And I quote: "Everyone hates a Cha 8 character!"

[Spore]

Yesterday a fellow player ranted a bit about attribute choices. And I feel he meant some of my characters. I play a lot of Charisma casters. But when I don't I just enjoy playing an uncharismatic character. Two choices:

1) Cha 6: My antisocial Tiefling Alchemist was chased by a mob from his home town after someone murdered families and everyone assumed the Tiefling is guilty (he is). Then the Inquisition got wind of him (everywhere he goes an Oni Spirit kills people). I feel Charisma 6 is justified as he not only has lost faith in humanity but his specific heritage makes it hard to socialize (Tiefling but there is the spirit of his ancestor Oni trapped inside him) and his profession isn't requiring a lot of social interaction (I could have easily spent my days crafting in the laboratory since Day 1 of the character creating potions for the group).

2) Cha 8: And this is where I really am unsure. The character in question is a simple huntsman from the mountains (not a Ranger but a Barbarian, just for the twist and guilty pleasure of mine) in the north forced into a war invading the land from the far south. To protect his family he organized a militia defending the cold mountainous areas from the vast army of the "semi-Egyptian" faction marching under what I can only imagine being an Undead Demigod Pharao. He is also a loved husband and father and his main adventuring motivation is to keep his family and friends alive.

I have questions.
Would a Charisma 8 character even have the needed social skills to keep a Militia together in a time of need? With no ranks in skills that support Diplomacy or Intimidate?
Is being a hero (6th level, magical stuff and 25 PB so vastly superior combat prowess in both melee and ranged) enough to fill the role of a leader?
Would you consider him being played as a silent man of few words but a man who helps anyone in need as uncharismatic?
How would you build a good warrior and archer qualifiying for the bow talents, having him be perceptive (Wisdom!), of average Intelligence and being a likeable guy yet a leader by circumstance not by choice or talent?

I am torn between seeing charisma as force of personality (what to do with silent but forceful natures?) or as some sort of presence (making a Cha 8 character blend into the background until he opens his mouth). Most NPC classes without diplomacy and readily built (N)PCs with leadership roles are naturally charismatic so my gut feel tends towards pushing charisma. But it not only has no gameplay benefit (yes being blunt I love my characters having that slight edge without using ressources just so my sheet "looks nice") but I also feel slightly emotionally cold leaders by example should also have their place.

I am personally just pissed that everyone thinks a Wis 8 character is always insane, an Int 8 character is thick as two short planks and a Cha 8 character is the slimiest gutter rat imaginable.

[VoxRationis]

I would not say that everyone would hate a character with 8 Charisma. I would question, though, whether they could gather a large number of people, few of whom are family or friends, under his banner. Frankly, people aren't rational. They are unlikely to listen to an idea, no matter how reasonable, if it's not put together in a palatable way by a palatable person. You might, however, be able to convince some influential figures who are wise enough to look past your lack of people skills. There are many cases in which an otherwise able person must work through others because they lack the ability to rally people to them.

[Spore]

I like the idea of having a (possibly corrupt) guy for the people skills. That is quite the idea.

[Rebel7284]

8 charisma is only slightly below normal (-1 modifier.) Someone with extraordinary ability and suboptimal charisma can certainly organize a defense of a small village as people would trust the hero's experience and suggestions. However, anything bigger than a small village, is super unlikely.

[Spore]

I was thinking about a community of about 1,000 people. Providing 250 or so capable soldiers for the defending army.

[Emperor Tippy]

8 Cha with no skill points invested in social skills means that no one is going to follow you without a very good reason of their own.

The odds of such a character ever being a leader of any kind are miniscule.

Such a character isn't universally hated but he is the kind of person who just pisses off the vast majority of the population for no real reason.

[Red Fel]

Sometimes it's not about how much or how little Charisma you have. Sometimes, you just really want to roll a 1 on Diplomacy (http://grandline3point5.thecomicseries.com/comics/22). (And yes, I totally want to pull that in a game someday.)

And now, this:



Would a Charisma 8 character even have the needed social skills to keep a Militia together in a time of need? With no ranks in skills that support Diplomacy or Intimidate?

I don't see why not. As others have noted, Cha 8 is barely below average. You have slightly less force of personality than the average duck. But that doesn't mean you can't teach yourself to function. (That is, train your skills.) A person can have a naturally weak personality and still practice the art of persuasion and influence.


Is being a hero (6th level, magical stuff and 25 PB so vastly superior combat prowess in both melee and ranged) enough to fill the role of a leader?

It depends on how you define "enough." For the average CR less-than-1 NPC, this guy is like a demigod. It doesn't matter if he has all of the personality of a wet sponge; if somebody like that called you to arms, you would follow based upon reputation alone.


Would you consider him being played as a silent man of few words but a man who helps anyone in need as uncharismatic?

Charisma isn't just about what you say. It's about what you exude. Take Batman. Batman is immensely charismatic. That's because he has so much force of personality he can shout down freaking Superman. And yet, when he doesn't have something to say, he says absolutely nothing. He can shout down Superman without a word - just with his infamous glare. That's Charisma.


How would you build a good warrior and archer qualifiying for the bow talents, having him be perceptive (Wisdom!), of average Intelligence and being a likeable guy yet a leader by circumstance not by choice or talent?

That's basically backstory. Your character made the mistake of being seen doing the right thing. The reward for a job well done is more work to do. Suddenly, he developed a reputation for being capable. The reputation spread faster than he could quash it, and soon people came to rely on and respect him - whether he had actually earned it or not.

You'd be surprised how many leaders start that way.


I am torn between seeing charisma as force of personality (what to do with silent but forceful natures?) or as some sort of presence (making a Cha 8 character blend into the background until he opens his mouth). Most NPC classes without diplomacy and readily built (N)PCs with leadership roles are naturally charismatic so my gut feel tends towards pushing charisma. But it not only has no gameplay benefit (yes being blunt I love my characters having that slight edge without using ressources just so my sheet "looks nice") but I also feel slightly emotionally cold leaders by example should also have their place.

