Who would you want to lead your party?

[(Un)Inspired]

I you were a character in a Dungeons and Dragons game what sort of fellow or gal would you want leading your team and why?

No nominating yourself for party leader, I want to hear what sort of character you'd most want to follow into battle and the like.

I think I'd like to be lead by a non-deistic cleric. Someone who was religiously devoted to knowledge or understanding or language or community.

They'd have a high wis so hopefully they'd be making sound decisions for us, they'd have a good amount of magic to keep themselves alive(I don't want to be part of a group who's leader is kaput), They could divine insight themselves into being a good face for our group, and hopefully their lack of a deity would prevent dogmatic chicanery from occurring.

Who would you choose for your party leader?

[Honest Tiefling]

Someone very large I can hide behind, who is very observant and brave. So I don't have to be. Presumably one who could also fight on his own without me, that'll be fantastic. I'll give moral support.

[Hamste]

Elminster

...if an epic level spell caster that is hooked up with the goddess of magic is out the question then a kender. We wouldn't get much done but I'm sure it would be good for a few chuckles.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Some kind of melee-focused DMM:Persist cleric or similarly beefy and attention-grabbing guy probably. Good-aligned of course. I'm allergic to claws/teeth/swords to the face.

Alternatively, someone who is unlikely to lead us into dangerous dungeons and other life threatening trouble. I'll be quite content getting my experience on CR -4 enemies and roleplaying experience, even if it takes longer.

For myself, a wizard sounds good. BFC/God of course. Gishing requires getting close to things that will hurt you. :smalltongue:


Someone very large I can hide behind, who is very observant and brave. So I don't have to be. Presumably one who could also fight on his own without me, that'll be fantastic. I'll give moral support.

So you'll be the bard?

[(Un)Inspired]

Someone very large I can hide behind, who is very observant and brave. So I don't have to be. Presumably one who could also fight on his own without me, that'll be fantastic. I'll give moral support.

A cleric perhaps...?

[atemu1234]

A good leader. Everything else is irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

Someone more moral, merciful/tolerant, and wise than I. Paladins can fit that glove and usually only fail that 2nd criteria.

[Ssalarn]

Someone whose entire build is basically (non-betrayal) teamwork feats. Not only do I know he's a team player, but chances are good he needs me around to keep doing his thing, so hopefully he'll be less likely to do something that unnecessarily threatens my well-being. Bonus points if he can heal my wounds.

[Falcos]

Someone with Knowledge Devotion.

No crunch reason, but someone who is devoted to knowledge, regardless of alignment, is exactly who I want to stand next to/follow.

[SiuiS]

Dogmatic chicanery is a property of humans, any reason given for dogmatic chicanery is simply that particular human's justification. Good luck avoidig dogma from someone who has a literal mystic pipeline to knowledge that gives them factual power.

I would prefer a paladin. They are the exact sort of creature I could support; able to empathize with everyone, a person with convictions and fervor, a person devoted to protecting the downtrodden, to rooting out evil, and to standing for and by what they believe in – and believing in something that has actual and philosophical relevance in everyone's lives. A paladin must be both wise and charismatic. A cleric recieves power to press an agenda. A paladin receives power to uphold the sanctity of life and goodness in all forms, be they just.

Plus, there's a lot to be said for the total trust one has in a person who utterly refuses to lie, prevaricate or dissemble.

[ranagrande]

An Apostle of Peace.

[Flickerdart]

Party leaders are an obsolete classist construct designed to stifle and subjugate the proletariat. My party would be an anarcho-syndicalist union with all issues settled through direct representation debates.

[Falcos]

Party leaders are an obsolete classist construct designed to stifle and subjugate the proletariat. My party would be an anarcho-syndicalist union with all issues settled through direct representation debates.

I'm wondering how this would look.

*Party facing dragon*

Crusader: Charge!

Flickerdart: Now now, I think we should have a debate with even sides for and against charging first.

[Bonzai]

Ultimately I find it comes down more to the players behind the characters than the characters themselves. If a player wallflowers and doesn't role play much, their characters tend not to be the leader, regardless of class or background. Those who get involved and immerse themselves in the roles tend to get the story to evolve more around them.

[Flickerdart]

I'm wondering how this would look.

*Party facing dragon*

Crusader: Charge!

Flickerdart: Now now, I think we should have a debate with even sides for and against charging first.
Flickerdart's Soviet of Adventurers is not an aggressor and condemns the unilateral violence manifest in the dragonist system.

