Should Pillars add in beauty or renown stats for dialogue options or events?

[wih]

But how are you sure this particular person is a troll? What if it is just a coincidence? You just discouraged one new fan of the game to post on this forum ever again. All of this could have been avoided if the first responses were calm.

Edited May 28, 2018 by wih

[Wintermist]

The idea isn't a bad one in itself, I did want something like it, and not only for appearance.

 

I wanted attractiveness and physical strength as separate entities, though not handled by numbers like with attributes. "Might" I see more as "Skill", as the more skilled you are the more damage you do and so on. It clashes a bit for me that might is used for strength checks while a skinny wizard bests anything strength related. It's weird.

 

I would change Might to Skill, then I would add strength as something you pick between like "medium" "strong".. "very strong". You could sacrifice an attribute point to raise strength level, or be weaker but get more attribute points, but suffer in some other way due to being physically weaker.

 

I'd do the same thing with attractiveness.

 

Strength would have more uses than an attractiveness setting, but for RP purposes I'd love if it was there.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Wintermist

[E.RedMark]

we have diplomacie , bluff and intimdate that do that job already . All of them , require body language not just words , or insult or lies . 

[gkathellar]

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

[DaKatarn]

we have diplomacie , bluff and intimdate that do that job already . All of them , require body language not just words , or insult or lies . 

 

OP tell about physical attractive and social seduction.

[DaKatarn]

 

Even if it’s a realistic way, it’s difficult to do in a CRPG with so many fight situations. It’s a concession of gameplay and it’s fine.

 

The best way to do it by far is in a game with an advantages/disadvantages system, as a perk that triggers certain dialogue options or a small bonus on certain checks, while keeping it totally separate from the core mechanics. Beauty should generally be placed along things like "oh, I have photographic memory," or "oh, I know ALL THE TRIVIA," or, "oh, I'm familiar with military stuff" - miscellaneous character traits that can be independent of combat attributes.

 

 

I'm agree with you but apparently a fighting penalties for a beautifull woman is a heresy for some. A red alarm is burning their minds and the wild hunt is launched against malefic clichés.

 

In an other hand, we can see an inherent penalty due to the fact that we are going to place points in this characteristic rather than in an other one.

Edited May 28, 2018 by DaKatarn

[PizzaSHARK]

Yet another dumb false flag post

 

That implies it's being done intentionally, like trolling.  I think they just... didn't really think it all the way through before posting.

[wih]

 

 

 

 

 

There might be better ways to implement these ideas, or do you guys think it is bad to add this? Since I am about 5 hours into the game this system might already been added and I just do not know. If so, please tell me. 

 

The whole post was basically a question. Nothing in the post is aggressive. Nothing in it deserves such a response. Just tell them that you do not like this particular idea.

 

Tell who?  The troll that posted once and then never reappeared in the thread?  Give me a break.

 

I would never reappear in a thread after such a response.

 

 

Aww diddums!

 

 

Seriously. Why would I want to talk to people who insult me on sight? Without knowing nothing about me?

[smokeBomb]

Science has already proven there are vast differences between the quantity of grey and white matter between the male and female human brain – and also its dispersal and density in certain regions. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg regarding this thing that’s solely responsible for how you think and behave. There are, in other words, multiple intelligences, some of which women were designed to excel in over men – and vice versa. 'Intelligence' itself is a rather meaningless word in that sense, since there is no one all-governing intelligence. But what it does mean is that it's safe to say there are 'feminine' traits and 'masculine' traits. If you can't be convinced by experience, then by all means tell science its wrong.

 

There is also social research galore that has already investigated the influence attractiveness has on the human perception of competition and intelligence. Attractive people tend to be viewed as more competent – that’s not my conclusion, it’s the conclusion of the research. It’s been shown to have significant implications for hiring and promotion within the workforce. As such, it’s a kind of cheap charisma that just works out of the box, so to speak.