Charisma is force of personality. But it's also control over that power. Force of personality need not be through speech, but may simply be expressed in confidence, gestures, presence, and intensity (see Batman, above). A less-than-Charismatic person isn't invisible, he's just less firm in that force. Even so, a less-than-Charismatic PC has the advantage of reputation, which may attract loyal followers even if he doesn't have enough presence to draw them in otherwise.

[VoxRationis]

That uncharismatic but powerful PC running about might just "inspire" the townsfolk to evacuate and leave him to do all the fighting, since he's so demigod-like and all. Trying to coordinate any number of people at all is a challenge. I'd say you probably need an above-average Charisma to coordinate an a cappella group, let alone a full-size militia. And level doesn't quite matter the way you think it does. A Strength 8 wizard of 20th level is not going to be able to break open the iron dungeon door by muscle power (and yes, he can break it down or render it irrelevant in a hundred ways, but all but Strength is irrelevant to this analogy). Why is Charisma so different?

[Extra Anchovies]

8 Cha with no skill points invested in social skills means that no one is going to follow you without a very good reason of their own.

The odds of such a character ever being a leader of any kind are miniscule.

Such a character isn't universally hated but he is the kind of person who just pisses off the vast majority of the population for no real reason.

Changing an Indifferent character to Friendly is, for a 1st-level character with 8 cha and no ranks in Diplomacy, still going to happen about 25% of the time (roll of 16-20). There's also a 5% chance (result of less than 1, i.e. roll of 1) that you accidentally change their attitude from Indifferent to Unfriendly. So if you make a check for every member of a population large enough that the probabilities normalize, 25% of them will support you, 5% will oppose, and 70% won't care.

While this often won't be enough to win over an entire population, there is list of "possible actions" that a Friendly character might undertake on the behalf of the character for whom they have a Friendly attitude:

Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Emphasis mine. Suddenly you also have 25% of the population arguing for you, and all of them get checks too. They'll convert one-fourth of the remaining Indifferent folks to Friendly, 5% of the remaining Indifferents to Unfriendly, 25% of the initial Unfriendlies to Indifferent, and 25% of the initial Unfriendlies to Hostile. Overall, that's a net gain for the supporters. It cascades from there until you have enough people on your side that you can assume leadership. Remember that a leader doesn't need 100% support to be in charge, nor do they even need a majority of the population fully supporting them; they just need for a majority of the population to either support them or choose to go along with the movement because they might as well.

Of course, if you're trying to gain a position of authority at the same time as another person with better interaction skills, you're kind of shafted. But assuming you're the only viable and willing leader at the time, gaining at least temporary authority in a population of 1000 or so people is far from impossible; in fact, even with Cha 8 and no Diplomacy ranks, it's nonetheless statistically more likely than not.

ETA: None of this is to say that a Cha 8, 0-Diplomacy-ranks character will be able to seize power every time; there will in many cases (possibly even a majority of cases) be someone else with better social skills and a shared desire for leadership, in which case our Cha 8 character will on most occasions lose out to them. In the absence of a better leader, though, there's definitely more than just a minuscule chance of their succeeding.

[Divide by Zero]

8 charisma is only slightly below normal (-1 modifier.) Someone with extraordinary ability and suboptimal charisma can certainly organize a defense of a small village as people would trust the hero's experience and suggestions. However, anything bigger than a small village, is super unlikely.

Think about the Leadership feat. Even if your Cha is below average, you can still have a good score by being high level and/or getting the various bonuses.

[VoxRationis]

A) The diplomacy rules are even more broken than everything else.
B) "Friendly" does not include fighting in a militia.

[Extra Anchovies]

A) The diplomacy rules are even more broken than everything else.
B) "Friendly" does not include fighting in a militia.

Certainly not. But it's enough to get people to accept your authority, and people will join a militia out of a desire for collective defense more often than they will join out of a love for their Dear Leader. Once the militia exists, people will join. Maybe not the full 250 (excluding severe, immediate crisis situations that spur the people to independent action), but at least enough for there to be a functional force.

ETA: To get someone to fight on your behalf under your command requires changing their attitude to Helpful. Getting them to fight on behalf of their own homes, families, and livelihoods, while also incidentally being under your command, would probably only require that they not be Hostile or Unfriendly.

[VoxRationis]

I don't think the command part is incidental. You could convince people, potentially, to join a militia, assuming they don't just pick up everything and run, but they'd choose other people's militiae.

[Extra Anchovies]

I don't think the command part is incidental. You could convince people, potentially, to join a militia, assuming they don't just pick up everything and run, but they'd choose other people's militiae.

Very true. Which is why the Cha 8 character would only be able to get their own militia when they're the only viable authority figure in town by virtue of their class levels and/or the absence of competing aspiring leaders.

[Troacctid]

Tyrion Lannister seems like a great example of a low-Charisma character trying to be a leader. He gets his shot at it, and it turns out people hate him even when he's saving their asses.

[Psyren]

Tyrion Lannister seems like a great example of a low-Charisma character trying to be a leader. He gets his shot at it, and it turns out people hate him even when he's saving their asses.

And the only reason he got a shot at all was due to two massive circumstance bonuses - one for his House (one of the major ones), and one for throwing his money around (his influence with Bronn and the mountain clansmen fall under this one.)

[Jeff the Green]

Let's put it this way: over 25% of the population, assuming 3d6, has a Charisma of 8 or below. 37% if you include the mechanically indistinguishable score of 9.

If you hate a third of people you know, I'd say the problem is you.

Now, the guy's not terribly well spoken or inspiring, but he could attract militia members in other ways. If he's known for personal bravery, so that he never leaves the field until every one of his men is safe or he's well know as a good tactician so the people under his command are best able to complete their objective and make it home he might attract militia members despite his coldness/awkwardness/gruffness/etc.

[Erik Vale]

I'll jump in to basically agree. Your character isn't very sociable, and has trouble convincing others or lying. However as a powerful level 6 you get a bid circumstance bonus to telling people to do what you tell them to. Such as forming a militia. You'd quickly get somone else into doing actual commands while you just do organising or some training, but your character can be the sort to get people started/one the right track.

However, instead of by persuading them or intimidating them normally, you use your experience to explain what the monsters would do the the people, and yelling really loudly and getting circumstance bonuses to intimidate when anyone interrupts.