[Falcos]

Flickerdart's Soviet of Adventurers is not an aggressor and condemns the unilateral violence manifest in the dragonist system.

In Soviet of Adventurers, dart flickers you?

Or the dragon eats you. Either way.

[Flickerdart]

Or the dragon eats you. Either way.
Now, now - the Soviet of Adventurers is prepared to defend itself from reactionary elements. All dragons are required to distribute their treasure to the Soviet and become members of the Party, or be condemned for their counter-revolutionary tendencies.

[Falcos]

...Is it bad that, when I see your avatar on a thread, my expectations jump up several notches?

[Flickerdart]

...Is it bad that, when I see your avatar on a thread, my expectations jump up several notches?
It's bad that you browse the forums other than through Member List > Flickerdart > My Activity.

[Barbarian Horde]

Diplomancer

[Deophaun]

Someone with a negative Charisma modifier.

Because if I'm still following them after they've accidentally insulted me for the twentieth time this morning and offended my senses with their lack of hygiene, it's because they know what the heck they're doing.

[Flickerdart]

accidentally
If they've managed to convince you it was an accident even after the twentieth time, they have a really, really high CHA modifier.

[HighWater]

In Soviet of Adventurers, dart flickers you?

Or the dragon eats you. Either way.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[Deophaun]

If they've managed to convince you it was an accident even after the twentieth time, they have a really, really high CHA modifier.
Only if he gets the girl. Which is the other perk of having a low-Cha leader.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Someone inspirational, someone with a knowledge of tactics, someone with a strong sense of loyalty and fair play, at least within his organization/party; someone with a strong set of core values to give direction of where to go when the local quests have dried up, someone who isn't going to screw us with pro bono work unless there's some angle, such as building up ties with a community we'll be working with/in; someone who understands the role of magic in achieving victory even if they don't wield it themselves, someone with really good mental ability scores all around...

So I suppose something like an A-Game Paladin or properly built Bard(blade/sader) or Wizard who has a good Wis and Cha and invested skill points and has a negotiator in the party or as a cohort or White Raven Crusader/Warblade with good mentals who has a magical advisor in the party or as a cohort.

Granted, I am a bit biased because of having read this (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9963.0).

[Red Fel]

Someone who can delegate.

Now, that sounds simple, but let me break down what that means to me: The leader knows the abilities, strengths, and weaknesses of each party member. The leader can see how those strengths and weaknesses overlap and interact. The leader has the foresight to plan group tactics based on each member's abilities. The leader trusts each party member (as much as deserved) enough to let them do their jobs without micromanaging. The leader has the tact to communicate what needs to be done without commanding or speaking down to anybody, and the clarity to communicate what needs to be done with a minimum of misunderstanding.
A man who can do that can plan my castle onslaught any day.

[(Un)Inspired]

Dogmatic chicanery is a property of humans, any reason given for dogmatic chicanery is simply that particular human's justification. Good luck avoidig dogma from someone who has a literal mystic pipeline to knowledge that gives them factual power.

I would prefer a paladin. They are the exact sort of creature I could support; able to empathize with everyone, a person with convictions and fervor, a person devoted to protecting the downtrodden, to rooting out evil, and to standing for and by what they believe in – and believing in something that has actual and philosophical relevance in everyone's lives. A paladin must be both wise and charismatic. A cleric recieves power to press an agenda. A paladin receives power to uphold the sanctity of life and goodness in all forms, be they just.

Plus, there's a lot to be said for the total trust one has in a person who utterly refuses to lie, prevaricate or dissemble.

You make a good argument for paladin but I'm not necessarily in agreement with you characterization of a cleric of knowledge.

I see a cleric of knowledge as having a pervasive Socratic, or even better skeptic, ignorance. They chase justified true belief even though it's probably out of their reach.

Kind of like a questing for Nirvana knowing that you won't break free from life after this lifetime.


Flickerdart's Soviet of Adventurers is not an aggressor and condemns the unilateral violence manifest in the dragonist system.

Well now I want Chairman Flickerdart as my party leader.

[Oddman80]

Class is unimportant.
Neutral Good Alignment
High wisdom > charisma >constitution

Wisdom is most important, charisma a close second. You need to have the ability to convey your ideas verbally AND emotionally in an effective manner in order to get people to listen to,understand, and follow that leadership.