 

Research aside, we’re all entitled to our opinions regardless. If they don’t confirm with yours, and you have to resort to name-calling over counter opinion, then that says everything I need to know.

 

That said, if you feel men and women should be treated identically in fantasy, I say that’s fine – you’re entitled to your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with it, but I’ll still challenge it, which isn’t the same as shooting it down.

 

I don’t need science to tell me women and men aren’t remotely the same – I just need to have lived a life. Human intelligence is subordinate to human animal instinct, by which I mean nature has intentions for you as an animal to ensure the survival of the species. It doesn’t care about concepts like political correctness – and it has designed the brain to guarantee nature will always have the upper hand. It’s my personal preference is to see the implications of that in all fiction. That’s not me saying ‘this is how it should be’, it’s me saying ‘this how I want it to be’.

 

Regarding the comment that I’m a ‘troll’, of all things, why get so angry and upset if my opinions aren’t the same as your opinions? Do you need me to be thinking exactly like you do about life in order to feel content? Because I won’t.

 

Men rate physical attractiveness in potential mates higher than women do. I can speak from experience when I write that, and there’s no shame for me there – it’s just human nature.

I’m no expert in female psychology, but I can still have opinions on my observations of women. I’ve also asked women direct questions on the subject that have backed up all of what I believe. For women, the attraction business is far more complex. They don’t have the same lust for sex based solely on appearance – a man might see a beautiful woman, discover she has a personality that would curdle milk, and still have sex with her if the chance arose.

 

Women in general won’t do that if a man is attractive. They have an elaborate criteria of items that need to be met before they sleep with a man: his confidence levels, his emotional stability, his sense of humour, his social skills, to name but a few.

 

Women also play a subtler flirting game. It’s more psychological, more creative and more indirect than the game men play. They also have more opportunity to use their bodies and, yes, beauty to seem more alluring – this doesn’t mean acting like a ****, or taking her clothes off.

 

The topic of female flirtation is so complicated I have to cut it off there. In short, I’ve experienced both men and women flirting with me. I don’t care how people perceive my sexuality, even though I’m straight – but I can say the experience has taught me men and women couldn’t be more different in how they think. Men have directly hit on me, even if they know nothing about my personality. They’ve often been aggressive in doing so, and occasionally stalker-ish – ‘no’ won’t be taken for an answer, and the process can go on almost indefinitely for as long as you work in the same building as them.

 

Women are far more cautious and probing. They’ll never directly let you know they find you attractive in the way men will. They’ll always do so indirectly, in a way that leaves you constantly guessing – am I right in how I read her body language, and the innuendo in her conversation? But it’ll always be up to me, as a man, to make the move. They have never engaged in staker-ish behaviour with me, and I've never had to repeatedly make it clear that the answer is a 'no', as happens to have been the case with not one but several different men – in the same building. I've had to actually ask my manager to move me to a different floor at one stage, because one of these men was in no way as harmless as the others in his persistence.

 

None of these behaviours are reflected in Deadfire, which was only one small part of the problem I had with the narrative. Having lived a life, I simply reject any fiction that doesn’t look or sound like reality. That’s just me.

 

As regards ‘that thread’ that I started, I’ll likely never look at it or read the comments. That’s it’s been locked already says everything I need to know. It has provoked debate, therefore it has done its job. Past experience on forums thought me you’re better off not getting involved beyond that point, because life’s too short.

 

Besides, no matter how rational you may be, no matter much evidence you provide, there’ll always be some twit who’s out for your throat, no matter what. For these people, there is no debate – they call you names, they curse your words, but they never counter with an opinion of their own with a level head.

 

I don’t deal with such people in online forums. If they don’t like me and my opinions in such a personal way, they’re welcome to come meet me face to face. I won’t turn down anyone on that offer.

[Boeroer]

The OP didn't get insulted.

 

And to be fair: the reason why some of the new posters don't reply is because they can't: if they use a new account every post has to get a clearance from a mod/admin (prevents bot spam) and usually this will take a while. The posts then get interjected into the discussion - but few will notice because usually you don't reread all arguments.