[Eldan]

Think of it like this. An 8 is as far below average as a 12 is above it. Is a charisma 12 person a great orator? No. Neither is a charisma 8 person a pariah.

[Drelua]

Think of it like this. An 8 is as far below average as a 12 is above it. Is a charisma 12 person a great orator? No. Neither is a charisma 8 person a pariah.

Actually, apologies for the pedantry, but a 10.5 is average, so an 8 is as low as a 13 is high. I would say that if everybody hates a guy with 8 CHA, then conversely everybody must love someone with 13 CHA. I can't imagine, then, what people would do for a guy with an 18, or, for that matter, what they'd do to a guy with a 3. :smalleek:

[Erik Vale]

What they'd do to a 18?
Offer to have their babies and marry them despite them being known serial killers, and them being the type he killed.
Which does happen.

Or does that represent the combined effects of a 18 charisma vs their 3 int and 3 wisdom?

[Flickerdart]

Tyrion Lannister seems like a great example of a low-Charisma character trying to be a leader. He gets his shot at it, and it turns out people hate him even when he's saving their asses.
Are you kidding? Tyrion has massive Charisma. He convinces people to do stuff for him all the time. Tell me that a low-Cha character can convince a band of savages to join him instead of robbing him.

People dislike Tyrion not because he isn't charismatic, but because he's a dwarf, and disliking him gets them in favour with Tywin and Cersei.

[Troacctid]

Are you kidding? Tyrion has massive Charisma. He convinces people to do stuff for him all the time. Tell me that a low-Cha character can convince a band of savages to join him instead of robbing him.

People dislike Tyrion not because he isn't charismatic, but because he's a dwarf, and disliking him gets them in favour with Tywin and Cersei.

He can convince a band of savages to join him instead of robbing him because he has circumstance bonuses and ranks in Diplomacy (and he probably rolled a natural 20 on top of it). His natural Charisma is about as useless as nipples on a breastplate.

[bekeleven]

It's hard to tell a meaningful difference between high charisma and ranks in social skills, but Tyrion to me seems like a high-int, terrible-wis, moderate-charisma guy who put a couple ranks in socials before deciding it wasn't worth the effort (or possibly leveling into a class with fewer bsp).

[Gwendol]

Or the guy has the "Might makes right" feat, and uses his bulging muscles rather than anything else to make people listen and follow?

CHA of 8 isn't that much of a problem for diplomacy. It sure doesn't help, but invest a few ranks in the skill and you should be ok.

[Madhava]

I think the issue stems from the game lumping together too much stuff under the charisma-umbrella.

For instance, it's plausible for someone to be extremely socially graceful, yet have a very poor sense of self. In other words, an overly supressed id with an overdeveloped super-ego. Sounds like typical above-average charisma, maybe? Yet when charisma is reduced to zero, he lapses into a coma, having lost all sense of I/me/mine (id).

So, I suppose, the two often-conflicting parts of the psyche both fall under charisma. Which is confusing, kind of. But yet not all bad, because it allows for creative leeway, in the way of conceptualizing the PC's infinite possible variables of average personality. Or, of exceptional personality, for the folks who've rolled Bard or Wilder or whatever.


Tyrion Lannister seems like a great example of a low-Charisma character trying to be a leader. He gets his shot at it, and it turns out people hate him even when he's saving their asses.

See, I would've pegged Tyrion as having well-above-average charisma. He was respected, he was feared, & he was graceful. He knew who he was & what he was capable of. Sure, people hated him. He did Very Bad Things to some really okay people. Most everyone else either found him contemptible for his wealth, or they just owed him money. What's not to hate?

I see Bronn as a textbook example of the anyman-8-charisma-Fighter. He's brusque, maybe borderline-crude, and not too likeable. He's not overly menacing (going by personality alone). He isn't comfortable with leadership roles.

Also, I'm not sure I'd consider disposition or jadedness to be the purview of charisma. That's just how someone chooses to play. Sure jadedness could make one unlikeable (so could being evil).

A jaded character could have a new lease on life, with an attitude adjustment, but his charisma stat probably wouldn't change. Besides, one with an overly positive attitude could be wholly insufferable. If a character has a bad attitude, & yet is still likeable, then the character might be Rodney Dangerfield. Or Eeyore.

[nedz]

I think that this is a logical fallacy: Selection bias maybe. All PCs have above average stats therefore 8 is very low. In terms of the general population it's just the low end of average.

Also, IRL, people tend to love or Hate people with high charisma — people with low charisma just get ignored.

[emeraldstreak]

Sounds like your fellow player...has 8 Charisma IRL!

[deuxhero]

You are in Pathfinder and int based. Student of Philosophy

[Spore]

So I will be switching Int to 12, keeping Cha 8 and be a somewhat grumpy yet diplomatic militia leader.

[Dalebert]

But that doesn't mean you can't teach yourself to function. (That is, train your skills.) A person can have a naturally weak personality and still practice the art of persuasion and influence.

Right. And the in-game representation of that is putting points in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, which he said he didn't do. A low CHA character can definitely learn to be a better leader but this guy hasn't. The DM needs to think about each time one of those rolls would be necessary to regularly lead people into life-threatening situations and what-not and keep in mind he's getting -1 to the roll every attempt.

I feel like reputation might get your foot in the door. You still have to sell yourself when they meet you in person.

Saying people automatically hate you is too strong. They are probably just indifferent generally. But to say he's in a significant leadership roll is really pushing it. It seems like you want to use CHA as a dump stat as many people do (unless it's a primary stat) without the penalties that entails. I know someone who loves using STR as a dump stat and then gets annoyed when she finds out that DMs pay attention to encumbrance, especially when the character tries to put on armor.

[Segev]

Charisma 8 means first impressions will tend to be a bit abrasive, and he won't win you over just by how likable he is. You might find him rude, crude, or socially unacceptable, but not so much that you'd feel justified in telling him off. He's not quite to the point of telling racist jokes at the high society dinner.

