the issue comes to the front as soon as that character attractiveness is confronted: 1) player meets npc 2) npc doesnt find the player character attractive 3) pc "but im super attractive"
4) DM "but they're not straight/not into elves/not that into you"
What you are describing is Main Character Syndrome. If you think describing a character as "super attractive" is a red flag for Main Character Syndrome, OK, but the problem there is not the character description
and after that is where it has the potential to becomes a loop of conflict at the table unless either the player or dm concedes on the "super attractive" statement
it does raise a red flag for main character syndrome, and i personally extend that red flag out to include the features described by the character who defines themself as "super attractive" since it impacts the perspective of every other character in relation to their character
if someone claims their character is "super attractive" without indicating what or who they are attractive to then yes they have effectively overwritten the opinions of any other character that comes across them regardless of who or what that character is
Again, I find that to be an incredibly bizarre view. Nothing a player writes about their character's description can take away agency from anyone else at the table
i truly hope that is the case however that leads back to: what is the purpose of self claiming to be "super attractive" while also describing in detail a characters physical features? what influence is the result of that "super attractive" statement?? what does the statement of being "super attractive" effect???
will probably message you privately if ive got any follow-ups to responses, so we dont flood the chat with just our thoughts
This is a genuinely bizarre way to view character descriptions and interactions
"Attractive" as a self-descriptor is a word that literally describes how you expect others to perceive you. If, by saying that a person is "attractive" (i.e. a descriptor used for someone else), you mean that they are attractive to you, then that's not really a problem, but it's also not a very good description of someone. The problem persists, albeit slightly differently. What makes that person attractive? Are you into Cloud or Kratos? Angelina Kendall or Kim Kardashian? Even a single person might have a fairly wide range of features they find "attractive" within another, which just brings me back to my main point: attractive as a description of yourself (or your player character) is both presumptuous and unhelpful.
Intense, brooding, dark, dirty, scarred, tattood... these are all descriptors that do not assume preferences. "Attractive" and "Ugly" are.
And how does any of that take away agency from PCs, or force DMs to do something with NPCs that they don't want to do?
That's the part you're not explaining. You are making a giant leap in your head
I don't think what you wrote here has anything to do with the post you quoted, or it's already answered in said post.
Look, it's really simple. By calling your character "super attractive" you are both setting up to be disappointed when that descriptor doesn't "influence" NPC's attitude towards you the way you'd "expect" and skirting around the actual description of the character. Presumptuous AND unhelpful.
If you have an actual description of your character in mind, just use that. Objective descriptors. There is no need to write the highly subjective "super attractive" in your description.
If you don't have an actual description of your character in mind, then "super attractive" is about as helpful as not saying anything.
Try this one on for size: "My character is a super attractive male Illithid."
What image does this conjure in your head? Is it hard to think of one, or easy? Are you basing it's "attractiveness" on your views of what's attractive, or what you think an Illithid's views of what's attractive are, or something else? If you have an image in mind, do you think it is the same as someone else's image of my character? As my own? What "influences" would you, as a DM, provide to my character because of this description? What do you, as a DM or player, think I'm trying to communicate with such a description?
TLDR: there is simply no point to use a descriptor like "attractive" in your character's description. It doesn't and shouldn't do anything mechanically, and it doesn't do a very good job of actually describing the character, either.
i truly hope that is the case however that leads back to: what is the purpose of self claiming to be "super attractive" while also describing in detail a characters physical features?
Attractive/ugly is a modifying adjective. It affects how the other players will visualize the characters descriptive features.
Take a description:
"She's thin, with wild red hair, big green eyes, pale skin"
You have a visual in mind. Now continue with...
"and is incredibly ugly."
Now you have a different vision. The hair is probably matted and unkempt. She's probably scrawny. Her face isn't put together right.
You could try to convey that with specific features, but you're trying to thread a needle there, and long lists of features are harder for people to keep in their head.
Similarly, if you continue with "and is incredibly beautiful", that creates its own visual, which is probably not the one you started with before the modifier.
