Benefits to being cute? (Appeasing player silliness.)

[Avianmosquito]

Alright, let me say right off the bat that this is stupid and I know it. I'm doing this because, according to my daughter, my modified child template provides no benefits for being cute. You know, despite it providing an obvious charisma bonus. So, I'm going to leave this one up to brainstorming and just take the best idea. What benefits, if any, would being cute provide that isn't covered under +2 charisma?

[ChaosStar]

Well, in Fallout is Dragons the character Flotsam is very cute, cute enough that her playing pretend in a box can give heart attacks from sheer cute. Maybe pluses in roleplaying for skill checks or something.

[Avianmosquito]

Oh, another silly suggestion by my child (likely inspired by her holding my smaller child), was that children's cuteness might grant bonuses to resting regeneration. Because small children are cuddly, she says. Except not all children are cuddly, so including it on the base template is rather silly. Also, some teenagers (her, for example) and even the occasional adult are cuddly, further reinforcing the silliness of this idea. Also, last I checked, an eight-hour hug doesn't actually heal your wounds, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Conveniently, I actually have a leg wound to try this on. (I cut it pretty bad on some broken glass. Specifically, a broken beer bottle jutting out of a box in the store room.) Will report empirical evidence in the morning. I expect no more than the usual amount of healing.

If it isn't obvious that I'm taking the piss... Well, it is now.

[Efrate]

Favorable curcumstances provide a plus 2 to a check, so anything where being cute would be helpful just toss a plus 2 on the skill check. Its minor, barring diplomancy shenanigans won't be a major issue, its thematic, and its GM discretion on the fly. Bluffing to get help from a kindly stranger would get the plus 2, bluffing to lie to the guard that you just happened to be inside after hours wouldn't. Unless its a very weird/creepy guard.

[ChaosStar]

Favorable curcumstances provide a plus 2 to a check, so anything where being cute would be helpful just toss a plus 2 on the skill check. Its minor, barring diplomancy shenanigans won't be a major issue, its thematic, and its GM discretion on the fly. Bluffing to get help from a kindly stranger would get the plus 2, bluffing to lie to the guard that you just happened to be inside after hours wouldn't. Unless its a very weird/creepy guard.

Puppy Dog Eyes got Flotsam a plus 10 from the GM once on a diplo check, but that game uses a different system than 3.5.

[Crake]

I feel it's worth mentioning (though I'm not sure how much impact it would have on your daughter's opinion, depending on her age), but charisma is a mental ability score, not a physical one. Being cute does not grant someone more force of personality, and there are plenty of horrid looking creatures with incredible charisma.

If you look at all the ability scores, the only two things that are required to distinguish a creature from an object is wisdom and charisma (and you cannot have one without the other). Wisdom represents your ability to distinguish the world around you, and charisma is your sense of self, your ability to distinguish yourself from the world around you. If anything, children, with their naive minds, should have less charisma.

As for what bonus being "cute" should give, well, cuteness, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Not all people will find all children necessarily cute, and some children are not cute even by objective standards. The best suggestion I could give would be a bonus to diplomacy only to increase someone's disposition, and probably limited only to those of the same, or very similar races. Anything beyond that would likely involve the addition of an appearance ability score to be perfectly honest, and that's just a whole mess of it's own.

[Larrx]

Alright, let me say right off the bat that this is stupid and I know it. I'm doing this because, according to my daughter, my modified child template provides no benefits for being cute. You know, despite it providing an obvious charisma bonus. So, I'm going to leave this one up to brainstorming and just take the best idea. What benefits, if any, would being cute provide that isn't covered under +2 charisma?

I'm going to go ahead and say that this is not stupid, and that I agree with your daughter. Charisma is a mental stat, it has nothing to do with 'cute', and cute is a quality of children.

If you treat it as a separate thing, you'll add depth to your game. It's going to be a circumstance modifier. From +2 to -2 and all the in between. Adults with children (or without but have always wanted) would be a bonus. Children of the same age would be neutral. Older children would be a penalty. An adult like the famous Miss Hannigan would be a penalty.