Alternatively, he's the awkward kind of shy. He might be "adorkable," but it's not the sort that draws people to him. He is not invisible, but he is easily overlooked next to more charismatic people. Still, he draws attention by his awkwardness just enough that he's not able to use this to his advantage. (True "social invisibility" where you can blend in so well nobody notices you at all is actually a high charisma trait. A different form than usually depicted, but it's all about using your social presence as camouflage.)

If he trains up his Diplomacy, he can become a guy who presents himself well and, despite the apparent quirks in his appearance, manner, or attitude, is smooth in handling them and turns them into assets. This is purely represented by the skill ranks overwhelming the -1 penalty due to low charisma, though.

If he has Leadership, his competence attracts people to him (based on his level) more than his personal charisma. His cohort recognizes in him his skills, and wants badly enough to associate with them that he gives his loyalty to this individual despite his leader's less-than-sparkling personality.

You can have a low-charisma figurehead based around that figurehead's competence and reputation. They just can't CONTROL their following. Whether it's that their followers are fans who do what they THINK he wants whether he likes it or not, or there's a true svengali behind it who TELLS the followers what to do based on "Your idol would like..." it's the same either way. In the latter case, he could be doing it on purpose (almost using the figurehead as HIS cohort and fast-talking his way around the figurehead's objections), or he could be just the most charismatic of the deluded fans who thinks he knows what his idol wants. The lower charisma of the figurehead means he can't override the mistaken beliefs of his fans, and has the most control when he tries to ride the wave by going along with it and offering small tweaks.


But a Cha 8 guy isn't imminently hateable any more than a Cha 12 guy is instantly beloved by all. He's just rougher around the edges, and exudes less natural presence.

[Extra Anchovies]

All a Cha 8 character needs to do to swing the populace in his favor is get a few Cha 13+ folks supporting him. Since the Charisma score of a person on whom a Diplomacy check is used does not matter, our Cha 8 protagonist has a 25% chance of swinging someone to Friendly. In a large enough population (1000 is definitely large enough), a good number of the people they swing will have above-average Cha modifiers, and they will (due to having the friendly attitude) advocate on our protagonist's behalf. Thus, a Cha 8 character will have a hard time becoming a leader on sheer force of personality, but if they can get some supporters to speak on their behalf, their chances might be almost as good as those of a Cha 13 character.

[Spore]

Charisma 8 means first impressions will tend to be a bit abrasive, and he won't win you over just by how likable he is. You might find him rude, crude, or socially unacceptable, but not so much that you'd feel justified in telling him off. He's not quite to the point of telling racist jokes at the high society dinner..

I imagined him to be a likeable impolite and uncultured guy with good manners. He will eat his meal with fingers at the queen's banquet. But he will not call her out on her terrible choice of food. But he will not only object stupid tactical ideas that use his men as cannon fodder but also insult the "coward behind friendly lines choosing people to die".

My DM will possibly adjust the size of the militia and their influence to my character's stats.

[Dalebert]

All a Cha 8 character needs to do to swing the populace in his favor is get a few Cha 13+ folks supporting him. Since the Charisma score of a person on whom a Diplomacy check is used does not matter, our Cha 8 protagonist has a 25% chance of swinging someone to Friendly. In a large enough population (1000 is definitely large enough), a good number of the people they swing will have above-average Cha modifiers, and they will (due to having the friendly attitude) advocate on our protagonist's behalf. Thus, a Cha 8 character will have a hard time becoming a leader on sheer force of personality, but if they can get some supporters to speak on their behalf, their chances might be almost as good as those of a Cha 13 character.

That's ridiculous. Swinging someone to friendly =/= attracting them as followers who will now proclaim you their leader and start telling other people to do what you say. Friendly means they might actually help defend you if someone attacks you (and expect you to do the same). Being friendly doesn't even mean they necessarily agree with any particular stance you take on an issue at hand. Any one of them with higher diplomatic skills (which is inevitable) could decide they should be leading you instead. You're implying that anyone, regardless of inherent ability or skill, with minimal effort, can become the leader of 1000 people.

Your background does not fit your character. You may as well play a fighter and say you were head of the local mage's guild. You just don't have what it takes.

[Chronos]

With a Cha of 8, the only way you're ending up in charge of a militia is if they all know you personally (large family, maybe, or small town where everyone knows everyone). That gets you to the point where people can say "yeah, he doesn't seem like much, but once you get to know him he's an OK guy". If you don't have that, then you'll need a front-man: You can be the one advising him behind the scenes and effectively in charge, but people will be giving the charismatic guy their loyalty.

The last time I played a Cha-dumped character, it was a dwarf druid with a Cha of 6. Of course, he also had an amazing Wis, and a pretty good Int, so he was coming up with good sense and ideas, but he was absolutely terrible at communicating them to others. I never said anything except cryptically, and I think I was actually more understandable when in animal form, when I was restricted to grunts and gestures.

[Dalebert]

If you don't have that, then you'll need a front-man: You can be the one advising him behind the scenes and effectively in charge, but people will be giving the charismatic guy their loyalty.

I think that's maybe your most viable explanation. A low CHA character will certainly have maybe a few people who have learned to like him based on his actual substance of character and actual ability. I would, however, wonder where this impressive person is now. He'd be the equivalent of another PC in your party or a cohort and would want to remain by your side.

[Sir Garanok]

The is major distance from "everyone hates you" to "follow your lead to the militia".

Adding some circumstance bonuses from level,not existing opposed checks(e.g. someone speaks against you or the militia thing),
good reasons for having a militia,not having anyone better than this guy and ...

Well i believe it is possible,i would allow it as a dm since its backstory.

If you were to create a militia while playing,i would ask for a few rolls.

[BaronDoctor]

Charisma 8 character strategically "leading" a military that immediately comes to mind is Soren from Fire Emblem 9/10 (the ones with Ike).
Here's a fair description of his personality. (http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Soren#Personality) Essentially, he is cynical and doesn't think about others' feelings, merely recommending actions in the best interest of the mercenary company he works for.
Bearing in mind, of course, that Ike is the leader (the "heart" and "frontman"), he still considers Soren essential.

[prufock]

That's ridiculous. Swinging someone to friendly =/= attracting them as followers who will now proclaim you their leader and start telling other people to do what you say.