A major divide here seems to be between people who think "incredibly attractive" is supposed be a universal reaction*, and those who think it's got to be subjective, that there's an assumed "for/to species X". An incredibly attractive orc's milkshake ain't bringing all the dwarven boys to the yard. The mammals don't even know what to look at on a Dragonborn.
And yes, there are gonna be players who are going to try on "I'm incredibly attractive, so I get advantages on charisma stuff", but...
They're going to be trying on similar nonsense regardless. Removing a useful descriptive term just because of that won't fix anything.
Lots of Charisma rolls are not ones where attractiveness is even useful. It can even be a detriment.
* To be fair, many people can have opinions on attractiveness even when it's somebody who doesn't push their buttons. But understanding elven aesthetics doesn't necessarily make you naturally well-inclined to them. Not every dwarf is Gimli.
Welcome to the internet. This is mostly just in jest, but still.
<Snip>
[Redacted]
I understand that the main mind flayer boss in BG3 is a romance option.
He is. Haven't marked that achievement off, and don't think I ever will, hahaha (nor that "other option", either).
To my point, though, I think you are giving too much credit to the words for use in the description. Full disclosure, I chose "It's complicated" for my poll answer, because you could say something like "My 7'2" male dragonborn has a broad chest, large muscles, bronze scales with blue highlights along the neck, two horns swept back on his head, jaw spines, has a deep voice, and is generally considered attractive to other dragonborn." or even "My 7'2" male dragonborn has a broad chest, large muscles, bronze scales with blue highlights along the neck, two horns swept back on his head, jaw spines, has a deep voice, and thinks he is quite attractive to other dragonborn." Either one would be better than just saying, "My male dragon born is super attractive," but the first does nothing to enhance the description of the character in my mind because I don't know what other dragonborn are attracted to (so I just assume it's what's already been described), and the other has less to do with descriptors and more to do with how he views himself.
As the [redacted] images of our "attractive Illithid" show, there is a very wide range of actual descriptions that could, potentially, fit this "attractive" descriptor precisely because it's so subjective. I mean, the top and bottom left images would have wildly different actual descriptions after you've mentioned the obviously Illithid features (I also wrote male Illithid to better avoid what I knew would be coming had I not, but now that it's here...). One has more of a squid-shaped head, blue eyes, ears, a sort of mild protrusion where the nose would be on a human, and huge... "tracts of land". The other has more of a bulbous head, violet eyes, no ears, a flat face, and is quite thin. About the only thing similar between them is that they both have bluish skintones (and their choice of mascara, I guess). Both could be considered attractive by some, but I bet a majority of that is due to the clothes they are wearing.
i truly hope that is the case however that leads back to: what is the purpose of self claiming to be "super attractive" while also describing in detail a characters physical features?
Attractive/ugly is a modifying adjective. It affects how the other players will visualize the characters descriptive features.
Take a description:
"She's thin, with wild red hair, big green eyes, pale skin"
You have a visual in mind. Now continue with...
"and is incredibly ugly."
Now you have a different vision. The hair is probably matted and unkempt. She's probably scrawny. Her face isn't put together right.
You could try to convey that with specific features, but you're trying to thread a needle there, and long lists of features are harder for people to keep in their head.
Similarly, if you continue with "and is incredibly beautiful", that creates its own visual, which is probably not the one you started with before the modifier.
A major divide here seems to be between people who think "incredibly attractive" is supposed be a universal reaction*, and those who think it's got to be subjective, that there's an assumed "for/to species X". An incredibly attractive orc's milkshake ain't bringing all the dwarven boys to the yard. The mammals don't even know what to look at on a Dragonborn.
And yes, there are gonna be players who are going to try on "I'm incredibly attractive, so I get advantages on charisma stuff", but...
They're going to be trying on similar nonsense regardless. Removing a useful descriptive term just because of that won't fix anything.
Lots of Charisma rolls are not ones where attractiveness is even useful. It can even be a detriment.
