bark seemed to think that because the character was Lawful, they couldn't/wouldn't Bluff people.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 08:34 AM
I can see where you're coming from, but when I think of the Bluff bonus situations, it's times when you're just outright lying, and there's no way to tell if it's true or not from your voice, tone, body language, etc.

I was also just wondering why M-Bark seemed to think that because the character was Lawful, they couldn't/wouldn't Bluff people.

Thus my comment on the "creepy monothone" type of emotionlessness being too hard to evaluate within bluff. "poker face" is as much a factor as "body gesture" and "tone of voice". It's all fluff.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-17, 08:51 AM
I can see where you're coming from, but when I think of the Bluff bonus situations, it's times when you're just outright lying, and there's no way to tell if it's true or not from your voice, tone, body language, etc.

It's more then that. Look at the examples in the skill. A believable lie provides a positive modifier to bluff. Now, being emotionless means you would also feel no shame, so a lie would be less detectable from psychological cues. But you wouldn't be so good at crafting them in terms the one lied to wants to believe.
So at best I would say they would cancel each other out.

I was also just wondering why M-Bark seemed to think that because the character was Lawful, they couldn't/wouldn't Bluff people.
Many codes, internal and external, include a stricture against lying. Having a code is one of the hallmarks of Lawful behaviour. That may be what they were trying to get at.

Morph Bark
2010-06-17, 08:57 AM
I was also just wondering why M-Bark seemed to think that because the character was Lawful, they couldn't/wouldn't Bluff people.

Oh, I don't think Lawful people wouldn't/can't Bluff people, I just think that a bonus to Bluff would be more in line with Chaotic characters, generally speaking of course.

Serpentine
2010-06-17, 09:32 AM
The following largely assumes that lack of emotions comes with lack of proper understanding of emotions.
I would give them a very high Charisma penalty - they're not likeable, and they're lacking at least part of force of personality.
I would give them a big penalty to Sense Motive and similar. Alternatively, you might base it on Intelligence instead of Wisdom (to represent active learning of body language, rather than an instinctive knowledge).
Penalty to Diplomacy.
I can see why people are saying bonus to Bluff... A lack of emotions would be handy for, say, a poker bluff, or possibly a feint. But to tell a lie... I don't think it would work as well on strangers. You might wanna just put that one down to DM fiat.
You said there's a situational modifier to Intimidate. What are those modifiers?

jpreem
2010-06-17, 12:04 PM
Truely emotionless person would not do a thing, wouldnt even move.Actually it would not even be very accurate to call such a thing "person". A truly emotionless "person" could function in a roleplaying game if it is being guided by magic/technology which forces it to follow some goal. The difference between such a creature and mindless undead or constructs would be that it might have superior intelligence which it can use for problem solving to reach that goal.
If i would play that kind of character then i would make it totally single minded to reach its goal. Kind of like a Terminator ( before terminators become emotional wimps anyway :D). If highly intelligent and has enough information about how emotions should look like, it might even try to fake some of those, if it serves the Goal.

PersonMan
2010-06-17, 12:35 PM
The following largely assumes that lack of emotions comes with lack of proper understanding of emotions.
I would give them a very high Charisma penalty - they're not likeable, and they're lacking at least part of force of personality.
I would give them a big penalty to Sense Motive and similar. Alternatively, you might base it on Intelligence instead of Wisdom (to represent active learning of body language, rather than an instinctive knowledge).
Penalty to Diplomacy.
I can see why people are saying bonus to Bluff... A lack of emotions would be handy for, say, a poker bluff, or possibly a feint. But to tell a lie... I don't think it would work as well on strangers. You might wanna just put that one down to DM fiat.
You said there's a situational modifier to Intimidate. What are those modifiers?

+3 if the DM feels the situation is right.

Il_Vec
2010-06-17, 01:06 PM
Are you saying that this character is Lawful because of the emotiolessness or because of other factors? Because emotion is the drive behind all tendencies, so such a person would be, in my opinion, neutral. Or he could be a coin-toss chaotic, adopting random methods to make choices when logic doesn't apply.

PersonMan
2010-06-17, 01:09 PM
Are you saying that this character is Lawful because of the emotiolessness or because of other factors? Because emotion is the drive behind all tendencies, so such a person would be, in my opinion, neutral. Or he could be a coin-toss chaotic, adopting random methods to make choices when logic doesn't apply.

She follows the orders of a single person without question, and uses logic to make as many decisions as possible. When a choice is 100% random, she will flip a coin or something. So she follows a Lawful set of rules, and places them above all other laws. She will, however, follow laws most of the time, as being chased after by authorities would hamper her activities.

Fitz10019
2010-06-17, 02:22 PM
This thread has gone on far too long without the mention of Spock or Vulcans.

Spock doesn't really talk in a monotone voice, he always has a calm demeanour. I don't think he gets a penalty or bonus to social skills. Even though he cannot appeal to the emotional side of people, he can still present well constructed logical arguments. (It's really hard to argue with a Vulcan). You also see Spock not lying, but rather omitting details or implying other things.

So no penalties/bonuses to social skills, though maybe a few circumstantial ones. Immunity to fear, and a bonus to charm and mind-effecting abilities.

On the topic of Spock as an example, I refer you to that episode where Spock was in charge of a shuttle that was forced to land on a planet with nasty energy storms, and nastier gigantic barbarian inhabitants (The Galileo Seven). Spock's leadership is terrible, because he does not understand the emotional dynamic of his crew or their enemies. [/Trek]

I agree that the bonus/penalty to bluff/diplomacy would swing with the situation. In a situation that should elicite emotion (asking for aid), the emotionless character will be less convincing. In a matter-of-fact situation (hiring someone), the emotionless character would be more convincing.

I think a total immunity to fear is too much. I suggest an immunity to the levels of fear below panicked. The character seems immune to fear, but push fear far enough, and you reach past the mind and trigger the animal response deep within him.

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-17, 02:40 PM
Why does everyone think of emotionless as straight monotone people. Just because they don't feel it doesn't mean they can't fake it. They would probably be trying to fake them their entire lives to make dealing with people easier on themselves. Sociopaths are some of the most charming people in the world, and its not because they talk in some monotone voice.

A sociopath feels emotion, he just doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong. To be able to effectively roleplay that your character lacks emotion, you have to have someway of expressing the lack of emotion. I am not saying that someone who speaks with a monotone doesn't feel emotion, I'm just saying it will help with getting accross to the rest of the group that your character lacks emotion.


Realistically, this character would not be a good adventurer. This is mainly because adventures are all about making choices, and do you know what happens to people whose emotional system is damaged to the point of not functioning? They don't make decisions. They can lay out the arguments for any choice perfectly well, but when the time comes to pick an option, they can't, because the part of them that says 'this sounds like a good idea and it's going to work out great for me' or 'this sounds like a bad idea and I'm not going to like it' doesn't work.

Just because a character doesn't feel emotion doesn't mean that he can't make a decision. Computers lack emotion, but are still able to give a decision based upon logical criteria of what the outcome needs to be.

Personally, an emotionless character would still feel emotion to some extent. It's just that the emotions or so repressed that no one else is able to detect their existence.