 

So it may well be that the OP wants to respond but is hindered by forum rules.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Boeroer

[wih]

The OP didn't get insulted.

 

Not by you. However it was implied by other people that the post was trollish and dumb. Afterward the poster was called a troll directly.

 

 

And to be fair: the reason why some of the new posters don't reply is because they can't: if they use a new account every post has to get a clearance from a mod/admin (prevents bot spam) and usually this will take a while. The posts then get interjected into the discussion - but few will notice because usually you don't reread all arguments.

 

So it may well be that the OP wants to respond but is hindered by forum rules.

 

Nice point.

Edited May 28, 2018 by wih

[algroth]

Regarding the titular question, I don't know how important this feature would be but one approach that comes to mind is to have a set of neutral or "aesthetic" descriptors that don't mechanically determine much or present any change to combat, but which omit, allow or change certain banters, dialogues and so on. For example I'm personally favouring a character who is more in his autumn years and so on yet I've heard people call him "lad" or the likes in some interactions - so an age descriptor could change a few of these nicknames to best reflect apparent age. Likewise, if your character looks like Eld Engrim (which he can) it'd be really awkward to hear companions going "he's so handsome!" left and right (something that I've noticed happens pretty often in my playthrough at least). Just a thought on how this idea could be implemented in my opinion. But really, maybe it's just not worth the work.

[flamesium]

Honestly I think it's a lot weirder that we use the same word to indicate the differences between people with different skin colors and facial constructions as we do to indicate the difference between humans, dwarves, elves, catgirls-hobbits, and shark-people.

 

Like I know why (it's a linguistic callback to times when we thought the differences between skin colors and facial constructions were a lot more significant than they actually are), but it's still weird.

 

I guess when I'm saying is that "race" in PoE is not really "race" IRL and the use of the word is sort of a living fossil/genre trope. There's a reason sci-fi prefers "species" or "sophont clade."

 

I agree it's a strange choice, I am just using the language the game uses.

 

That said, I believe there are still significant differences between (human) races, though not to the extent which exists between male and female. Look at the Olympic 100m final, or the breakdown of the NFL by race compared to the breakdown of the US population. Probably there are significant differences in favour of other races too, but in the current climate it's just easier to pretend they don't exist even if they do.

 

As for differences between 'species', the only real difference between it being fine to imply significant differences between species but not between genders is that there are no Orlan or Aumaua around to complain. By ignoring the clear physical superiority of (average) adult human males over adult human females, the devs have gone for inclusion and a quiet life over attempting to represent reality. Given this is a fantasy game that's fine. If they were claiming to be making a historical RPG it might be different.

 

We very much live in a 'feelings over reality' phase at the moment. Whether this stands the test of time or is just a phase remains to be seen.

[Artaios]

I personally would not mind a game that accounts for differences in sex. If we declare that in this universe sex does not matter, then this should also be represented in the lore. In a game where sexual dimorphism is identical to the real word, this does not work. I like how Morrowind accounted for sex in attributes. Sometimes females were weaker but strong-willed, sometimes they had more agility. In one case they were even uglier and less sociable than the males (had less Personality/Charisma). Bloodlines let you play the way you wanted to. You could make your female character weaker but more alluring.Or you could go the exact opposite way. It will not always make sense but you have to account for gameplay in a game after all. In the end, just having male and female characters for superficial looks is really sub-optimal. Why spend so many resources to invest in this system and not use it at all?

Edited May 28, 2018 by Artaios

[Slapstick87]

If you wanted to make an easy implementation of this it could be a background.

 

"Muse"

You've been the inspiration of artists, composers and philosophers. Beguilingly elegant and gorgeous, there's been no shortage of people who've found their passions stirred to great achievements by the mere presence of your visage. You've never wanted for food or shelter, though envy and lack of appreciation for your character and ideas has been a stone in your plush, velvet shoe.

