Documentation for your subjective idea that WotC or TSR meant that this is average, sir!Veilan wrote:The "average" is hardly defined by the sample of a few online gamers spending their time in virtual discussion and roleplaying.
The DnD average is your medieval commoner, and he's more like this:
Or else put it in standards!
As far as strength goes, I would say that average strength today is lower than average strength in medieval times. Peasants weren't sitting around playing dungeon's and dragons on their computers all day. I actually go to the gym every weekday and push weights, run, and all that jazz and I would still say my Str by DnD standards is only about an 11 or 12.
Average knowledge today is higher than it was in the dark ages, obviously, but that doesn't speak of Intelligence... average intelligence remains much the same. Tests and occupation reveal that I'm of higher than average intelligence and I agree with Fluff that people of average intelligence seem a lot dumBer... but people of average intelligence aren't stupid, there's nothing wrong with them, and they function just fine. Coincidentally, the standard Int scale (3-18) kind of matches our American IQ scale (10-180). Dergon was kind enough to present a TABLE. DERGON, YOU'RE ON FIRE MAN!!!
Anyway, 8 or 9 is hardly idiotic or even stupid (which are both the same thing, to me).
BTW, where tests and occupation have shown my int to be high, life has repeatedly shown my wis to be low
It's easy to just throw around your preconceived ideas about what the stats mean, but it's better to find things that tie or numbers within the actual game to support.
-1 penalty to your diplomacy or bluff skill doesn't really say pimple faced, snot nosed, cross eyed bubble lipped gangly ugly person that I want to stay across the room from. It just says someone who I'm not as inclined to believe or follow than the average person.
Finally, as to allocation of looks vs behavior for Cha:
First, Dorn, you took Veilan's statement and then presented it as if it meant the exact opposite.
Anyway, once again, until it's actually in standards, Veilan's opinion of how to play your stats isn't necessarily the correct one. When he's a DM, he can make rulings based on his opinions and dock you XP to his heart's content.
Charisma is a measure of a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
An amalgamation of all of those features, folks!
It is hardly reasonable to say that ALL ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE ARE GREAT LEADERS. Nor is it reasonable to say that IF YOU ARE NOT HANDSOME, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PERSUADE PEOPLE TO YOUR CAUSE.
There is no reason you cannot play your character as being more attractive than your charisma score, but also somewhat more grating than the same score.
You ever walk into a bar and saw an attractive person and were like, "Whoa, baby!" and went up to them all ready to be persuaded at +3 but then they opened their mouth and their voice was like pixies dying and they wanted to make SURE you knew exactly what they thought of the DJ even though you made it plain you didn't care, and oh my god they just won't shut up and now, if it wasn't for their awesome looks, you'd be persuaded at -4?
If you want to play an attractive character yet fumble around as the most socially awkward nerd ever, go for it! Don't let others hamper your imagination!
Obviously, the further from your actual charisma score you say you look or act, the harder a time you are going to have justifying it (ie working harder to RP the social aspect of it).
From the PHB: "A character with low Charisma may be reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript."
Note the use of the word 'or'. If you have low charisma, you don't have to be ALL of these things. You can pick 'why' your charisma is low. You can say "My Charisma is low because I'm rude" and THAT'S all. Not ugly or boring, but rude. You have low Charisma because you're SHY! Not rude, arrogant, or fawning. Suddenly, it isn't necessary to tie horribad looks to a low charisma score.