* To be fair, many people can have opinions on attractiveness even when it's somebody who doesn't push their buttons. But understanding elven aesthetics doesn't necessarily make you naturally well-inclined to them. Not every dwarf is Gimli.
Yes, it definitely does change how I imagine your character. But, as I've pointed out, the rest of that line is left up to interpretation. If I find dreadlocks or skinny girls attractive, "matted hair" and "scrawny" are not things I would imagine with a term like "incredibly ugly" while someone else might. And there are about a million ways a face could "not be put together right." The character looks different to everyone in the party and to the DM. While I don't disagree that providing a large amount of details might mean some get forgotten or overlooked, at least your character is consistent within everyone's minds. At the same time, you don't need a laundry list of descriptors. Hair length/color, eye color, skintone, build, and one or two unique features should be enough for anyone to make a fairly consistent image in their heads and also assess that character's "attractiveness" for themselves.
As for the "assumed to/for species X", I don't actually think that's a safe assumption when someone uses "super hot/attractive" in a description of their character. 9 times out of 10, that person has an actual image in their mind that THEY find "super hot". So, just describe that?
Yes, it definitely does change how I imagine your character. But, as I've pointed out, the rest of that line is left up to interpretation. If I find dreadlocks or skinny girls attractive, "matted hair" and "scrawny" are not things I would imagine with a term like "incredibly ugly" while someone else might. And there are about a million ways a face could "not be put together right." The character looks different to everyone in the party and to the DM. While I don't disagree that providing a large amount of details might mean some get forgotten or overlooked, at least your character is consistent within everyone's minds.
The thing is, they're not. Barring an actual illustration, nobody is ever going to visualize your character the way you do. Things you put in the description will get lost or replaced. Extra details will get added in.
And if people's mental images are different, does it matter?
At the same time, you don't need a laundry list of descriptors. Hair length/color, eye color, skintone, build, and one or two unique features should be enough for anyone to make a fairly consistent image in their heads and also assess that character's "attractiveness" for themselves.
If one wants their character to be generally considered attractive (or ugly) within their culture, "describe the features and let people judge" does not have the same effect. There is going to be a beauty standard, and it's easier on everyone to be able to say "this character fits (or doesn't fit) the local standard" and let their imaginations fill in the gaps than to try to convey it through description.
To use an example from the game I'm running, there are two NPCs the players met at basically the same time.My description of the first one included something to the effect of "incredibly beautiful". When the second one joined them the description included something to the effect of "she's much plainer, and yet you find yourselves paying far more attention to her". Without attractiveness descriptors, it's not possible to establish that one of these two is renowned for her beauty, and the other one has literally supernatural levels of charisma.
As for the "assumed to/for species X", I don't actually think that's a safe assumption when someone uses "super hot/attractive" in a description of their character.
Everyone who uses that as a primary descriptor is playing a human, elf, or half-elf.
As for the "assumed to/for species X", I don't actually think that's a safe assumption when someone uses "super hot/attractive" in a description of their character.
Everyone who uses that as a primary descriptor is playing a human, elf, or half-elf.
I do have a character concept for a cleric of a god of beauty or the arts (the Archheart if it ends up being used in Exandria, for instance) who's defining trait is that he's just ridiculously hot and considers his body the greatest work of art of all, but he would be of drow/orc ancestry. Does that count as half-elf?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think the only species from the PHB that I would have a hard time visualizing as attractive in the conventional sense are Dragonborn and Halfling. Dragonborn because they are a few steps too far from human for my tastes and Halflings because the original art I saw of them with the giant heads and tiny bodies was mildly creepy when I was 12 and that has kinda stuck with me.
If a character (let's say a plasmoid) is self claimed "super attractive" within their description without any clarifications, who is that character "super attractive" to?? Is it intended/assumed its "super attractive" only within a portion of its own species or throughout their whole species or across multiple species or across all species?? And why does it affect that group?
This question came up, and I thought I would see what people thought: Can we play characters who are conventionally super attractive?