Actually it does. One of the descriptors of the "friendly" category is advocate - to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly. It doesn't mean they'll take a bullet for you; it does mean they'll try to convince other people to follow you.


A character who is intelligent and uncharismatic should be able to get people to follow him by virtue of his arguments alone, if those people are able to understand the arguments.

As for the quote: cats have charisma 7, dogs have charisma 6, and monkeys have charisma 5. Does everyone hate cats, dogs, and monkeys?

[Extra Anchovies]

That's ridiculous. Swinging someone to friendly =/= attracting them as followers who will now proclaim you their leader and start telling other people to do what you say. Friendly means they might actually help defend you if someone attacks you (and expect you to do the same). Being friendly doesn't even mean they necessarily agree with any particular stance you take on an issue at hand. Any one of them with higher diplomatic skills (which is inevitable) could decide they should be leading you instead. You're implying that anyone, regardless of inherent ability or skill, with minimal effort, can become the leader of 1000 people.

Take a look at the "Possible Actions" column in the table at the bottom of this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm). As I have pointed out before, in the "Friendly" row it reads "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate". Emphasis again mine. Swinging someone's attitude to friendly will definitely get them to argue your merits; not to go door-to-door trying to sell others on your leadership, mind you, but at least argue on your behalf when they see/hear your merits being questioned. And I have already said before, they don't need everyone to support them being in charge, they just need a plurality (if that). Nobody will follow them unquestionably, so coalitions will be formed and the people's interests will have to be taken into account.

And finally, I'm implying that a majority of people (Cha 8 or higher), regardless of inherent ability or skill, with a LOT of effort (my above examples involve making a diplomacy check with every member of the population), could become the leader of 1000 people in the absence of another person who is better suited to be the leader, or who is more able to argue that they are better suited to lead. That last bit is the crux of my point, and is also something you touched on. At least a few of the more diplomatically able people probably would want to lead rather than be led, and would oppose our Cha 8 protagonist, perhaps leading to an interest in-character debate encounter. (Assuming that all higher-Cha people would want to lead, though, is preposterous; not everyone with the ability to reach for power wants to do so).


With a Cha of 8, the only way you're ending up in charge of a militia is if they all know you personally (large family, maybe, or small town where everyone knows everyone). That gets you to the point where people can say "yeah, he doesn't seem like much, but once you get to know him he's an OK guy". If you don't have that, then you'll need a front-man: You can be the one advising him behind the scenes and effectively in charge, but people will be giving the charismatic guy their loyalty.

I also think that you'd end up in charge of a militia if you were known to be well-suited to lead and if the current circumstances required a good leader (e.g. imminent bandit attack). In peacetime they'd wonder why they needed the gruff woodsman guy in charge, but in a crisis they'll gather behind whoever seems most able to protect the town and its people, which would usually be the highest-level character in town.

[atemu1234]

Something with low charisma is very rarely hated out of hand. He could be perceived as cold, uncaring, perhaps impersonal, but people (unless they are really, really sensitive) won't hate him unless he insults them.

Anyone got a link to that one DM of the Rings comic where Gimli insults the rohirrim?

[Extra Anchovies]

Something with low charisma is very rarely hated out of hand. He could be perceived as cold, uncaring, perhaps impersonal, but people (unless they are really, really sensitive) won't hate him unless he insults them.

Anyone got a link to that one DM of the Rings comic where Gimli insults the rohirrim?

This one? (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850) For some reason the image seems a little horizontally squished, but maybe I'm just misremembering. It's been a while since I've read that comic, thanks for reminding me of it *dives into archives*

[Urpriest]

To go with the Game of Thrones references, think about Samwell Tarly and Jon Snow. Spoilers for those who haven't read the books:

Jon isn't particularly interested in being leader, nor does he have a lot of support initially. But Sam advocates for him, and gets everyone on his side, and that gets him proclaimed leader. Being a leader doesn't necessarily mean you can persuade others, it just means that someone with the capability to persuade others thinks you'd make a good leader.

[Chronos]

Quoth Extra Anchovies:

I also think that you'd end up in charge of a militia if you were known to be well-suited to lead and if the current circumstances required a good leader (e.g. imminent bandit attack).
But that's just it: Someone with low charisma isn't well-suited to lead and won't be a good leader. If everyone knows how good a fighter is, they'll want him in the militia, but they won't want him in charge.

[Dalebert]

To go with the Game of Thrones references, think about Samwell Tarly and Jon Snow. Spoilers for those who haven't read the books:

Not sure that's a good example because...

Sam is actually the uncharismatic one. Jon was picked and groomed for leadership right away, as Sam pointed out to him. This seemed like more a case of people in leadership positions who were just stuck in their ways not wanting to listen to a newb, and in some cases being really jealous of him, possibly because they saw him as a threat, possibly because he IS actually charismatic.

[aleucard]

But that's just it: Someone with low charisma isn't well-suited to lead and won't be a good leader. If everyone knows how good a fighter is, they'll want him in the militia, but they won't want him in charge.

There's one major caveat with that statement. Namely, whether or not that the group being led has any intentions of functioning as the government, or an agent thereof, rather than just the shield and sword of such. You don't need to be likeable to know how combat on all scales works, and in fact people assuming the reverse has routinely spawned failure in real life. You don't want the most charismatic guy at the top of the military, you want the guy most able to know what **** needs to be done and how to get it done, with the first taking preference. If it matters THAT much, make Prince Charming the PR guy and call done. This is obviously circumvented if something makes the high-Cha a better tactician and such (for instance, casters with it as a primary stat, bards especially), but most such people either don't have access to things to do more than break even (and even then, part of being in a party is letting the people who are made for given tasks do their thing, even if you're a Wizard and thus have an answer to everything) or can't take advantage without opportunity cost that may be unacceptable (sorcerers, for instance).

[Flickerdart]

He can convince a band of savages to join him instead of robbing him because he has circumstance bonuses and ranks in Diplomacy (and he probably rolled a natural 20 on top of it). His natural Charisma is about as useless as nipples on a breastplate.
Oh yeah, circumstance bonuses for being completely at a disadvantage and talking to people he's never met before.