Your daughter wants her cuteness to matter, and it will add texture to your game world and add meaning to her choices if it does, so why not do it?

The cuddliness point is little less cut and dry. I would allow it in my game, because hp is an abstraction, and lost hp can be fatigue or hopelessness or doubt, and cuddling would be restorative in those cases.

In your games hp loss might represent actual physical injury, and if that's the case then the cuddle cure wouldn't work.

The issue of what hp loss actually means is unresolvable, so you kinda have to go with your gut, but what is she really asking for? An increase to natural regen? The 1 hp/level/day of bedrest rule that no one uses because wands exist? Let her have it. Is that really the hill you want to die on?

Edtit: typo

[John Longarrow]

Upside to being cute: Between a +2 and +6 on diplomacy checks against those affected positively by cuteness. So you get a +2 when asking a merchant for a taste of icecream up to a +6 on getting grandma to bake cookies.

Down side: Between a -2 and -6 on diplomacy checks against those affected negatively by cuteness. Teen girls will have a -6 if they themselves are not "cute" and dragons have a preference for eating "Cute girls" first.

Very silly but you could work out a chart for these kinda things.

[Bronk]

I'd say, go ahead and give her 'charm person' as an extraordinary ability, usable at will. Maybe even name it 'puppy dog eyes'. It wouldn't hurt the game, would add to the fun, and your daughter would be happy.

[Avianmosquito]

A whole heaping mess of disturbingly common and completely unfounded excuses directly contradicted by literally every official source.

Yeah, sure. Charisma has no physical component, and it's totally an intellectual position. Which is how you can have 18 charisma and 1 intelligence, literally being less intelligent than most animals, and then continue to increase your charisma as you level without increasing your intelligence. Because clearly, your intellect is important to your ability to be charming when most charming people are utter morons, and those who are actually smart still have to act like utter morons to be charming because charm runs entirely on the stupid parts of the human animal's brain.


Wisdom represents your ability to distinguish the world around you, and charisma is your sense of self, your ability to distinguish yourself from the world around you. If anything, children, with their naive minds, should have less charisma.

Whose bright idea was it to conflate naivete with a lack of a sense of self? It's really more of the opposite, seeing as the naive tend to overvalue themselves. And whose idea was it to conflate naivete with a low charisma score? It literally means poor judgement or gullibility, things completely unrelated to the charisma score and quite related to the wisdom score. Further, this logic dictates that wisdom and charisma are contradictory, since having any perception of the world around you very quickly diminishes your sense of self, because knowing anything about the world remind you that you are without value in it. As raising one of these stats does not lower the other, we can assume that this logic is false.

Also, if "sense of self" defined charisma, and you're arguing that children should get a penalty because they can't tell themselves from the world around them, you are making the claim that children are not sentient. And if you believe that, the only possible explanations are that you either were never a child or you deleted all your childhood memories to back up a conclusion nobody with childhood memories could ever reach. So I'm just going to go ahead and assume you don't believe that.

I see an explanation of this +2 is in order, though that isn't AT ALL the point of this thread. And it's going to take a while.

Charisma is, always has been and always will be, your ability to influence others. That is the literal definition, AND how it is described in the official sources. Cuteness does exactly that, it makes it easier to influence others. Small children have a very easy time using their cuteness to get other people, especially adults, to do what they want because adults are compelled to like children, take care of them and do what makes them happy. Your "sense of self" is completely irrelevant nonsense people flat-out made up to justify charisma being used for spellcasting. (And honestly, there are easier explanations that work far better without being nonsensical pseudo-intellectual gibberish.)

It also is NOT just physical. Cuteness is in a child's actions, in their demeanor and their character traits. This is how adults can be endearing in much the same way as a cute child, and achieve the same results (if usually with less success). As for what this actually amounts to, it largely amounts to simple language, a lack of detail, a constant rhythm, distraction from obvious gaps and playing to emotion.