Answer the poll if you would, and discuss below why you put that. I didn't see any particular reasons why not, but if you have one, I'd be glad to hear it!
Remember, keep this civil. Don't assume anything about anyone else, don't attack anyone else, be respectful. All that usual good stuff which sometimes doesn't get followed. Just try to be mindful!
~Raccoon
Edit: also, I feel I have phrased the question poorly, and I can't come up with a satisfactory alternative, so I'm just gonna say discuss the topic with that and the various ways you could phrase the question in mind.
I would say no. Because for people like me, who are super attractive already at the table, it might be too much if my character was attractive too. The DM and players at the table might be distracted at too much beauty in one spot.
If a character (let's say a plasmoid) is self claimed "super attractive" within their description without any clarifications, who is that character "super attractive" to?? Is it intended/assumed its "super attractive" only within a portion of its own species or throughout their whole species or across multiple species or across all species?? And why does it affect that group?
This is the other reason it is an adjective better avoided, namely the whole mess about who should (or should not) be attracted to whom.
If a character (let's say a plasmoid) is self claimed "super attractive" within their description without any clarifications, who is that character "super attractive" to?? Is it intended/assumed its "super attractive" only within a portion of its own species or throughout their whole species or across multiple species or across all species?? And why does it affect that group?
DM's call. Entirely.
I mean it's likely that it's going to apply just to plasmoids and perhaps a few others who have eccentric tastes. If plasmoid society is large and diverse enough, it may only apply to one particular culture, and others don't consider a large endoplasmic reticulum to be a sign of beauty.
In a world where plasmoids are the dominant species, the character's looks may well be recognizable and acknowledged by other species, even if they don't feel any attraction.
There is not, and cannot be, any kind of hard-and-fast rule.
Ultimately, it's still just an adjective. It has no mechanical power.
Yes, it definitely does change how I imagine your character. But, as I've pointed out, the rest of that line is left up to interpretation. If I find dreadlocks or skinny girls attractive, "matted hair" and "scrawny" are not things I would imagine with a term like "incredibly ugly" while someone else might. And there are about a million ways a face could "not be put together right." The character looks different to everyone in the party and to the DM. While I don't disagree that providing a large amount of details might mean some get forgotten or overlooked, at least your character is consistent within everyone's minds.
The thing is, they're not. Barring an actual illustration, nobody is ever going to visualize your character the way you do. Things you put in the description will get lost or replaced. Extra details will get added in.
And if people's mental images are different, does it matter?
At the same time, you don't need a laundry list of descriptors. Hair length/color, eye color, skintone, build, and one or two unique features should be enough for anyone to make a fairly consistent image in their heads and also assess that character's "attractiveness" for themselves.
If one wants their character to be generally considered attractive (or ugly) within their culture, "describe the features and let people judge" does not have the same effect. There is going to be a beauty standard, and it's easier on everyone to be able to say "this character fits (or doesn't fit) the local standard" and let their imaginations fill in the gaps than to try to convey it through description.
To use an example from the game I'm running, there are two NPCs the players met at basically the same time.My description of the first one included something to the effect of "incredibly beautiful". When the second one joined them the description included something to the effect of "she's much plainer, and yet you find yourselves paying far more attention to her". Without attractiveness descriptors, it's not possible to establish that one of these two is renowned for her beauty, and the other one has literally supernatural levels of charisma.
As for the "assumed to/for species X", I don't actually think that's a safe assumption when someone uses "super hot/attractive" in a description of their character.
Everyone who uses that as a primary descriptor is playing a human, elf, or half-elf.
I cede that I may be ascribing too much import to having a consistent image of a character in everyone's minds. To this point, I personally do always try to find some artwork for my characters. If the player of the character doesn't care, then I guess it doesn't really matter.
Again, I don't think it's particularly safe to assume that when someone puts "super attractive" in their description that they mean "within the culture they come from". Those, now redacted, Illithids were a good example of imposing specific human beauty standards on a species that doesn't even have a need for "beauty" or "attractiveness". Someone thought, "I'm going to make a super hot Illithid" and got to work...