It makes much more sense that he would have circumstance penalties in a society that's familiar with him, and openly hostile to him.

[Urpriest]

Not sure that's a good example because...

Sam is actually the uncharismatic one. Jon was picked and groomed for leadership right away, as Sam pointed out to him. This seemed like more a case of people in leadership positions who were just stuck in their ways not wanting to listen to a newb, and in some cases being really jealous of him, possibly because they saw him as a threat, possibly because he IS actually charismatic.

That kind of proves the overall point, though, if someone un-charismatic can still determine who leads a community.

[Troacctid]

Actually, I was thinking a circumstance bonus because of how well he understands their culture. Notice how he appeals to their resentment of the Lords of the Vale and offers them the chance to take back their ancestral lands. Also, huge bribes are a circumstance bonus.

Generally speaking, a convincing argument manifests itself as a circumstance bonus. In this way, Tyrion augments his Diplomacy with his Intelligence--he is clever to make up for being uncharismatic.

[Gemini476]

Changing an Indifferent character to Friendly is, for a 1st-level character with 8 cha and no ranks in Diplomacy, still going to happen about 25% of the time (roll of 16-20). There's also a 5% chance (result of less than 1, i.e. roll of 1) that you accidentally change their attitude from Indifferent to Unfriendly. So if you make a check for every member of a population large enough that the probabilities normalize, 25% of them will support you, 5% will oppose, and 70% won't care.

While this often won't be enough to win over an entire population, there is list of "possible actions" that a Friendly character might undertake on the behalf of the character for whom they have a Friendly attitude:

Emphasis mine. Suddenly you also have 25% of the population arguing for you, and all of them get checks too. They'll convert one-fourth of the remaining Indifferent folks to Friendly, 5% of the remaining Indifferents to Unfriendly, 25% of the initial Unfriendlies to Indifferent, and 25% of the initial Unfriendlies to Hostile. Overall, that's a net gain for the supporters. It cascades from there until you have enough people on your side that you can assume leadership. Remember that a leader doesn't need 100% support to be in charge, nor do they even need a majority of the population fully supporting them; they just need for a majority of the population to either support them or choose to go along with the movement because they might as well.

Of course, if you're trying to gain a position of authority at the same time as another person with better interaction skills, you're kind of shafted. But assuming you're the only viable and willing leader at the time, gaining at least temporary authority in a population of 1000 or so people is far from impossible; in fact, even with Cha 8 and no Diplomacy ranks, it's nonetheless statistically more likely than not.

ETA: None of this is to say that a Cha 8, 0-Diplomacy-ranks character will be able to seize power every time; there will in many cases (possibly even a majority of cases) be someone else with better social skills and a shared desire for leadership, in which case our Cha 8 character will on most occasions lose out to them. In the absence of a better leader, though, there's definitely more than just a minuscule chance of their succeeding.
To extrapolate on this, assuming everyone you convince also has Cha 8 and -1 total modifier to Diplomacy:

First, you get 25% friendly 70% indifferent 5% unfriendly. Sending the friendly people out to convince the indifferent, you get 42,5% friendly 49% indifferent 8,5% unfriendly.
Another iteration gets you to 54,75%/34,3%/10,95%, which is a majority, and 14 iterations down the line you get to less than 1% indifference, 82,52% friendlyness, and 16,5% unfriendlyness.

It's a bit polarizing, yes, but it clearly works. (Six iterations is enough for a strong majority, if you wonder.)

[Segev]

To extrapolate on this, assuming everyone you convince also has Cha 8 and -1 total modifier to Diplomacy:

First, you get 25% friendly 70% indifferent 5% unfriendly. Sending the friendly people out to convince the indifferent, you get 42,5% friendly 49% indifferent 8,5% unfriendly.
Another iteration gets you to 54,75%/34,3%/10,95%, which is a majority, and 14 iterations down the line you get to less than 1% indifference, 82,52% friendlyness, and 16,5% unfriendlyness.

It's a bit polarizing, yes, but it clearly works. (Six iterations is enough for a strong majority, if you wonder.)

Which goes to show how advertising, even with obnoxious ads, can work!

[Gemini476]

Which goes to show how advertising, even with obnoxious ads, can work!

Yeah, even if you get a sixth of the population to hate you you still get 5/6th of the population to like your product.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yesterday a fellow player ranted a bit about attribute choices. And I feel he meant some of my characters. I play a lot of Charisma casters. But when I don't I just enjoy playing an uncharismatic character. Two choices:

1) Cha 6: My antisocial Tiefling Alchemist was chased by a mob from his home town after someone murdered families and everyone assumed the Tiefling is guilty (he is). Then the Inquisition got wind of him (everywhere he goes an Oni Spirit kills people). I feel Charisma 6 is justified as he not only has lost faith in humanity but his specific heritage makes it hard to socialize (Tiefling but there is the spirit of his ancestor Oni trapped inside him) and his profession isn't requiring a lot of social interaction (I could have easily spent my days crafting in the laboratory since Day 1 of the character creating potions for the group).

2) Cha 8: And this is where I really am unsure. The character in question is a simple huntsman from the mountains (not a Ranger but a Barbarian, just for the twist and guilty pleasure of mine) in the north forced into a war invading the land from the far south. To protect his family he organized a militia defending the cold mountainous areas from the vast army of the "semi-Egyptian" faction marching under what I can only imagine being an Undead Demigod Pharao. He is also a loved husband and father and his main adventuring motivation is to keep his family and friends alive.

I have questions.
Would a Charisma 8 character even have the needed social skills to keep a Militia together in a time of need? With no ranks in skills that support Diplomacy or Intimidate?
Is being a hero (6th level, magical stuff and 25 PB so vastly superior combat prowess in both melee and ranged) enough to fill the role of a leader?
Would you consider him being played as a silent man of few words but a man who helps anyone in need as uncharismatic?
How would you build a good warrior and archer qualifiying for the bow talents, having him be perceptive (Wisdom!), of average Intelligence and being a likeable guy yet a leader by circumstance not by choice or talent?

