Emotionless Character Effects

[PersonMan]

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]

What's the LA on this?

[Marriclay]

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]

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

[PersonMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

People don't respond well to emotionless people.

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

[Tengu_temp]

Your presence alone gives other characters +2 to Perform (Comedy) as long as they use you as the straight man in their antics.

[Fri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There's a difference between someone trying to act emotionless and someone who is emotionless, especially when it comes to bluffing (tells).

[Jack Zander]

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]

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]

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

Spoiler

Show

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

[Il_Vec]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.