It would need to be someone who is unafraid to be in the front lines, but does not need to be the best fighter or do the most damage - just always showing that he/she is willing to take the same risks that you and your comrades are being asked to take.

[JBPuffin]

Well, according to some tests, I'm a Neutral(Lawful) Good person, so anyone who's Evil or strongly Chaotic is out. Even Good Wizards and high level spellcasters have their rough days, and Paladins can be rather rough around the edges, so...

I'd go with a paragon of Neutral Good Ranger with two-weapon. He can do some healing if his fellows get in danger, is willing to put himself on the line for his associates, and will act in the interests of our alignment - namely, Good. I would probably be a mid-low-op cleric, focusing on Turn Undead, Evocation, healing and buffs (no real focus), and swinging around a mace and shield, so I'd be right behind/ahead of him.

Basically, I follow someone who shares my alignment, leads from the front and isn't afraid to give and take help. Neutral Good Ranger stands out, others apply as they fit.

Edit: or, in other words, what Oddman80 said.

[Falcos]

Well now I want Chairman Flickerdart as my party leader.

Is it too late to change my answer?

[Honest Tiefling]

A cleric perhaps...?

Is it too late to change my answer to a cleric BEHIND Elminster? Hamste is up to something, here. I do wonder how I'd do as the cohort of a cleric with leadership. Probably end up carrying all of their stuff.

[YossarianLives]

Definitely somebody with good charisma, intelligence, and constitution. Wisdom would be nice too. Hopefully a leader who is kind and respectful. A paladin would probably be nice. I also need somebody who doesn't force me into combat. If I were actually a adventurer I would be the quiet scholar/wizard at the back providing support and knowledge so I'd want a meatshield in front of me.

[Malroth]

Someone with a nat 18 INT, The Prodigy template, from a +INT race preferably with a +3 age bonus stacked on top, I Know everyone here likes the comfort following a priest can give but I myself prefer the rational thought that brought us out of the bronze ages.

[The Grue]

Admiral Ackbar.

He can Detect Traps.

[(Un)Inspired]

Someone with a nat 18 INT, The Prodigy template, from a +INT race preferably with a +3 age bonus stacked on top, I Know everyone here likes the comfort following a priest can give but I myself prefer the rational thought that brought us out of the bronze ages.

I could be mis-characterizing but int does not a good leader make. At least on its own. A cleric doesn't need to be a priest. Think Marcus Aurelius. A high Wis a Philosopher king is the way to go.


Admiral Ackbar.

He can Detect Traps.

He sorta leads the Rebs into a trap. He's kinda like a rogue who warns the party a door is trapped after it's already been activated.

[Flickerdart]

Class is unimportant.
Comrade no, class struggle is the foundation of the glorious revolution.

[atemu1234]

Comrade no, class struggle is the foundation of the glorious revolution.

Trying to find a way to fuse the words melee and proletariat now.

[Coidzor]

I could be mis-characterizing but int does not a good leader make. At least on its own. A cleric doesn't need to be a priest. Think Marcus Aurelius. A high Wis a Philosopher king is the way to go.

Gotta have a bit of everything mentally, Int to understand, Wis to decide what's best, and Cha to actually get people to want to follow.

Int and Wis being higher to better determine the quality of leadership decisions and then Wis to some extent and Cha to a greater one to better determine the ability to get others to follow, I think.

[Flickerdart]

A leader doesn't need to be particularly intelligent or wise on his own - he just needs the common sense to take the counsel of wiser men than he, and the social presence to see that advice carried out by underlings. Delegation is the name of the game!

This is why strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for government.

[Sam K]

Well now I want Chairman Flickerdart as my party leader.

The party should have no leader, just a chairman first among equals. Also, we must do away with the term "dungeon"; they are re-education camps!

I think I'd want an archivist or mystic theurge, because they need both int and wis. In-combat leadership does require int because in combat situations, you can't always defer to the smart guy to make the calls. Also, since this is a D&D (peoples) party, the leader needs int to be able to figure out the mechanics of the world. Otherwise you end up with things like "I hired a sword and board fighter to be our tank". Wisdom is also an obvious requirement in order to be able to make good decisions.

All things considered, I think I'll pick archivist. I'll be CoDzillaing it up (well, either that or divine bard), and so I could supply our glorious peoples chairman with scrolls in exchange for being tasked with the responsibility of wealth re-distribution.

[tadkins]

Into battle? I second the melee cleric idea that's been suggested.