 

Bonus: +2 Diplomacy

 

 

 

Now if someone who could actually write something coherent made this into a background, I could totally see myself playing a female beauty if it had all the interactions to go with it

Edited May 28, 2018 by Slapstick87

[wih]

When the game says that men and women have equal physical abilites this is in the context of the player characters. These are not average people. Pallegina is not an average woman. She can indeed be stronger than many men. So it is a convenience to just say that men and women have the same physical abilities rather than trying to be more realistic and look for ways to balance them by giving the men more max strength and women - more max dexterity or something like that, so that they are balanced in the end.

 

For me, this is the source of the confusion and people thinking that men and women should be considered equally strong in fantasy games.

[Wormerine]

Arcanum had it, and it was great. Like mostly everything that Arcanum did. More games should be like Arcanum. Have I said Arcanum?

Yes! Having speperate charisma and beauty stat was something special.

 

The thing is, Deadfire doesn’t do the combat/social mix for attributes. By current logic investing into beauty stat would either need to somehow contribute to combat, or would detract from effectiveness of your character. Deadfire isn’t really designed for creating combat or social oriented characters - they are always both.

[Syntheori]

I don’t need science to tell me women and men aren’t remotely the same – I just need to have lived a life.

 

....

 

I’m no expert in female psychology, but I can still have opinions on my observations of women. I’ve also asked women direct questions on the subject that have backed up all of what I believe. For women, the attraction business is far more complex. They don’t have the same lust for sex based solely on appearance – a man might see a beautiful woman, discover she has a personality that would curdle milk, and still have sex with her if the chance arose.

 

.....

 

Besides, no matter how rational you may be, no matter much evidence you provide, there’ll always be some twit who’s out for your throat, no matter what. For these people, there is no debate – they call you names, they curse your words, but they never counter with an opinion of their own with a level head.

 

Your observations are limited to the scope of your life. I traveled around a lot growing up, but I spent most of my time in the southern United States until I came up to Vermont for college. I was shocked by how selfish people were, and half the time I thought I was just boring to death everyone I talked to. In reality, there are subtle, but key cultural differences between northern and southern social expectations. 

 

The South is an "honor" culture, while the North is a "dignity" culture. The South is a "guess" culture, while the North is an "ask". 

 

"Honor cultures place importance on socially conferred worth, reputation, and a positive social image, all of which can be granted or taken away by others." 

"In contrast, dignity cultures place importance on context independent, individual, and inherent worth, which is less affected by the social regard of others."

 

"In some families, you grow up with the expectation that it's OK to ask for anything at all, but you gotta realize you might get no for an answer. This is Ask Culture."

"In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers."

 

People weren't being rude, nor did they hate me. They were just conforming to wildly different social expectations that drastically shaped how they interacted with me, and each other. In the South you smile when you talk to someone because that's how you signal engagement in the conversation. It was also crazy to me how many people responded to gestures of kindness with distrust. In the North, you ask if you want help. Offering, and people will think you want something from them. And for women, they'll think you're flirting with them. 

 

Long-winded, I know. But the point I'm making is that you would be surprised by how much our culture influences our behavior, and how blind to that we can be until we step into another one, and really ask ourselves 'why?' There are certainly biological differences between men and women--most notably their different reproductive roles, and different balances of hormones--but there are many theories that explain how culture could account for current behavioral differences in socialization. Whether or not you believe a patriarchy still exists, hopefully you can agree that it did exist for a very long time in our history, and that it has left a powerful echo.

 

And, for the record, in my personal experiences with women they've tended to have more variety in their behaviors and opinions regarding sex (as well as everything else) then the homogeneity you describe. 

 

EDIT: Fixed tenses.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Syntheori

[gkathellar]

Screw it, I'm taking the bait. IHBT.
 

Science has already proven there are vast differences between the quantity of grey and white matter between the male and female human brain – and also its dispersal and density in certain regions.