Plenty of adults have success imitating this strategy, or just having never moved past it in the first place. Charlie Sheen, for one non-political example, became a meme doing this exact thing badly during his meltdown. Let me remind you that this man was DAMNED charming for decades of constant media exposure until he had his meltdown, and it was only in hindsight that we realised this guy was a total moron. He didn't retroactively become dumber, he just wasn't subject to enough scrutiny until he blew his cover. See also: Kanye West, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise, Jim Carrey and every other manchild celebrity to eventually get outed as a crazy, egotistical moron.

EDIT:
I would like to say that I am not disparaging these people in their roles as entertainers. If anything, their stupidity actually makes them more entertaining. I quite enjoy some of them, including Charlie Sheen. In fact, two of my favourite comedic characters of all times are Michael Kelso and Caboose, played by Ashton Kutcher and Joel Heyman.

The unifying factor in these celebrities and the countless political examples I can't bring up on this site is how they operate, using simple emotional tricks to manipulate people into believing them, liking them and doing things for them. They speak at a 1st-grade level, repeat words with a strong emotional impact, use chiches and platitudes in lieu of policy or evidence and avoid making any intellectual points or complicated arguments to make their statements simple and easy to digest for the stupid, emotional, irrational primates they're speaking to. It's also easily exposed if you know what you're doing, though unfortunately the site rules prevent me from showing you a perfect example involving fiction and the dispelling thereof.

This is exactly how children speak, how they argue and how they deal with people. Children don't know how to make rational arguments, at least they haven't been formally taught or had time to practice, so they don't handicap themselves by actually trying to articulate what the **** they're talking about to stupid animals that won't understand it anyway when they can just appeal to the even dumber parts of the stupid animals' brains and get better results.

TL;DR
Children and adults who talk like children are charismatic because most people are dumb and talking dumb works well on dumb people.

Now can we please get back to the silly thread where the silly question gets silly answers?

[Deophaun]

Cuteness Aura: Enemies within 30' must make a Will save (DC is charisma based) or be forced to take a standard action exclaiming how cute the creature is. Once this is resisted a target is not subject to the creature's cuteness aura for 24 hours.

Cute Gaze: Anyone meeting the creature's gaze must make a Will save (DC is charisma based) or be forced to take a move action to get closer to the creature for cuddles. Creature gains a +4 racial bonus on grapple checks.

[Tiri]

Older children would be a penalty.

As someone who spends a lot of time around children, it really depends on the older child in question.

[Avianmosquito]

As someone who spends a lot of time around children, it really depends on the older child in question.

I agree. Especially considering that right this second my 15-year old is asleep holding her 4-year old sister who she has barely set down all day, I'd say older children can be just as subject to cuteness as adults. Maybe even a little more so.

[SimonMoon6]

Random thoughts on extra benefits of cuteness:

Too Cute To Hurt. Enemies must make a will save (DC 10 + half cute person's level + Cha mod) whenever they try to attack the cute character. A failed save means that this attack is wasted (but they can keep trying to attack, needing a new save each time). This is an EX mind-affecting ability.

You Don't Want to Hit Widdle Ol' Me, Do You? When being attacked by an enemy that is not immune to mind-affecting abilities, the cute character gets a bonus to AC equal to their CHA mod.

[Larrx]

As someone who spends a lot of time around children, it really depends on the older child in question.

I agree, and I recognize that I just provided a facile example (13 year olds think that 11 year olds are dumb). Certainly it's not universal, I just wanted a quick way to show that 'cute' can be perceived negatively as well as positively.

[tomandtish]

As others have pointed out, cuteness is subjective. Don;t make it based on being cute. Make it based on being a child. And that can work both ways....

Want to infiltrate the King's castle? "I've lost my mommy and need help". Might get a bonus to influence the guard.

