Appearance better than transcendent

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Allure is another possibility, since it is vision-based. In effect, a goddess with Appearance (Transcendent) and Allure 4 would receive a +12 from anything sexually attracted to women. It would also work for elves, nymph, etc.

Allure's reaction bonus is a bit narrower than that - Power Ups - Talent notes that it's like a specialised Appearance, working on those attracted to your 'type', not merely your sex (as does DF 11, and the original appearance in Fantasy doesn't mention what the reaction bonus would apply to, implying it would only be to those who would be impressed by you having a natural talent in the skills it covers).

[Purple Snit]

The other issue here is that beyond a certain point, you aren't rolling the reaction; there are so many positives, its just automatically an "18", and successful.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Why would only a single level above "human experience" be useful? Depending on the setting, the range of appearance availiable to beutiful deities might be far broader than that of mortals.

I've never seen such a setting. Consider that Greek mythology isn't such a setting. The most attractive humans measure up to nearly divine standards. They must because otherwise the gods wouldn't be attracted to them.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

The gods (except Hephaistos) are still more beautiful than all mortals, but not all equally beautiful as each other.

And again, Middle-earth is another such setting. Seriously, I've been asking "How do I depict this setting in which none of the RAW options are at all useful or appropriate?"

[joppeknol]

The way I see it, transcendent means unearthly perfect without flaws.

You cannot be more perfect than perfect.

If Aphrodite is supposedly more beautiful than the simple nymph, it would mean that if I was looking at Aphro and then at the Nymph, I would notice that the nymph is flawed compared to Aphrodite. That makes her not-transcedent.

I can imagine that Aphrodite has certain powers and a way of looking so that while I would fall in love with the nymph, I would start crying and grovel at her feet when looking at the goddess.

The other solution is to assume that the nymph still has some flaws which makes her only 'very beautiful'. Mortals then only get to 'beautiful'.

Thinking about this: It's a semantic discussion. Make a 'very beautiful', 'unearthly beautiful', 'godly beautiful', 'transcendent' ranking, and I can keep my thoughts about transcendent while playing in your campaign :-).

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

The Valar do not permanently inflict Slave Mentality or mental illness on everyone who looks at them. Doing so would make them evil. In Tolkien's universe, using Awe would be just as evil as Terror.

I am interested in how to depict Tolkien's world as he described it. The Valar enslaving people or destroying their minds isn't true to his writing. It never happens once in any of his stories. I don't think it happens in Greek myths about Aphrodite or the other Greek gods, either. They inspire worship and awe and sexual attraction and fear, but the mortals who interact with them don't normally come down with Slave Mentality or lose their minds. Sometimes mortals, like Achilles, attack gods in battle.

I'm also interested in being able to depict beautiful beings who don't use seduction or sex appeal to convey, such as angels in some settings, uninterested in sex with mortals.

To say that all more-than-mortal angelic/divine beings look essentially the same, and the only difference is if they choose to enslave, seduce, or destroy the minds of their victims, just doesn't give a good set of options.

You assume that the Valar intend to warp or cripple those that view them. Much as Zeus couldn't protect Semele the Valar would regret the pain they caused, and make such amends as they could. As moral beings, the Valar wouldn't show themselves to beings that could be destroyed by seeing them. Or at least they wouldn't show their actual TRUE forms to the vulnerable. Nor would they be caught out like Zeus and be forced to destroy the innocent by showing themselves.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

You assume that the Valar intend to warp or cripple those that view them. Much as Zeus couldn't protect Semele the Valar would regret the pain they caused, and make such amends as they could. As moral beings, the Valar wouldn't show themselves to beings that could be destroyed by seeing them. Or at least they wouldn't show their actual TRUE forms to the vulnerable. Nor would they be caught out like Zeus and be forced to destroy the innocent by showing themselves.

Yes. The Greek gods are notoriously less clever than they are powerful (with some exceptions).
The results on any table are open to modification, to suit the GM's vision of appropriateness.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

The gods (except Hephaistos) are still more beautiful than all mortals

Does it say that somewhere? Hera turned Gerana into a crane for boasting about being more beautiful, would she have reacted that way if she weren't true. Hera always struck me as the Evil Queen in Snow White who was pretty but would be surpassed by mortals and need to get rid of them to stop Zeus from cheating on her.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Plane

Does it say that somewhere? Hera turned Gerana into a crane for boasting about being more beautiful, would she have reacted that way if she weren't true. Hera always struck me as the Evil Queen in Snow White who was pretty but would be surpassed by mortals and need to get rid of them to stop Zeus from cheating on her.

And yet, in a beauty contest between Aphrodite, Athena, and Hera, Aphrodite felt the need to bribe Paris in order to secure victory. This makes it seem that all of these three goddesses were comparable in beauty. And if Aphrodite is not Transcendent in beauty, I don't know who would be.

Luke

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

You assume that the Valar intend to warp or cripple those that view them. Much as Zeus couldn't protect Semele the Valar would regret the pain they caused, and make such amends as they could. As moral beings, the Valar wouldn't show themselves to beings that could be destroyed by seeing them. Or at least they wouldn't show their actual TRUE forms to the vulnerable. Nor would they be caught out like Zeus and be forced to destroy the innocent by showing themselves.

I have read the stories and there is not one example of anybody being destroyed or having their mind blasted or even losing their free will after meeting a Vala. Not even Morgoth can inflict genuine Slave Mentality. Yet they are described explicitly as visibly too beautiful for words to describe. They are clearly stated to be visibly more beautiful than the most beautiful Elf, and all Elves are said to be more beautiful than the most beautiful human. And Elves are explicitly described as having a variety of appearances themselves, without having any capacity to destroy the minds of mortals who meet them.

This is very clearly a setting which cannot be represented using the RAW, in which a quite wide variety of deific beauty is very visibly manifest without destroying the brains of any mortals who see it. The Valar's true forms are in fact explicitly stated to be invisible and undetectable!