I am torn between seeing charisma as force of personality (what to do with silent but forceful natures?) or as some sort of presence (making a Cha 8 character blend into the background until he opens his mouth). Most NPC classes without diplomacy and readily built (N)PCs with leadership roles are naturally charismatic so my gut feel tends towards pushing charisma. But it not only has no gameplay benefit (yes being blunt I love my characters having that slight edge without using ressources just so my sheet "looks nice") but I also feel slightly emotionally cold leaders by example should also have their place.

I am personally just pissed that everyone thinks a Wis 8 character is always insane, an Int 8 character is thick as two short planks and a Cha 8 character is the slimiest gutter rat imaginable.

I want to say this up front, so it doesn't get lost: This is a roleplaying opportunity.

First, a charisma 8 character is about as charismatic as your average Half-Orc.
This does not mean they can not rally a group, but they won't be doing it with a winning personality.

So what does he do? Maybe he rubs others the wrong way, but happens to be smart, clever, insightful enough to know what will bring allies over in spite of his failings as a leader.

Or perhaps he's manipulating some prophecy, so it's not him these guys are following, but an idea.
This can go several ways:
1) Those who follow him genuinely think he's the one, but he doesn't, and he's playing a dangerous game trying to get these guys to follow along without realizing the truth. (Maybe the person the prophecy is about is actually dead, and this character knows it)
2) The leadership of those who follow him do not believe he's the one (or know he's not), but follow along because their followers do believe, and it would mean trouble if they didn't play along. Alternatively, flip this such that the leadership is the ones who believe and their followers go along because those guys are charismatic.
3) He believes, they believe, whether the prophecy is true or not is irrelevent. (or remains to be proven)

Maybe he has dirt on various leaders, or knows a way to engineer their loyalty, and they are the charismatic ones who follow out of friendship, duty, or blood oath. There may be mechanical means for determining leadership, like tests of strength, or honor. This would lead to a series of quests to gain the loyalty of the various tribes/factions for the militia.

Lastly, perhaps it's not about your character. He might just happen to be the one who started forming this group, but people join because the cause is worthy, or they have no alternative. (i.e. If it weren't an existential threat, nobody would care).

Remember: Diplomacy is a great way to improve attitudes, and Intimidate is a good way to get people in line, but neither is ever required to actually organize people. That's what roleplaying is for.


Right. And the in-game representation of that is putting points in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, which he said he didn't do. A low CHA character can definitely learn to be a better leader but this guy hasn't. The DM needs to think about each time one of those rolls would be necessary to regularly lead people into life-threatening situations and what-not and keep in mind he's getting -1 to the roll every attempt.

I feel like reputation might get your foot in the door. You still have to sell yourself when they meet you in person.

Saying people automatically hate you is too strong. They are probably just indifferent generally. But to say he's in a significant leadership roll is really pushing it. It seems like you want to use CHA as a dump stat as many people do (unless it's a primary stat) without the penalties that entails. I know someone who loves using STR as a dump stat and then gets annoyed when she finds out that DMs pay attention to encumbrance, especially when the character tries to put on armor.

Heroes of Battle has the rules for the morale checks and so forth necessary (or useful for) motivating people in/before a battle. Even someone with an average (or worse) CHA score can get along if they are good at winning/take few casualties.

[Killer Angel]

The problem for a character with Cha 8, is not to lead the militia, because a 6th level hero will have the authority and the townsfolk will trust its experience.
The problem is when things go bad, 'cause low level soldiers won't follow an uncharismatic leader in the heat of an uncertain fight. The ranks will break.

[Divide by Zero]

Actually, apologies for the pedantry, but a 10.5 is average, so an 8 is as low as a 13 is high. I would say that if everybody hates a guy with 8 CHA, then conversely everybody must love someone with 13 CHA. I can't imagine, then, what people would do for a guy with an 18, or, for that matter, what they'd do to a guy with a 3. :smalleek:

Especially pedantic since there's no mechanical difference between 12 and 13 :smalltongue:

[Drelua]

Especially pedantic since there's no mechanical difference between 12 and 13 :smalltongue:

Sure there is! Feats with ability score prereqs almost always require an odd number. I'm sure there's some feats out there that require 13 charisma. So there. :smalltongue:

Anyway, having an 8 in a stat puts you in about the bottom quarter, going by the probabilities involved in rolling 3d6. So unless a quarter of the population consists of the sort of people that are just automatically hated, well, I think everyone here already gets the idea. Besides, there's a lot more to how likely people are to hate a person than their charisma. If it was as simple as that, then races with a charisma penalty like orcs and dwarves would hate each other more than other races, and drow with their charisma bonus would all get along famously.

I could definitely see an uncharismatic person leading a militia, under the right circumstances. Maybe you trained alongside a lot of these men, and they all know you to be a kind and generous person, as well as a tactical genius. Sure, you're a bit rough around the edges, but any man that gets to know you considers it a privilege to be able to call you a friend. Or, maybe you just inherited a title and the soldiers that came along with it. Either way, being a bit less charismatic than most certainly doesn't make leadership utterly impossible. PR and a good reputation works miracles.

[aleucard]

Sure there is! Feats with ability score prereqs almost always require an odd number. I'm sure there's some feats out there that require 13 charisma. So there. :smalltongue:

Anyway, having an 8 in a stat puts you in about the bottom quarter, going by the probabilities involved in rolling 3d6. So unless a quarter of the population consists of the sort of people that are just automatically hated, well, I think everyone here already gets the idea. Besides, there's a lot more to how likely people are to hate a person than their charisma. If it was as simple as that, then races with a charisma penalty like orcs and dwarves would hate each other more than other races, and drow with their charisma bonus would all get along famously.

I could definitely see an uncharismatic person leading a militia, under the right circumstances. Maybe you trained alongside a lot of these men, and they all know you to be a kind and generous person, as well as a tactical genius. Sure, you're a bit rough around the edges, but any man that gets to know you considers it a privilege to be able to call you a friend. Or, maybe you just inherited a title and the soldiers that came along with it. Either way, being a bit less charismatic than most certainly doesn't make leadership utterly impossible. PR and a good reputation works miracles.