To use the dragonborn or plasmoid example again, even using the better, "attractive according to the standards of the people of the same species in their community" is not a description that helps me visualize the character. It's a description that tells me how the player expects others in that community to regard that character. But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
I guess you could make an argument saying NPCs are a bit different. Depending on how much agency your players want to sacrifice for things like this, your two (presumably both female) NPCs deeded a distinction between looks and charisma (to what end, I'm not sure). Note, also, that there is a difference between "beautiful" (simply subjective) and "attractive" (both subjective and presuming others' reactions to them).
That said, did you have any (non-Gimli) dwarves in the party? Dragonborn? Minotaurs? Would they also consider the first NPC "incredibly beautiful" without the qualifier "by this human/elf community's standards"? Or were you using it as a shorthand for a group of human players that knew what you were talking about because they also have a preconceived notion of what that would mean? What if one or more of the players were from cultures where the beauty you were implying for the first NPC was not a standard they held? Would it not have been better to describe the "beauty" of the NPC from the mouths of other NPCs: "When she walked out, everyone turned their heads, some with mouths slightly agape. Other's gasped. You can tell they all find her stunningly beautiful"? That way there is no implied standard that you expect the players to understand and adhere to. It an explicit standard within the community the NPC is in and you are, in no way, expecting your players or their characters to hold that same beauty standard.
And this is where lack of a physical description may actually help, rather than hurt. If you simply tell your players, "Think of the most beautiful person in the world. That is who you are looking at right now. (maybe with pointed ears... it was unclear what species these NPCs were)" then each player can use their own beauty standards to visualize this NPC. Doing that for a PC, however, is just a cop out, IMHO.
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
Your party walks into a tavern, looking to get information about the recent activities of the local thieves guild or whatever
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
I wouldn't call that 'near-empty'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
While this isn't something D&D much focuses on, there's a meaningful distinction between "what can you do" and "how do you do it". Two things that both boil down to a persuasion check may be described differently for an attractive character vs, say, a witty character.
I cede that I may be ascribing too much import to having a consistent image of a character in everyone's minds. To this point, I personally do always try to find some artwork for my characters. If the player of the character doesn't care, then I guess it doesn't really matter.
Whereas I find that finding artwork is never satisfying, because they don't look right. I've used heroforge, but it's got plenty of limitations. (Though they've added face customization since I last messed with it.)
But yeah, I'm not fussed if other players don't have the visuals I do. It just doesn't affect play. Do they imagine the aforementioned beautiful example NPC as willowy and graceful, or having more substantial attributes? It's nothing like as important as their interactions with her and her family.
Again, I don't think it's particularly safe to assume that when someone puts "super attractive" in their description that they mean "within the culture they come from". Those, now redacted, Illithids were a good example of imposing specific human beauty standards on a species that doesn't even have a need for "beauty" or "attractiveness". Someone thought, "I'm going to make a super hot Illithid" and got to work...
They're making that art specifically for people. Ask most D&D players what a "highly attractive" dwarf is going to look like, and I expect most will start with the fullness of their beard. Is it still going to be filtered through human/western/cultural subgroup/personal biases? Of course it will. Does that make their envisioning probably unrealistic for the fictional world? Sure. Does it matter? Not in the least.
To use the dragonborn or plasmoid example again, even using the better, "attractive according to the standards of the people of the same species in their community" is not a description that helps me visualize the character. It's a description that tells me how the player expects others in that community to regard that character. But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
It's a flag for roleplay. It colors how your interactions with appropriate NPCs will be portrayed. It may color your interactions with other PCs. It likely colors your character's own personality. It has no mechanical meaning, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
Edit: Is it just "beautiful/attractive" you dislike using in descriptions? What about "ugly"? What about evocative, but still abstract things like "looks like three miles of bad road"?
and after that is where it has the potential to becomes a loop of conflict at the table unless either the player or dm concedes on the "super attractive" statement
it does raise a red flag for main character syndrome, and i personally extend that red flag out to include the features described by the character who defines themself as "super attractive" since it impacts the perspective of every other character in relation to their character
i truly hope that is the case however that leads back to:
what is the purpose of self claiming to be "super attractive" while also describing in detail a characters physical features?
what influence is the result of that "super attractive" statement??
what does the statement of being "super attractive" effect???
will probably message you privately if ive got any follow-ups to responses, so we dont flood the chat with just our thoughts
I don't think what you wrote here has anything to do with the post you quoted, or it's already answered in said post.