This is one of those statements that's technically true and also incredibly misleading. Men and women whose performance on IQ tests is equivalent have different proportions of grey and white matter, yes, but all that indicates is that it's not possible to make meaningful generalizations about the significance of of proportions of grey and white matter across male and female brains.

The next time you talk about "science says this," I suggest you bring a citation.
 

There are, in other words, multiple intelligences, some of which women were designed to excel in over men – and vice versa.

Nobody was designed to excel at anything. People are, and they are for reasons, but that's a brute fact the only significance of which is itself.
 

'Intelligence' itself is a rather meaningless word in that sense, since there is no one all-governing intelligence. But what it does mean is that it's safe to say there are 'feminine' traits and 'masculine' traits.

The problem being that it's not clear which traits those are, aside from, say, slight predispositions towards spatial versus verbal ability. Even calling them masculine of feminine is unhelpfully reductionist and, frankly, wrong. There are certainly a lot of people who say that X is intrsincially feminine and Y is intrinsically maculine, but unless we're talking about chromosomes, there tends to be a deficit of evidence.

Beyond the strictly neuroscientific questions, it's very difficult in general to differentiate claims of inherent ability from differences based on culture, training, and background; not enough studies are performed cross-culturally, which has been a particular problem in psychology and sociology.
 

If you can't be convinced by experience, then by all means tell science its wrong.

This doesn't really follow. Questioning the value of claimed anecdotal experience is not equivalent to "tell[ing] science its wrong."
 

There is also social research galore that has already investigated the influence attractiveness has on the human perception of competition and intelligence. Attractive people tend to be viewed as more competent – that’s not my conclusion, it’s the conclusion of the research. It’s been shown to have significant implications for hiring and promotion within the workforce. As such, it’s a kind of cheap charisma that just works out of the box, so to speak.

I wanted to isolate this statement because it is, to the best of my knowledge, completely factual and not at all misleading taken on its own. But it also has very little, if anything, to do with any of the other statements preceding and following it.
 

Research aside, we’re all entitled to our opinions regardless. If they don’t confirm with yours, and you have to resort to name-calling over counter opinion, then that says everything I need to know.
That said, if you feel men and women should be treated identically in fantasy, I say that’s fine – you’re entitled to your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with it, but I’ll still challenge it, which isn’t the same as shooting it down.

Forgive me if I'm misreading, but the implication here seems to be that if someone disagrees vocally with you, they're resorting to name-calling and you can dismiss them, while your vocal disagreements with them are "challenge" and are therefore more elevated in an unstated way. This strikes me as ... essentially a subtle form of name-calling?
 

I don’t need science to tell me women and men aren’t remotely the same – I just need to have lived a life.

This ... looks a lot like moving the goalposts, because earlier you make a whole big thing about science and research. At a glance, it looks a lot like you're just giving yourself an out against scientific work that doesn't support your foregone conclusions. In any case, this statement isn't supported by either your previous assertions or your subsequent ones.
 

Human intelligence is subordinate to human animal instinct, by which I mean nature has intentions for you as an animal to ensure the survival of the species. It doesn’t care about concepts like political correctness – and it has designed the brain to guarantee nature will always have the upper hand.

Human intelligence and human animal instinct are not clearly distinguishable terms, and you yourself note that "intelligence" is a term that borders on meaningless. Both "intelligence" and "instinct" are simply the brain doing what brains do - not what they were designed to do, but rather what they are able to perpetuate themselves doing. To paraphrase Nietzsche: reason is itself a passion.

I'm also unclear on what "nature," itself a term that is very nearly useless, has the upper hand against, exactly. See, I've heard a lot of claims about what is "natural." I've heard that drinking the milk of other animals is unnatural (odd, since humans are the only species with the genetic adaptations required to produce lactase enzyme past infancy). I've seen it argued that homosexuality is unnatural (a behavior which appears in virtually all mammals and virtually all avians and has a variety of functions among social animals). I've heard that eating meat is unnatural for great apes (though even the most strictly vegetarian primate diets are inevitably supplemented with large numbers of insects). These claims always seem to be accompanied by the notion that the speaker's social agenda is "natural," and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. It seems to me that if use defines meaning, "nature" is just a word for "the way I think things are supposed to be;"

And I think maybe you're saying nature is in competition with political correctness (a term I dislike because in most cases it would be more appropriate to say "correctness"), and in which case my reading is, "the way I think things are supposed to be is in competition with the way things are." I'm sure you'll disagree with that reading, but I honestly find your whole argument to be ill-informed at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, so I ... don't ... really care?
 

