Xan uses his extraordinary charisma to be extraordinarily depressing.
Just as well. If you cured him of his depression, he might decide to just take over the group and lead you all into battle against Tiamat... there's no way he could fail, after all, not with all his brave allies as well.
He'll have to challenge Imoen for leadership! Once she gets some more confidence. And Safana, once she stops trying to seduce everyone. And Coran, once he stops trying to seduce everyone. And Eldoth, once he stops trying to seduce everyone.
Xan uses his extraordinary charisma to be extraordinarily depressing.
Just as well. If you cured him of his depression, he might decide to just take over the group and lead you all into battle against Tiamat... there's no way he could fail, after all, not with all his brave allies as well.
He'll have to challenge Imoen for leadership! Once she gets some more confidence. And Safana, once she stops trying to seduce everyone. And Coran, once he stops trying to seduce everyone. And Eldoth, once he stops trying to seduce everyone.
Pfft... Eldoth is slimy. Look at him; there's literally slime oozing out of his pores. Slimy, slimy, slimy.
Pfft... Eldoth is slimy. Look at him; there's literally slime oozing out of his pores. Slimy, slimy, slimy.
Hey, you! Yes, I mean you there @Coutelier! Me, Schlumpsha the Sewer King, and our countless ooze, jelly and slime brethren take offense in that statement!
Pfft... Eldoth is slimy. Look at him; there's literally slime oozing out of his pores. Slimy, slimy, slimy.
Hey, you! Yes, I mean you there @Coutelier! Me, Schlumpsha the Sewer King, and our countless ooze, jelly and slime brethren take offense in that statement!
Okay, backpeddling slightly... I do apologize. I take it all back; it was totally unjust and unfair of me. Sometimes you make mistakes like this in life; you just have to do your best to learn from them.
the sexist Fighter/Cleric who constantly says that said ladies should get back into the kitchen
uhh Eldoth is a Bard and also not in BG2
Anomen has multiple, and frequent, cases of misandry during BG2 in addition to being a generally intolerable waste of space. In BGverse, this somehow translates to a Charisma of 13.
And yes, it was a little messed up that the only female romance option was a sexist, racist, broken wreck of a human being solely intended to be someone "to fix", but that's not entirely related to charisma.
Holy Nostalgia! ZIPBOT! I still own mine from my childhood, he sits on my desk.
Judging me.
Secondly, isn't it a little... difficult to view a stat as potential? It's not like one has the potential to be nimble, you always get that bonus from your stat. Strength? You can always carry that amount, you always get the bonus to damage.
I can sort of see it, from a Carryweight perspective, as being "not carrying your full weight", but given how easily Aerie caves against... Well, pretty much everyone, and Charisma is at least partially a measure of self-confidence, and she's definitely in the "encumbered with the sadness, cannot move" in the face of Korgan's scathing wit (maybe their Charisma scores were swapped by mistake?).
Considering what was actually planned for her, questwise (basically, a quest where she rejects getting wings and grows her ToB spine) I'd have thought that a low Charisma stat would have been justified, and when she finished her personal questline, gets a Charisma boost, much like Anomen stops being such a boob.
the sexist Fighter/Cleric who constantly says that said ladies should get back into the kitchen
uhh Eldoth is a Bard and also not in BG2
Anomen has multiple, and frequent, cases of misandry during BG2 in addition to being a generally intolerable waste of space. In BGverse, this somehow translates to a Charisma of 13.
And yes, it was a little messed up that the only female romance option was a sexist, racist, broken wreck of a human being solely intended to be someone "to fix", but that's not entirely related to charisma.
Holy Nostalgia! ZIPBOT! I still own mine from my childhood, he sits on my desk.
Judging me.
Dingbot we used to call him. The one I have now I rescued from a charity shop and now he sits on the shelf guarding my discs.