I would also follow someone with a skilled tongue and good social skills. Someone that could prevent battles with words.

[(Un)Inspired]

Into battle? I second the melee cleric idea that's been suggested.

I would also follow someone with a skilled tongue and good social skills. Someone that could prevent battles with words.

I wasted a long period of my life spending time with someone who had a skilled tongue.

[WeaselGuy]

He sorta leads the Rebs into a trap. He's kinda like a rogue who warns the party a door is trapped after it's already been activated.
More like the Barbarian Trap-Finder, aka, detect the traps with his high hit points...


Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
I'm dying reading this, my LT thinks I'm crazy...


It's bad that you browse the forums other than through Member List > Flickerdart > My Activity.
If that's not sig-worthy, I don't know what is.

[tadkins]

I wasted a long period of my life spending time with someone who had a skilled tongue.

I can't tell if this is innuendo or not. xD

[(Un)Inspired]

I can't tell if this is innuendo or not. xD

Ha-Hah! My signature style: confusing.

[tadkins]

Ha-Hah! My signature style: confusing.

Rofl.

On a side note, you live in LA? We're not too far from each other.

[SiuiS]

Someone with a nat 18 INT, The Prodigy template, from a +INT race preferably with a +3 age bonus stacked on top, I Know everyone here likes the comfort following a priest can give but I myself prefer the rational thought that brought us out of the bronze ages.

You're confusing processing power with the discernment to use it well. High intelligence will tell you how to formulate an acid that can create an appropriate hole of depth and width only sufficient to allow egress; a high wisdom will allow them to determine if the wall even needs to be bypassed and how to find a door instead of trying to brute force through it.

It's all relevance and context. A very intelligently laid out fact doesn't always apply to the situation regardless of how intelligent that fact is. Look at every Internet argument: plenty of intelligence, very little discretion – wisdom.


A leader doesn't need to be particularly intelligent or wise on his own - he just needs the common sense to take the counsel of wiser men than he, and the social presence to see that advice carried out by underlings. Delegation is the name of the game!

This is why strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for government.

You've described wisdom there, actually.

Swords being lobbed that a they wisdom may indeed be a bad way of discovering who has the common sense to be a good leader though. Brain damage and all.

[(Un)Inspired]

Rofl.

On a side note, you live in LA? We're not too far from each other.

Awesome! I live near the boarder of LA and Santa Monica. How good of luck do you have finding games to play? I can't find a 3.5 game anywhere West of Pasadena.

[tadkins]

Awesome! I live near the boarder of LA and Santa Monica. How good of luck do you have finding games to play? I can't find a 3.5 game anywhere West of Pasadena.

Baldwin Park here. :)

I've never had any luck here either. Never actually played a D&D game in person, thank goodness for the internet.

[(Un)Inspired]

Baldwin Park here. :)

I've never had any luck here either. Never actually played a D&D game in person, thank goodness for the internet.

Oh nice! I think my dad lived in West Covina years ago; although I just moved to Southern California for further education a year and a half ago.

[tadkins]

Oh nice! I think my dad lived in West Covina years ago; although I just moved to Southern California for further education a year and a half ago.

Ah, awesome. I'm just about right at the border of West Covina.

Are you actually looking for a game?

[Coidzor]

You've described wisdom there, actually.

Sort of the difference between a 12-15 and an 18-20 at first level, I'd think.


I can't tell if this is innuendo or not. xD

I can't tell how it could be anything other than a relatively direct allusion to human sexuality. :smallconfused:

[Grim Portent]

I may be unusual, but I'd prefer to be lead by a LE frontline combatant of some sort. Someone skilled with a blade and with at least some magical capability and charisma.

One with an emphasis on the L aspects of their personality rather than the E ones (that's what I'm for). Dedicated to efficiency, strong governance and the systematic spread of our ideology by whatever means will prove most effective without suffering moral qualms.

Meanwhile I'd be some sort of full caster, (Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge perhaps) advising, counseling and seeking immortality for my lord and myself. It takes time to grow a good vizier moustache after all.

[mvpmack]

I agree with some people in that it comes down a lot to the player behind the character.

The best alignment is Neutral, followed by Neutral Evil. No other alignments are desirable. In order after that though: Neutral Good, Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Good. If there are any CN or CE party members, kill them and get new ones.