I'm thinking that it's canon for NPC's to have their scores weighted much more heavily towards the middle than usual, thus pushing the chances of finding standard NPC's at Attribute scores further away from 10.5 gets exponentially harder. Obviously, this does not apply to those who have PC class levels rather than NPC levels, due to Adventurers being outliers just by their very nature (and the propensity for needing unusually high Attribute scores in most cases to work best (even if in only 1 or 2 Attributes in some cases), and few things are more Darwinistic in 3.5 than Adventuring), but it would skew the math towards much more predictable levels.

I'm personally amazed at how people on this board seem to think that ability as the leader of a warband is tied this heavily to Charisma and related skills. Personally, aside from possibly things like negotiating (and really, that's the job of politicians, not soldiers) or convincing a squad to follow orders even when they don't make sense from their perspective, the clear winner for Attributes that help Leaders is Intelligence, with Wisdom being second. Tactics, strategy, logistics, and organization are all primarily reliant on a person's brain-power (represented in 3.5 as Int), while understanding someone's motives and predicting their next action is the purview of Wisdom (this being instincts). Charisma may get you in the seat, but it does very little by comparison to help you maintain it, even from your own troops if you screw up too often.

[VoxRationis]

I don't think anyone is saying that Charisma and Charisma alone is what a leader needs. But the ability to persuade others and rally them behind you is crucial. Without Charisma, you might not—probably won't, even—get the chance to screw up in a leadership role.

[Daishain]

All a low charisma really means, (on it own) is that you personally are bad at convincing others to change their viewpoint of you. It has no bearing on their own judgement of your character and actions. (discounting the increased probability of mishaps, a flubbed diplomacy roll where you verbally insult everyone in range is likely to cause issues)

A competent individual that contributes to a community will in general gain respect and admiration from the people of that community. He would gain both more quickly if he didn't stu-stu-stutter every time he opened his mouth, but he would still gain it. Likewise, a fool or a known blackguard (no, I don't mean the PrC) is going to have an increasingly difficult time talking his way into the good graces of others, regardless of how silvertongued he may be.

Speaking from personal real life experience, the best leaders often have zilch in the way of charisma. People who choose leaders based on their voice often find that said voice is the only thing said leader has bothered cultivating.

[Spore]

I don't think anyone is saying that Charisma and Charisma alone is what a leader needs. But the ability to persuade others and rally them behind you is crucial. Without Charisma, you might not—probably won't, even—get the chance to screw up in a leadership role.

That's the main point. Being in charge is no such thing as a Cha check. But becoming the guy in charge is a different matter.

Some further insight on how I thought this should've happened. We have our heroes' homeland, a rugged mountainous landscape full of snowy passes, dangerous wild life and disorienting travelling ways (you can't just go north in the mountains, even if your destination is there, things called mountains are in the way). I thought the hero and a few of his most loyal friends help him setting up several ambushes just killing the armies' spies and scouts since the main attack is actually happening a few hundred miles south and we're only just blinding the enemies' scouting abilities that they'll never find the small community in the mountains.

After some time the enemy grows weary of the constant meddling with their scouts and carpet bomb the place (airships are a thing in the setting) forcing the populace to unite and flee or perish. The hero guides the remaining community through the harsh winter of the mountains to join up with the defending army. There, an army officer convinces the men in arms to join their forces in exchange for safety and lodging of their loved ones. The hero isn't exactly in charge but he will veto any and all missions that will likely kill his militia guys because of the lack of training.

I don't see where I should apply Charisma and social skills here?
a) To keep people from running off into the wilderness while travelling? Seriously if you have ever been hiking, this is a stupid area to run from your guide. Even in the summer times without wild animals wanting to eat you. He can be an ass-hat all he wants.

b) For organizing a militia? Fair enough but maybe the people should just listen to the guy who is - by virtue of storytelling - the best tracker and spotter in the whole damn village? I take your Diplomacy roll and substitute Perception and Survival. You wouldn't go against the guy who just brought a goat to feed your family would you? The guy who spotted the chasm you nearly fell in?

c) For asking your friends to join the army to protect your family? That's entirely their choice. The hero just takes care of the guys who do this.

[VoxRationis]

You seem an optimistic sort, to think that people are so reasonable. People are difficult to rope into even positions of common good. To convince a village that action needs to be taken regarding an impending invasion is no difficult feat. To convince them all that a particular action needs to be taken, and under your command? Difficult. Many risk being thought of as bossy, arousing ire with no gain from the endeavor (and no, not just women). Others will just disagree with your ideas and decide that their plan for dealing with the situation will suit the village, or at least their family, better.

[Extra Anchovies]

You seem an optimistic sort, to think that people are so reasonable. People are difficult to rope into even positions of common good. To convince a village that action needs to be taken regarding an impending invasion is no difficult feat. To convince them all that a particular action needs to be taken, and under your command? Difficult. Many risk being thought of as bossy, arousing ire with no gain from the endeavor (and no, not just women). Others will just disagree with your ideas and decide that their plan for dealing with the situation will suit the village, or at least their family, better.

Exactly. And all of those situations are solved not by application of a Charisma score but by application of good roleplaying. In an actual game of D&D, the latter should count for more than the former.

[VoxRationis]

Did I say that roleplaying is irrelevant to the situation? No. I did, however, say, that a character's statistics relating to an aspect of the game can limit what they can do, to an extent that roleplaying will be hard-pressed to rectify the matter. Will describing neatly what elegant fencing maneuvers you do override a poor Strength or Dexterity and a Base Attack Bonus of +0? No. So why will a lot of pretty words override the fact that you dumped Charisma?

[Spore]

Exactly. And all of those situations are solved not by application of a Charisma score but by application of good roleplaying. In an actual game of D&D, the latter should count for more than the former.

Then to extend the use of that thread I would ask you how you would argue in that situation. Social interactions (particularly with NPCs) aren't my forte as I am quite cold and calculating myself instead of a people person.

Problems:
- the actual war is far far away. It would need MONTHS for the war to come closer. So it is hard to convince people to move to the closest fortified city.
- the most likely place to be convinced should be a mayor or a counsel of elders.
- even if those elders would've been convinced they cannot force people to act accordingly