And I don't know; some people do seem to have more potential or are 'gifted' in some areas. Stronger, more agile, more intelligent, although realizing it obviously depends on them training and honing it. Trouble with CHA is it's a whole lot more abstract than STR or DEX though. Even with Korgan though, Aerie doesn't just take it, and she doesn't back down from Jaheira or Viconia either... I don't know what that is, but it's something. Just courage, perhaps, and is willing to fight for things she wants and believes in.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I guess the elves of D&D are not quite as 'divine' and perfect as the elves of Tolkien, and perhaps I attached too much significance on the importance of physical attractiveness on charisma.
Perhaps it is a symptom of the superficial and shallow culture that we live in that made me instinctively equate charisma with physical charms. Also, it maybe politically incorrect of me to say so, but 'on average', we tend to attach more importance on a woman's physical attractiveness than we do for men. For example plenty of physically unremarkable men have been very charismatic leaders (Hitler, Napoleon, Mao etc)... whereas even when a woman becomes very successful, people cannot help but mention if she is beautiful or not in describing her as a person, and that's been a constant throughout current and historical literature.
@Pantalion If we regard Charisma as somebody's natural leadership skills and ability to influence and persuade others, Anomen's relatively high charisma makes sense. Not only is he a handsome knight in shiny armour, he has a very forceful personality, who like Jaheira, considers themselves a leader. Plenty of real life people have demonstrated that being 'douchey', rude or overbearing is no barrier to being a successful and generally respected leader, if not a particularly likeable one.
Also I've also always interpreted Ability Stats like @Coutelier, as a measure of potential, and it makes perfect sense really. Your lv 1 Charname fighter might have 18/00 Str, and 18 Con, but he has very few HP and doesn't hit very accurately and hard, and struggles in single combat vs weak enemies like Hobgoblins. Later on in the game, that warrior can easily best massive monsters in single combat, and shrug off wounds that would have killed him back at lv1, so of course his actual 'strength' and 'hardiness' had progressed, and he has 'fulfilled' his potential. It works perfectly well in real life too. I've gone horse riding only once in my life on holiday, and I took to it really quickly, quickly learning to balance on stirrups and had no problems with a short gallop on open ground and even went up and down mountain trails. I reckon if there was an Ability Stat for horsemanship, I'd have a high score. However, given as I don't get to ride horses in daily life, I don't consider myself a remotely skilled or capable rider. i.e. Potential Ability unfulfilled.
Your interpretation works for Constitution, which is the only stat to function that way, and an 18 Con Fighter compared to a 6 Con character with average rolls at level 9 will have 90 HP versus 45 - literally double their capabilities. With Constitution, it very much is your potential to put your training to good use.
This is not the case, however, when it comes to Strength. Maybe you're realising the damage bonus of 18/00 Strength more often because you're more skilled, but what the Strength itself gives is constant, it's always +3 THAC0, always +6 Damage, 400lbs carried, at level 1 or level 40. You do improve, but you improve with Specialisation, with # of attacks, and with the THAC0 bonus that comes with Hitdice.
Strength can, sort of, be replicated via Specialisation, but at that point you're talking about proficiency pips and level, not "potential", your potential is pretty much identical to any other Fighter, just with that static bonus on top. In D&D, there's no "ability stat" for horsemanship, you're a level 3 Jockey, or a Proficient in Horsery, and your ability stats give the exact same benefits to you throughout.
Charisma is, mechanically speaking, the same. 18 means you are likeable, and capable of getting a 15% discount, level 1 or level 40, that's a constant.
And yes, it gets awkward bringing personality into it, but you're right. Anomen is, at all levels, a forceful, if unpleasant, character, and yes, a leader, confident, and at least theoretically persuasive, though I don't recall him ever successfully persuading anyone of anything. He's a 13 Charisma? Sure. His personality is unpleasant, but forcefully so, he is represented by/represents his states.
Aerie is at no point in SoA forceful, persuasive, confident.... She's shy, retiring, and insecure. She does not stand up for herself, she does not represent her stats. She's maybe a 14 in ToB, but she's not realising anything, that's a flat out Charisma boost.
In fact, that could be an interesting, if lengthy, exercise; see the interactions and behaviour of a character and determine their real mental abilities based on what they show, rather than what their stat sheet displays.