"I can't hire you for this job! You're a kid!"

[Avianmosquito]

As others have pointed out, cuteness is subjective.

So is charisma.

[WbtE]

Maybe a morale bonus for relevantly similar humanoid characters fighting to protect the "cute" character?

[Crake]

Yeah, sure. Charisma has no physical component, and it's totally an intellectual position. Which is how you can have 18 charisma and 1 intelligence, literally being less intelligent than most animals, and then continue to increase your charisma as you level without increasing your intelligence. Because clearly, your intellect is important to your ability to be charming when most charming people are utter morons, and those who are actually smart still have to act like utter morons to be charming because charm runs entirely on the stupid parts of the human animal's brain.

Actually, if you read my post I said it was a mental ability score, and said nothing about tying it to intellect. It's about being able to draw the line between you and the world. These are all quotes from the SRD by the way, just to dispel your strawman of saying nothing I said was supported by official sources:
"Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score. "
"This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."

It's also worth noting that if charisma was a physical thing, then when you polymorph into something "cute" you should also gain the form's charisma modifier, yet for some reason you don't?

I'm not going to address the rest of this, frankly uncalled for, angry rant against me.


So is charisma.

Charisma is not subjective at all, that's why it's represented by an objective number, otherwise your charisma should go up and down depending on who you're talking to.

[Sam K]

So is charisma.

Nope. If charisma was subjective, sorcerers would lose their spell casting ability if people didn't like them. "Sorry Xyon, I think you're pretty dull, no meteor swarm for you!" How you react to charisma is subjective (if someone is charismatic and you don't like them, you tend to REALLY not like them).

But if you interpret it differently, it's your game and if it works for you and your players I really shouldn't be making a big deal about it.

I would say just give circumstance bonuses to skills where being a cute kid would be a benefit. Get caught stealing? "I'm sorry mister, a big kid told me he'd hit me if I didn't!" Sneaking around where you shouldn't be? "I'm looking for mommy, have you seen her?" On the other hand, good look in trying to persuade people that your opinions are the right ones. "High priest is dominated by a vampire? Kids make up the darnest things." And there are always those creepy men who offer kids candy...

[Avianmosquito]

Actually, if you read my post I said it was a mental ability score, and said nothing about tying it to intellect. It's about being able to draw the line between you and the world. These are all quotes from the SRD by the way, just to dispel your strawman of saying nothing I said was supported by official sources:
"Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score. "
"This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."

Objective strength of personality is not a thing. Personality is not measurable, it is a set of biases that all have positive and negative implications. For example, I'm an introvert. (Shocker, that.) I'm more comfortable in private situations than social ones. That means I'm less likely to spend time in social situations that I don't have a reason to attend, which saves me time and lets me focus on other things, but it also means I get tired and stressed out if I have to deal with groups of people for extended period.

Further, understanding the difference between yourself and things that are not yourself is not a spectrum, it is not a value. It is a straightforward yes/no. You can't yes harder, the score can't be and isn't only about that. It's just a requirement to HAVE charisma, it's not charisma itself. The same applies to wisdom, a score that is entirely nonsensical and would need a complete rewrite to make sense because being "wise" is not a thing. Experience is a thing, but it's also a separate score that serves an entirely different purpose, so a more accurate term for how "wisdom" is used in D&D would be "resolve". (Which is the term my video game uses, of course, but that's an entirely different topic.)


It's also worth noting that if charisma was a physical thing, then when you polymorph into something "cute" you should also gain the form's charisma modifier, yet for some reason you don't?

You don't get its charisma modifier because it's too complicated to say "Okay, so we think charisma is... 85% mental, so move your charisma 15% towards the creature's charisma score... Oh and wisdom we think is 90% mental, and intelligence 95%, so let's move those 10% and 5% as well.", and TSR was too lazy to say something like "When polymorphed into X, take a +1 to charisma from your altered appearance and -2 to wisdom from your inferior senses".