That said, I believe there are still significant differences between (human) races, though not to the extent which exists between male and female. Look at the Olympic 100m final, or the breakdown of the NFL by race compared to the breakdown of the US population.

Those aren't differences between "races," whatever those are, but between populations. You can legitimately say "in the United States, men with dark skin and men who are more than six feet tall are statistically convergent groups," but all that really says is that certain genes tend to be found with certain other genes, for a variety of social and historical reasons. There's an ethnic group in Southeast Asia who can dive for longer periods than most because of their enormous spleens, which can be keyed to a single mutant gene - does that mean "Asians are good at diving?" No, of course not, because "Asians" is not a real thing. Race in the real world sense is a 16th-century invention, a sort of cultural atavism we use to ignore the reality that breaking people down into generalized classes tends to be really, really misguided in practice.
 

We very much live in a 'feelings over reality' phase at the moment. Whether this stands the test of time or is just a phase remains to be seen.

 
There's an NPC in PoE1 who makes a comment about Orlans. When you call him on it, he says, "Just telling the truth. Seems like that's the greatest crime of all these days."

I always liked how true-to-life that was.

[wih]

Screw it, I'm taking the bait. IHBT.

 Why are you assuming that you are being trolled? There are all kinds of people and all kinds of opinions. You are defending a humanistic ideal here. Yet you seem to give little thought to the possibility that someone may simply think differently instead of trying to bait you.

[jf8350143]

By giving the men more max strength and women - more max dexterity or something like that, so that they are balanced in the end.

If we go by the real world standard, men will have extra bonus on both strength and dexterity, and there is no proof that female should have a higher max intelligence or perception or resolve. So in the end female just becomes a worse choice when creating a character.

 

There is a reason patriarchy exists in the history, and we are leaving that era behind, there is no reason to reflect that in a fantasy world setting.

[wih]

 

By giving the men more max strength and women - more max dexterity or something like that, so that they are balanced in the end.

If we go by the real world standard, men will have extra bonus on both strength and dexterity, and there is no proof that female should have a higher max intelligence or perception or resolve. So in the end female just becomes a worse choice when creating a character.

 

There is a reason patriarchy exists in the history, and we are leaving that era behind, there is no reason to reflect that in a fantasy world setting.

 

 

It actually depends on the game and what the writers want to do with it. Adding such thing mechanically wouldn't work because male characters bonuses will work automatically while "beauty" checks will need to added by the writers into the story one by one. This can't be made balanced. Also, some players will want to play a female warrior and won't care about beauty checks. In that case they will be unhappy.

It doesn't mean that in this world male and female NPCs are to be considered equally strong physically. That women and men have differences is not a bad thing. What we are trying to leave behind is the notion that someone should be considered an inferior human being based on some body trait.

[illathid]

Meh, I like the more abstract attributes of pillars. No need to turn this into F.A.T.A.L. the cRPG.

[Wormerine]

Meh, I like the more abstract attributes of pillars. No need to turn this into F.A.T.A.L. the cRPG.

So... attractivenes stat? Defines physical, social and sexual attractiveness of your character, increasing positive reaction from NPCs, granting discount at shops and taverns, and increasing chance to get harassed/catcalled by a random NPCs. With high attractiveness all romances trigger as soon as you recruit a companion.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Wormerine

[Skazz]

Meh, I like the more abstract attributes of pillars. No need to turn this into F.A.T.A.L. the cRPG.

 

Roll for Anal Circumference.