Aerie is at no point in SoA forceful, persuasive, confident.... She's shy, retiring, and insecure. She does not stand up for herself, she does not represent her stats. She's maybe a 14 in ToB, but she's not realising anything, that's a flat out Charisma boost.
Except that she does. She doesn't panic in the circus, even though everyone else. She doesn't take things from Korgan; she chooses to leave rather than stay and be harassed by an unscrupulous mercenary who killed his old party (considering she hasn't very many places to go in Amn, it's quite bold). She stands up to Jaheira and Viconia, and can even turn on you at times if you follow the evil path (such as poisoning the grove). I think she just has to be very certain or feel very strongly about something in order to act, which she isn't most of the time.
You make a good point about how Constitution is mechanically different to other Ability stats in the game. However, I maintain that thinking of them as potential makes more logical/RP sense. We all have the genetic propensity or potential to be better or worse in certain attributes, and although we can adjust our current ability, there is little we can do about potential ability.
For example, when I was younger (15-20), I was much more active and sporty, regularly went to the gym, and noticed that it was relatively easy for me to develop upper body strength compared to some of my friends. I had decent power to weight ratio and could lift more than most boys around my weight. However, I had terrible aerobic fitness, and even when I worked out more, my stamina and ability to run for more than 200m was inferior to most of my friends.
Now, due to an over-fondness for pizza and dislike of unnecessary physical exertion, both my actual strength and stamina are below what they were 5-10 years ago, due to a lack of training to realise whatever genetic potential I have.
Aerie is at no point in SoA forceful, persuasive, confident.... She's shy, retiring, and insecure. She does not stand up for herself, she does not represent her stats. She's maybe a 14 in ToB, but she's not realising anything, that's a flat out Charisma boost.
As @Coutelier has already pointed out, I don't think Aerie is quite as weak-willed as you think. She develops a great deal during SoA and does not hesitate to follow Charname into Hell, whereas of the NPCs in my party, Anomen kinda just found himself dragged in, and did not necessarily follow by choice.
Anyways I hope I don't come across too sexist, but I think charisma works a little differently for male and female characters. It is a fact of life that human history and culture has shaped what we generally find appealing in men and women. Whereas charismatic men are usually depicted as courageous, strong, confident, inspiring (perhaps personified by Alexander the Great or Richard the Lionheart), those same features are not necessarily attractive in a woman.
A very headstrong and overtly confident woman tends to threaten male dominated societies and men's comfort zones. Many men instead find a more feminine, agreeable and 'softer' woman more appealing. Men are drawn to and feel some sort of instinct to protect this sort of women, and no doubt some women have learnt this and deliberately suppress their more overbearing instincts in order to manipulate men more subtlely.
Heinrich I think a lot of that is more a "reverse sexism" than anything else. I think charisma works more the same for men and women than is currently popular to assume. Many popular and powerful women fail any meaningful measure of "hotness". I mean seriously, Margaret Thatcher was never a swimsuit model. Nor was Angela Markel (errr, as far as I know...). Carrie Nation was never Miss America. Even Cleopatra seems to have had a goiter. Yet all of them have been popular and powerful leaders of nations or movements. We do seem to look at a slightly different physical ideal where women are concerned, in particular, youth seems more highly valued than it is in men. But in terms of leadership and strength of character, I think men and women rank about the same, even if men more often have the opportunities to exploit those abilities.
@atcDave I don't think any flaming is necessary... unless for a nice grill.
However I don't entirely understand what you mean by 'reverse sexism'... and I must disagree with your assertion that successful men and women are treated the same.
For example I distinctly recall seeing news reports of Angela Merkel and Julia Gillard (Australian PM) being attacked or ridiculed by opponents for their physical appearance. Historically, Cleopatra of Egypt, Wu Zetian of China, and numerous other famous and powerful women are rarely mentioned without some sort of reference to their sexuality and the men in their lives.
In contrast, Genghis Khan bedded hundreds, maybe thousands of women in his lifetime (given he has millions of descendents today), yet when historians talk about him, they talk of his military genius, his ruthlessness and his prowess as a leader of men. We have no real idea how he looked. Often how a man looks is mentioned in passing (Alexander is described as being very handsome), but he is defined by what he did in his lifetime. Whereas Cleopatra is defined more by her reputation as a great beauty who seduced the most powerful men in the world at the time.