Not that I blame them, it's a lot of fiddling for what will probably be a one or two point change. It's not FATAL, they aren't going to bog it down with five types of charisma and give modifiers to each one when it's only somewhat less accurate and MUCH easier to just make each of them modifiers to one score. (Assuming that's actually a thing. My knowledge of FATAL is an angry review from RPG.net.)


I'm not going to address the rest of this, frankly uncalled for, angry rant against me.

Sure it is, despite never mentioning you a single time.


Charisma is not subjective at all, that's why it's represented by an objective number, otherwise your charisma should go up and down depending on who you're talking to.

Except this game has a lot of things that are not and can never be objective that it chooses to treat as objective. That includes all three mental scores, morality and ethics and many of its skills, such as bluff and diplomacy. It's ridiculous and stupid, but it would be impossible for the game to function otherwise.

Arguing "D&D says it, so it must be accurate." is a pretty dumb argument anyway. D&D gets more things wrong than it gets right, and not by a small margin. Plate armour somehow doesn't do anything to resist being set on fire, poison and disease are instant, a poison spit attack somehow works when it hits your armour and never touches your body, people literally die of old age, none of those things make sense but they're all rules in D&D.

The goal of the entire ruleset this template is a part of is to make D&D make more sense. And while this thread is ultimately a joke, the template itself is meant to make more sense and function well in gameplay. Whether it ultimately makes more sense to stick to +2 charisma or swap that out for situational bonuses to skill checks can be argued, but I'm partial to the former because it's simpler and works better for gameplay.


Nope. If charisma was subjective, sorcerers would lose their spell casting ability if people didn't like them. "Sorry Xyon, I think you're pretty dull, no meteor swarm for you!"

Charisma as described in D&D just doesn't make sense for spellcasting anyway, and the same goes for wisdom. Intelligence even only barely makes sense.

There is a better explanation. And that would be that the character traits that generally make people be perceived as more charismatic (such as confidence and passion) also boost spellcasting. Xykon being confident and feeling strongly about what he's doing makes enough sense as a bonus to spellcasting, but while that generally makes people more charismatic it can also make you look like a short-sighted buffoon. (Which, to be fair, he is.) Then, once people come to that conclusion, it's hard to be taken seriously and harder to make people listen to you or accomplish anything. This was the entire point of my celebrity examples above. There was a time where Kanye West was considered a serious intellectual, but the same traits that lead people to that conclusion also lead to him having several major gaffs that made it impossible to take him seriously and now nobody remembers that people once looked up to the self-centred douchebag.

Another explanation is that the parts of the brain that control personality (or their magical equivalents), and would allow you to perform better socially, are directly used in sorcery spells. If you have a particularly effective frontal lobe, and the frontal lobe controls sorcery spells, then it once more makes sense that your charisma (as social interaction and personality are the framework of it, and those are handled by the frontal lobe) would impact spellcasting because it's handled by the same region of the brain. And this works for magical creatures as well, that the parts of their mind, or the magical construct that provides their mind, or whatever else are responsible for the same tasks both mentally and magically as they are in the human brain. The part of a lich's magical consciousness that are responsible for social behaviour also affect spellcasting and these traits are preserved from life, so Xykon's strong frontal lobe as a living man made him a strong sorcerer before and after death.

I chose the latter explanation myself, as it is just as effective, works better in relation to the real world and is easier to work with. You can make an argument for the former if you wish.


Maybe a morale bonus for relevantly similar humanoid characters fighting to protect the "cute" character?

To what? Attack? AC? Skills? Saving throws? Details, man. I need details for the thing I'm not using because this thread is a joke. (I feel some people could use that reminder.)

[WbtE]

Details, man. I need details for the thing I'm not using because this thread is a joke. (I feel some people could use that reminder.)

That isn't a very good way to get a thoughtful, constructive response.

[Avianmosquito]

That isn't a very good way to get a thoughtful, constructive response.

That's the point!