Look, it's really simple. By calling your character "super attractive" you are both setting up to be disappointed when that descriptor doesn't "influence" NPC's attitude towards you the way you'd "expect" and skirting around the actual description of the character. Presumptuous AND unhelpful.
If you have an actual description of your character in mind, just use that. Objective descriptors. There is no need to write the highly subjective "super attractive" in your description.
If you don't have an actual description of your character in mind, then "super attractive" is about as helpful as not saying anything.
Try this one on for size: "My character is a super attractive male Illithid."
What image does this conjure in your head? Is it hard to think of one, or easy? Are you basing it's "attractiveness" on your views of what's attractive, or what you think an Illithid's views of what's attractive are, or something else? If you have an image in mind, do you think it is the same as someone else's image of my character? As my own? What "influences" would you, as a DM, provide to my character because of this description? What do you, as a DM or player, think I'm trying to communicate with such a description?
TLDR: there is simply no point to use a descriptor like "attractive" in your character's description. It doesn't and shouldn't do anything mechanically, and it doesn't do a very good job of actually describing the character, either.
Welcome to the internet. This is mostly just in jest, but still.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Attractive/ugly is a modifying adjective. It affects how the other players will visualize the characters descriptive features.
Take a description:
"She's thin, with wild red hair, big green eyes, pale skin"
You have a visual in mind. Now continue with...
"and is incredibly ugly."
Now you have a different vision. The hair is probably matted and unkempt. She's probably scrawny. Her face isn't put together right.
You could try to convey that with specific features, but you're trying to thread a needle there, and long lists of features are harder for people to keep in their head.
Similarly, if you continue with "and is incredibly beautiful", that creates its own visual, which is probably not the one you started with before the modifier.
A major divide here seems to be between people who think "incredibly attractive" is supposed be a universal reaction*, and those who think it's got to be subjective, that there's an assumed "for/to species X". An incredibly attractive orc's milkshake ain't bringing all the dwarven boys to the yard. The mammals don't even know what to look at on a Dragonborn.
And yes, there are gonna be players who are going to try on "I'm incredibly attractive, so I get advantages on charisma stuff", but...
* To be fair, many people can have opinions on attractiveness even when it's somebody who doesn't push their buttons. But understanding elven aesthetics doesn't necessarily make you naturally well-inclined to them. Not every dwarf is Gimli.
I understand that the main mind flayer boss in BG3 is a romance option.
He is. Haven't marked that achievement off, and don't think I ever will, hahaha (nor that "other option", either).
To my point, though, I think you are giving too much credit to the words for use in the description. Full disclosure, I chose "It's complicated" for my poll answer, because you could say something like "My 7'2" male dragonborn has a broad chest, large muscles, bronze scales with blue highlights along the neck, two horns swept back on his head, jaw spines, has a deep voice, and is generally considered attractive to other dragonborn." or even "My 7'2" male dragonborn has a broad chest, large muscles, bronze scales with blue highlights along the neck, two horns swept back on his head, jaw spines, has a deep voice, and thinks he is quite attractive to other dragonborn." Either one would be better than just saying, "My male dragon born is super attractive," but the first does nothing to enhance the description of the character in my mind because I don't know what other dragonborn are attracted to (so I just assume it's what's already been described), and the other has less to do with descriptors and more to do with how he views himself.