I don't think you should compare BG elves to Tolkien elves. Tolkien elves would probably have maxes of 19 across the board (the Eldar at least).
Also don't think of it as elves being uncharismatic based on the small sample of BG NPCs. The likes of Coran, Jaheira and Xan all have pretty good charisma. As with any race, there's a range.
Metabolic changes over time are covered by age penalties to Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, but otherwise, this simply is not represented in 2e D&D mechanics. You can eat a thousand tacos or run a thousand laps, your Strength always adds 6 damage, your Constitution always adds 4 points per hitdie, and the only way you're going to get worse at anything is if you hang out with Bodhi. Outside of constitution your stats aren't raw potential, they are instantly realised, fundamental aspects of your being.
Incidentally, Strong, Courageous, Confident and Inspiring? Whilst largely unrelated to Charisma... Boudicca, Queen Seon Deok, Mary Queen of Scots, Joan of Arc, The Tung sisters, Aung San Suu Kyi? The idea you're suggesting is culturally biased, completely inaccurate, and yeah, kind of sexist.
Except that she does. She doesn't panic in the circus, even though everyone else. She doesn't take things from Korgan; she chooses to leave rather than stay and be harassed by an unscrupulous mercenary who killed his old party (considering she hasn't very many places to go in Amn, it's quite bold). She stands up to Jaheira and Viconia, and can even turn on you at times if you follow the evil path (such as poisoning the grove). I think she just has to be very certain or feel very strongly about something in order to act, which she isn't most of the time.
Charisma does not constitute bravery, boldness or even willingness to act. Korgan is perfectly willing to stand up to anyone or anything with a pulse, despite his average Charisma, and Morale is completely unaffected by Charisma. She certainly does choose to leave, however that's not self-confidence, that's social "defeat". To leave because you've been forced out by mean words is not "Charismatic", it's Charismatic when she flips that on its head and has the guts to stand up to the bully. Instead, she's demanding that CHARNAME stand up for her; remove the threat, or she will remove herself.
Now is she Charismatic? Does she ever take charge of a situation? Or even a conversation? Viconia does. Jaheira does. Aerie... I like her character and her personality, but she really doesn't. Mazzy, who's not backed up by the literally incredible intelligence and wisdom that Aerie possesses (seriously, in D&Dverse she's in the top percentile to have both stats at 16), possesses oodles of "presence", of self-confidence, has led parties, and would again. If Mazzy is the benchmark by which 14 Charisma is justified (and 14 charisma is easily the top 10% of all 3-18 stat lifeforms in D&Dverse), Aerie falls short.
Except that she does. She doesn't panic in the circus, even though everyone else. She doesn't take things from Korgan; she chooses to leave rather than stay and be harassed by an unscrupulous mercenary who killed his old party (considering she hasn't very many places to go in Amn, it's quite bold). She stands up to Jaheira and Viconia, and can even turn on you at times if you follow the evil path (such as poisoning the grove). I think she just has to be very certain or feel very strongly about something in order to act, which she isn't most of the time.
Charisma does not constitute bravery, boldness or even willingness to act. Korgan is perfectly willing to stand up to anyone or anything with a pulse, despite his average Charisma, and Morale is completely unaffected by Charisma. She certainly does choose to leave, however that's not self-confidence, that's social "defeat". To leave because you've been forced out by mean words is not "Charismatic", it's Charismatic when she flips that on its head and has the guts to stand up to the bully. Instead, she's demanding that CHARNAME stand up for her; remove the threat, or she will remove herself.
She delivers Charname an ultimatum, and she follows it through; she doesn't try to back out if it doesn't go her way. Much as Korgan can be fun at times as a character, he is a mercenary, a powerful one, and his only real loyalties are to go gold and his own pleasure. In world it's eminently sensible to want to avoid being in the same group as him. But I suppose that's more wisdom than charisma.
Obviously, lacking confidence and experience as she does, it is very rare that Aerie would take charge of a situation. But I think there's enough to suggest she is capable, should some extraordinary circumstance arise when she's forced to. She keeps her head in the circus tent, for example. She seems the sort who, when there's an emergency, is able to focus all her attention on that. Of course, as soon as the emergency is over she'll probably immediately start worrying about the thousands of other things she usually does.
@atcDave I don't think any flaming is necessary... unless for a nice grill.
However I don't entirely understand what you mean by 'reverse sexism'... and I must disagree with your assertion that successful men and women are treated the same.
For example I distinctly recall seeing news reports of Angela Merkel and Julia Gillard (Australian PM) being attacked or ridiculed by opponents for their physical appearance.
My reverse sexism comment is just I think we spend too much time finding these perceived injustices. Male leaders are also routinely mocked for their perceived physical shortcomings. Everything from their weight, to their height, to the size of their ears. I think men and women alike are teased or celebrated for physical characteristics; and that is often a completely separate issue from their ability to lead or draw a following. And again, I do not want to get into issues of leadership opportunities across time and culture; only to comment on how looks may impact said leadership. Good looks are almost always an advantage, regardless of gender. I think Its always best to consider looks an aspect of charisma, but neither a starting nor ending point. A 2e supplemental book (Unearthed Arcana, mentioned above by a different commenter) separated out "comeliness" as a sort of sub-score of charisma. From a purely rational perspective I think this makes the most sense. Your comeliness could be adjusted up or down based on your charisma, but had its own modifiers for its own situations. But I think it was later dropped, because it truly is an attribute of almost no game play value. It might present a committed role player with the interesting oddity of a beautiful but unappealing character; or a homely sort with a magnetic personality. But for so many players it was just sort of a head scratcher (what do I do with this!?). And even for many committed role players it often seemed more limiting than liberating.
In terms of powerful leaders; we can find great examples of those who are both beautiful and hideous, both men and women. BTW, Cleopatra's looks are much debated among historians. Contemporary artwork of her is not terribly flattering, it really is thought she had a goiter, at least later in life. And most "praise of her beauty" came from much later writers who found her "epic" romances with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony to be fertile ground for speculation. But the only real certainty about her appeal is that she was powerful and wealthy.
Charisma has always been about reaction modifiers and number of followers, not about how many chicks find you hot ("18 charisma? +6 to one-night stands") . Sure, one thing helps the other, and there is a correlation but it's not absolute. It's mostly personal magnetism. That's why paladins and bards have high charisma, altough they have very different personalities and behaviour. Very high charisma (16+) is probably both things, good looks and personality.
Oh, if you remember, in BG there is a book that gives you a +1 charisma boost. I can't remember the exact wording but the book seemed a parody of those self-help "get friends" books.
Khalid seems atractive, but he has a serius case of stuttering and follows his somewhat dominating wife (15 charisma). Kivan is a loner.
One word I found that can describe Charisma very well is "influence".
Someone with high Charisma can influence people in a good way. While someone with low Charisma is influencing them in a bad way by making a bad impression or being hated. Someone's appearance could influence someone but it's only one piece.
Charisma is the way you talk, walk, the words you use, beauty, leadership, commanding personality, confidence. Charisma is the way your personality can influence things and people. That's why Sorcerers in 3E use Charisma as their casting stat. They don't shoot fireballs because they're pretty, but because their personality is literally "forcing" magic out of them. That's why they're considered less refined spellcasters but more passionate and emotional perhaps.
An orc could be ugly as sin but still have pretty high charisma, so he could be made a leader or chief or advisor or mediator.
Don't forget that demons and devils have REALLY high Charisma and are monstrosities out of nightmares.
Comments
And Safana, once she stops trying to seduce everyone.
And Coran, once he stops trying to seduce everyone.
And Eldoth, once he stops trying to seduce everyone.
And yes, it was a little messed up that the only female romance option was a sexist, racist, broken wreck of a human being solely intended to be someone "to fix", but that's not entirely related to charisma.
@Coutelier
Holy Nostalgia! ZIPBOT! I still own mine from my childhood, he sits on my desk.
Judging me.