As the [redacted] images of our "attractive Illithid" show, there is a very wide range of actual descriptions that could, potentially, fit this "attractive" descriptor precisely because it's so subjective. I mean, the top and bottom left images would have wildly different actual descriptions after you've mentioned the obviously Illithid features (I also wrote male Illithid to better avoid what I knew would be coming had I not, but now that it's here...). One has more of a squid-shaped head, blue eyes, ears, a sort of mild protrusion where the nose would be on a human, and huge... "tracts of land". The other has more of a bulbous head, violet eyes, no ears, a flat face, and is quite thin. About the only thing similar between them is that they both have bluish skintones (and their choice of mascara, I guess). Both could be considered attractive by some, but I bet a majority of that is due to the clothes they are wearing.
Yes, it definitely does change how I imagine your character. But, as I've pointed out, the rest of that line is left up to interpretation. If I find dreadlocks or skinny girls attractive, "matted hair" and "scrawny" are not things I would imagine with a term like "incredibly ugly" while someone else might. And there are about a million ways a face could "not be put together right." The character looks different to everyone in the party and to the DM. While I don't disagree that providing a large amount of details might mean some get forgotten or overlooked, at least your character is consistent within everyone's minds. At the same time, you don't need a laundry list of descriptors. Hair length/color, eye color, skintone, build, and one or two unique features should be enough for anyone to make a fairly consistent image in their heads and also assess that character's "attractiveness" for themselves.
As for the "assumed to/for species X", I don't actually think that's a safe assumption when someone uses "super hot/attractive" in a description of their character. 9 times out of 10, that person has an actual image in their mind that THEY find "super hot". So, just describe that?
Images found via basic Google search. Just thought the concept was funny and had to check.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The thing is, they're not. Barring an actual illustration, nobody is ever going to visualize your character the way you do. Things you put in the description will get lost or replaced. Extra details will get added in.
And if people's mental images are different, does it matter?
If one wants their character to be generally considered attractive (or ugly) within their culture, "describe the features and let people judge" does not have the same effect. There is going to be a beauty standard, and it's easier on everyone to be able to say "this character fits (or doesn't fit) the local standard" and let their imaginations fill in the gaps than to try to convey it through description.
To use an example from the game I'm running, there are two NPCs the players met at basically the same time.My description of the first one included something to the effect of "incredibly beautiful". When the second one joined them the description included something to the effect of "she's much plainer, and yet you find yourselves paying far more attention to her". Without attractiveness descriptors, it's not possible to establish that one of these two is renowned for her beauty, and the other one has literally supernatural levels of charisma.
Everyone who uses that as a primary descriptor is playing a human, elf, or half-elf.
I do have a character concept for a cleric of a god of beauty or the arts (the Archheart if it ends up being used in Exandria, for instance) who's defining trait is that he's just ridiculously hot and considers his body the greatest work of art of all, but he would be of drow/orc ancestry. Does that count as half-elf?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'll make a small confidence, it's rare to say that of creature with orcish heritage but Garona Halforcen from WARCRAFT movie i found attractive :)
I think the only species from the PHB that I would have a hard time visualizing as attractive in the conventional sense are Dragonborn and Halfling. Dragonborn because they are a few steps too far from human for my tastes and Halflings because the original art I saw of them with the giant heads and tiny bodies was mildly creepy when I was 12 and that has kinda stuck with me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Heh. I just realized I have a character for which "attractive" is the only valid part of their description.
They're a Changeling, and far too vain not to be, whatever they look like at the moment.
(Unless they're actually impersonating somebody, but that's so not their norm.)
If a character (let's say a plasmoid) is self claimed "super attractive" within their description without any clarifications, who is that character "super attractive" to?? Is it intended/assumed its "super attractive" only within a portion of its own species or throughout their whole species or across multiple species or across all species?? And why does it affect that group?
I would say no. Because for people like me, who are super attractive already at the table, it might be too much if my character was attractive too. The DM and players at the table might be distracted at too much beauty in one spot.
This is the other reason it is an adjective better avoided, namely the whole mess about who should (or should not) be attracted to whom.
DM's call. Entirely.