Secondly, isn't it a little... difficult to view a stat as potential? It's not like one has the potential to be nimble, you always get that bonus from your stat. Strength? You can always carry that amount, you always get the bonus to damage.
I can sort of see it, from a Carryweight perspective, as being "not carrying your full weight", but given how easily Aerie caves against... Well, pretty much everyone, and Charisma is at least partially a measure of self-confidence, and she's definitely in the "encumbered with the sadness, cannot move" in the face of Korgan's scathing wit (maybe their Charisma scores were swapped by mistake?).
Considering what was actually planned for her, questwise (basically, a quest where she rejects getting wings and grows her ToB spine) I'd have thought that a low Charisma stat would have been justified, and when she finished her personal questline, gets a Charisma boost, much like Anomen stops being such a boob.
And I don't know; some people do seem to have more potential or are 'gifted' in some areas. Stronger, more agile, more intelligent, although realizing it obviously depends on them training and honing it. Trouble with CHA is it's a whole lot more abstract than STR or DEX though. Even with Korgan though, Aerie doesn't just take it, and she doesn't back down from Jaheira or Viconia either... I don't know what that is, but it's something. Just courage, perhaps, and is willing to fight for things she wants and believes in.
Perhaps it is a symptom of the superficial and shallow culture that we live in that made me instinctively equate charisma with physical charms. Also, it maybe politically incorrect of me to say so, but 'on average', we tend to attach more importance on a woman's physical attractiveness than we do for men. For example plenty of physically unremarkable men have been very charismatic leaders (Hitler, Napoleon, Mao etc)... whereas even when a woman becomes very successful, people cannot help but mention if she is beautiful or not in describing her as a person, and that's been a constant throughout current and historical literature.
@Pantalion
If we regard Charisma as somebody's natural leadership skills and ability to influence and persuade others, Anomen's relatively high charisma makes sense. Not only is he a handsome knight in shiny armour, he has a very forceful personality, who like Jaheira, considers themselves a leader. Plenty of real life people have demonstrated that being 'douchey', rude or overbearing is no barrier to being a successful and generally respected leader, if not a particularly likeable one.
Also I've also always interpreted Ability Stats like @Coutelier, as a measure of potential, and it makes perfect sense really. Your lv 1 Charname fighter might have 18/00 Str, and 18 Con, but he has very few HP and doesn't hit very accurately and hard, and struggles in single combat vs weak enemies like Hobgoblins. Later on in the game, that warrior can easily best massive monsters in single combat, and shrug off wounds that would have killed him back at lv1, so of course his actual 'strength' and 'hardiness' had progressed, and he has 'fulfilled' his potential. It works perfectly well in real life too. I've gone horse riding only once in my life on holiday, and I took to it really quickly, quickly learning to balance on stirrups and had no problems with a short gallop on open ground and even went up and down mountain trails. I reckon if there was an Ability Stat for horsemanship, I'd have a high score. However, given as I don't get to ride horses in daily life, I don't consider myself a remotely skilled or capable rider. i.e. Potential Ability unfulfilled.
Your interpretation works for Constitution, which is the only stat to function that way, and an 18 Con Fighter compared to a 6 Con character with average rolls at level 9 will have 90 HP versus 45 - literally double their capabilities. With Constitution, it very much is your potential to put your training to good use.
This is not the case, however, when it comes to Strength. Maybe you're realising the damage bonus of 18/00 Strength more often because you're more skilled, but what the Strength itself gives is constant, it's always +3 THAC0, always +6 Damage, 400lbs carried, at level 1 or level 40. You do improve, but you improve with Specialisation, with # of attacks, and with the THAC0 bonus that comes with Hitdice.
Strength can, sort of, be replicated via Specialisation, but at that point you're talking about proficiency pips and level, not "potential", your potential is pretty much identical to any other Fighter, just with that static bonus on top. In D&D, there's no "ability stat" for horsemanship, you're a level 3 Jockey, or a Proficient in Horsery, and your ability stats give the exact same benefits to you throughout.
Charisma is, mechanically speaking, the same. 18 means you are likeable, and capable of getting a 15% discount, level 1 or level 40, that's a constant.
And yes, it gets awkward bringing personality into it, but you're right. Anomen is, at all levels, a forceful, if unpleasant, character, and yes, a leader, confident, and at least theoretically persuasive, though I don't recall him ever successfully persuading anyone of anything. He's a 13 Charisma? Sure. His personality is unpleasant, but forcefully so, he is represented by/represents his states.
Aerie is at no point in SoA forceful, persuasive, confident.... She's shy, retiring, and insecure. She does not stand up for herself, she does not represent her stats. She's maybe a 14 in ToB, but she's not realising anything, that's a flat out Charisma boost.
In fact, that could be an interesting, if lengthy, exercise; see the interactions and behaviour of a character and determine their real mental abilities based on what they show, rather than what their stat sheet displays.
You make a good point about how Constitution is mechanically different to other Ability stats in the game. However, I maintain that thinking of them as potential makes more logical/RP sense. We all have the genetic propensity or potential to be better or worse in certain attributes, and although we can adjust our current ability, there is little we can do about potential ability.
For example, when I was younger (15-20), I was much more active and sporty, regularly went to the gym, and noticed that it was relatively easy for me to develop upper body strength compared to some of my friends. I had decent power to weight ratio and could lift more than most boys around my weight. However, I had terrible aerobic fitness, and even when I worked out more, my stamina and ability to run for more than 200m was inferior to most of my friends.
Now, due to an over-fondness for pizza and dislike of unnecessary physical exertion, both my actual strength and stamina are below what they were 5-10 years ago, due to a lack of training to realise whatever genetic potential I have.
Anyways I hope I don't come across too sexist, but I think charisma works a little differently for male and female characters. It is a fact of life that human history and culture has shaped what we generally find appealing in men and women. Whereas charismatic men are usually depicted as courageous, strong, confident, inspiring (perhaps personified by Alexander the Great or Richard the Lionheart), those same features are not necessarily attractive in a woman.
A very headstrong and overtly confident woman tends to threaten male dominated societies and men's comfort zones. Many men instead find a more feminine, agreeable and 'softer' woman more appealing. Men are drawn to and feel some sort of instinct to protect this sort of women, and no doubt some women have learnt this and deliberately suppress their more overbearing instincts in order to manipulate men more subtlely.
We do seem to look at a slightly different physical ideal where women are concerned, in particular, youth seems more highly valued than it is in men. But in terms of leadership and strength of character, I think men and women rank about the same, even if men more often have the opportunities to exploit those abilities.
And I'm prepared to now be flamed...
I don't think any flaming is necessary... unless for a nice grill.
However I don't entirely understand what you mean by 'reverse sexism'... and I must disagree with your assertion that successful men and women are treated the same.
For example I distinctly recall seeing news reports of Angela Merkel and Julia Gillard (Australian PM) being attacked or ridiculed by opponents for their physical appearance. Historically, Cleopatra of Egypt, Wu Zetian of China, and numerous other famous and powerful women are rarely mentioned without some sort of reference to their sexuality and the men in their lives.
In contrast, Genghis Khan bedded hundreds, maybe thousands of women in his lifetime (given he has millions of descendents today), yet when historians talk about him, they talk of his military genius, his ruthlessness and his prowess as a leader of men. We have no real idea how he looked. Often how a man looks is mentioned in passing (Alexander is described as being very handsome), but he is defined by what he did in his lifetime. Whereas Cleopatra is defined more by her reputation as a great beauty who seduced the most powerful men in the world at the time.
Also don't think of it as elves being uncharismatic based on the small sample of BG NPCs. The likes of Coran, Jaheira and Xan all have pretty good charisma. As with any race, there's a range.
Metabolic changes over time are covered by age penalties to Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, but otherwise, this simply is not represented in 2e D&D mechanics. You can eat a thousand tacos or run a thousand laps, your Strength always adds 6 damage, your Constitution always adds 4 points per hitdie, and the only way you're going to get worse at anything is if you hang out with Bodhi. Outside of constitution your stats aren't raw potential, they are instantly realised, fundamental aspects of your being.