I mean it's likely that it's going to apply just to plasmoids and perhaps a few others who have eccentric tastes. If plasmoid society is large and diverse enough, it may only apply to one particular culture, and others don't consider a large endoplasmic reticulum to be a sign of beauty.
In a world where plasmoids are the dominant species, the character's looks may well be recognizable and acknowledged by other species, even if they don't feel any attraction.
There is not, and cannot be, any kind of hard-and-fast rule.
Ultimately, it's still just an adjective. It has no mechanical power.
I cede that I may be ascribing too much import to having a consistent image of a character in everyone's minds. To this point, I personally do always try to find some artwork for my characters. If the player of the character doesn't care, then I guess it doesn't really matter.
Again, I don't think it's particularly safe to assume that when someone puts "super attractive" in their description that they mean "within the culture they come from". Those, now redacted, Illithids were a good example of imposing specific human beauty standards on a species that doesn't even have a need for "beauty" or "attractiveness". Someone thought, "I'm going to make a super hot Illithid" and got to work...
To use the dragonborn or plasmoid example again, even using the better, "attractive according to the standards of the people of the same species in their community" is not a description that helps me visualize the character. It's a description that tells me how the player expects others in that community to regard that character. But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
I guess you could make an argument saying NPCs are a bit different. Depending on how much agency your players want to sacrifice for things like this, your two (presumably both female) NPCs deeded a distinction between looks and charisma (to what end, I'm not sure). Note, also, that there is a difference between "beautiful" (simply subjective) and "attractive" (both subjective and presuming others' reactions to them).
That said, did you have any (non-Gimli) dwarves in the party? Dragonborn? Minotaurs? Would they also consider the first NPC "incredibly beautiful" without the qualifier "by this human/elf community's standards"? Or were you using it as a shorthand for a group of human players that knew what you were talking about because they also have a preconceived notion of what that would mean? What if one or more of the players were from cultures where the beauty you were implying for the first NPC was not a standard they held? Would it not have been better to describe the "beauty" of the NPC from the mouths of other NPCs: "When she walked out, everyone turned their heads, some with mouths slightly agape. Other's gasped. You can tell they all find her stunningly beautiful"? That way there is no implied standard that you expect the players to understand and adhere to. It an explicit standard within the community the NPC is in and you are, in no way, expecting your players or their characters to hold that same beauty standard.
And this is where lack of a physical description may actually help, rather than hurt. If you simply tell your players, "Think of the most beautiful person in the world. That is who you are looking at right now. (maybe with pointed ears... it was unclear what species these NPCs were)" then each player can use their own beauty standards to visualize this NPC. Doing that for a PC, however, is just a cop out, IMHO.
Your party walks into a tavern, looking to get information about the recent activities of the local thieves guild or whatever
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
I wouldn't call that 'near-empty'
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While this isn't something D&D much focuses on, there's a meaningful distinction between "what can you do" and "how do you do it". Two things that both boil down to a persuasion check may be described differently for an attractive character vs, say, a witty character.
Whereas I find that finding artwork is never satisfying, because they don't look right. I've used heroforge, but it's got plenty of limitations. (Though they've added face customization since I last messed with it.)
But yeah, I'm not fussed if other players don't have the visuals I do. It just doesn't affect play. Do they imagine the aforementioned beautiful example NPC as willowy and graceful, or having more substantial attributes? It's nothing like as important as their interactions with her and her family.
They're making that art specifically for people. Ask most D&D players what a "highly attractive" dwarf is going to look like, and I expect most will start with the fullness of their beard. Is it still going to be filtered through human/western/cultural subgroup/personal biases? Of course it will. Does that make their envisioning probably unrealistic for the fictional world? Sure. Does it matter? Not in the least.
It's a flag for roleplay. It colors how your interactions with appropriate NPCs will be portrayed. It may color your interactions with other PCs. It likely colors your character's own personality. It has no mechanical meaning, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
Edit: Is it just "beautiful/attractive" you dislike using in descriptions? What about "ugly"? What about evocative, but still abstract things like "looks like three miles of bad road"?