Incidentally, Strong, Courageous, Confident and Inspiring? Whilst largely unrelated to Charisma... Boudicca, Queen Seon Deok, Mary Queen of Scots, Joan of Arc, The Tung sisters, Aung San Suu Kyi? The idea you're suggesting is culturally biased, completely inaccurate, and yeah, kind of sexist. Charisma does not constitute bravery, boldness or even willingness to act. Korgan is perfectly willing to stand up to anyone or anything with a pulse, despite his average Charisma, and Morale is completely unaffected by Charisma.
She certainly does choose to leave, however that's not self-confidence, that's social "defeat". To leave because you've been forced out by mean words is not "Charismatic", it's Charismatic when she flips that on its head and has the guts to stand up to the bully. Instead, she's demanding that CHARNAME stand up for her; remove the threat, or she will remove herself.
Now is she Charismatic? Does she ever take charge of a situation? Or even a conversation? Viconia does. Jaheira does. Aerie... I like her character and her personality, but she really doesn't. Mazzy, who's not backed up by the literally incredible intelligence and wisdom that Aerie possesses (seriously, in D&Dverse she's in the top percentile to have both stats at 16), possesses oodles of "presence", of self-confidence, has led parties, and would again. If Mazzy is the benchmark by which 14 Charisma is justified (and 14 charisma is easily the top 10% of all 3-18 stat lifeforms in D&Dverse), Aerie falls short.
Obviously, lacking confidence and experience as she does, it is very rare that Aerie would take charge of a situation. But I think there's enough to suggest she is capable, should some extraordinary circumstance arise when she's forced to. She keeps her head in the circus tent, for example. She seems the sort who, when there's an emergency, is able to focus all her attention on that. Of course, as soon as the emergency is over she'll probably immediately start worrying about the thousands of other things she usually does.
And again, I do not want to get into issues of leadership opportunities across time and culture; only to comment on how looks may impact said leadership. Good looks are almost always an advantage, regardless of gender. I think Its always best to consider looks an aspect of charisma, but neither a starting nor ending point. A 2e supplemental book (Unearthed Arcana, mentioned above by a different commenter) separated out "comeliness" as a sort of sub-score of charisma. From a purely rational perspective I think this makes the most sense. Your comeliness could be adjusted up or down based on your charisma, but had its own modifiers for its own situations. But I think it was later dropped, because it truly is an attribute of almost no game play value. It might present a committed role player with the interesting oddity of a beautiful but unappealing character; or a homely sort with a magnetic personality. But for so many players it was just sort of a head scratcher (what do I do with this!?). And even for many committed role players it often seemed more limiting than liberating.
In terms of powerful leaders; we can find great examples of those who are both beautiful and hideous, both men and women. BTW, Cleopatra's looks are much debated among historians. Contemporary artwork of her is not terribly flattering, it really is thought she had a goiter, at least later in life. And most "praise of her beauty" came from much later writers who found her "epic" romances with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony to be fertile ground for speculation. But the only real certainty about her appeal is that she was powerful and wealthy.
Oh, if you remember, in BG there is a book that gives you a +1 charisma boost. I can't remember the exact wording but the book seemed a parody of those self-help "get friends" books.
Khalid seems atractive, but he has a serius case of stuttering and follows his somewhat dominating wife (15 charisma). Kivan is a loner.
Someone with high Charisma can influence people in a good way. While someone with low Charisma is influencing them in a bad way by making a bad impression or being hated.
Someone's appearance could influence someone but it's only one piece.
Charisma is the way you talk, walk, the words you use, beauty, leadership, commanding personality, confidence.
Charisma is the way your personality can influence things and people.
That's why Sorcerers in 3E use Charisma as their casting stat.
They don't shoot fireballs because they're pretty, but because their personality is literally "forcing" magic out of them.
That's why they're considered less refined spellcasters but more passionate and emotional perhaps.
An orc could be ugly as sin but still have pretty high charisma, so he could be made a leader or chief or advisor or mediator.
Don't forget that demons and devils have REALLY high Charisma and are monstrosities out of nightmares.