A Neutral/Neutral Evil party leader will always put party survival first. One might think that a Neutral Evil person might sacrifice a team member to achieve an objective, but I can, as a person who identifies strongly with the alignment, say this is untrue. There is no situation I am likely to encounter where losing a loyal PC-caliber ally is worth the encounter's treasure. I don't care if he's a Paladin or some other annoying brat, if he's loyal (CN and CE are not loyal, ever) he is worth more to me than any treasure. And honestly, if the situation ever comes between "sacrifice the party to become a god," something will probably turn up to keep the NE guy from sacrificing the party anyway (okay, I did get away with it once, but I got to keep my actually loyal LE monk so who cares about those good guys).

But seriously, the #1 important aspect of a leader is the willingness to keep the party safe. No risky moves, no charging before it's time. Civillians die, who cares if we're alive and are now armed with the tools we need to stop the "bad guys." Their sacrifice will be remembered forever in the Paladin's heart. I'm not throwing my life away because my Neutral Good cleric leader decided that he had to get involved.

No cause can interfere with this clause. Nature isn't worth protecting over the party, and neither are civillians nor entire other planes of existence.

#2 is the intelligence and knowledge needed to plan for the party. A leader that can't plan is not a leader. A leader doesn't have to be a face; he has to be a leader. Good wisdom helps but nobody RPs wisdom over 10 anyway (it's basically impossible unless the player has the stats IRL) so we can ignore it as long as the player didn't dump the stat (people do RP wisdom under 10).

A leader does need to take his team into consideration. That does mean he needs to be democratic and encourage party input. If the leader's ideas really are the best, he can back them up with good reasoning.

Ethics aren't important for decision-making. An Evil character can make a Good decision if the Good decision helps the party. A Good character can't make an Evil decision even if it's the best choice. By putting N or NE in charge, you retain the option of not doing good if it will hurt the party, and you can put some spin on it to make it seem like the lesser of two evils ("Either the town dies or we die, and if we die then the town and the entire surrounding area dies.") Also, an evil character can make evil decisions on an individual basis and not involve the good characters in order to achieve a good outcome.

[Judge_Worm]

A lawful neutral person with high wis. Preferably a construct.

Someone who is truly lawful will not err in their judgement or if they do, will recognize their mistake and plan a course of action to correct it. If someone is evil they will ultimately only look out for themselves (even if a diabolist is capable of working with the group and putting the party high up on priority level, and they still understand discipline and honor, they won't flinch to rip off the party and take it all for themselves). If they're good then they will muddy up their logic and directions with petty morals and foolish acts of selflessness. Which is not what we need, a leader willing to sacrifice themselves is a leader willing to leave the party leaderless.

So, an Inevitable cleric is the perfect leader for me.

[Sewercop]

I agree with some people in that it comes down a lot to the player behind the character.

The best alignment is Neutral, followed by Neutral Evil. No other alignments are desirable. In order after that though: Neutral Good, Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Good. If there are any CN or CE party members, kill them and get new ones.

A Neutral/Neutral Evil party leader will always put party survival first. One might think that a Neutral Evil person might sacrifice a team member to achieve an objective, but I can, as a person who identifies strongly with the alignment, say this is untrue. There is no situation I am likely to encounter where losing a loyal PC-caliber ally is worth the encounter's treasure. I don't care if he's a Paladin or some other annoying brat, if he's loyal (CN and CE are not loyal, ever) he is worth more to me than any treasure. And honestly, if the situation ever comes between "sacrifice the party to become a god," something will probably turn up to keep the NE guy from sacrificing the party anyway (okay, I did get away with it once, but I got to keep my actually loyal LE monk so who cares about those good guys).

But seriously, the #1 important aspect of a leader is the willingness to keep the party safe. No risky moves, no charging before it's time. Civillians die, who cares if we're alive and are now armed with the tools we need to stop the "bad guys." Their sacrifice will be remembered forever in the Paladin's heart. I'm not throwing my life away because my Neutral Good cleric leader decided that he had to get involved.

No cause can interfere with this clause. Nature isn't worth protecting over the party, and neither are civillians nor entire other planes of existence.

#2 is the intelligence and knowledge needed to plan for the party. A leader that can't plan is not a leader. A leader doesn't have to be a face; he has to be a leader. Good wisdom helps but nobody RPs wisdom over 10 anyway (it's basically impossible unless the player has the stats IRL) so we can ignore it as long as the player didn't dump the stat (people do RP wisdom under 10).

A leader does need to take his team into consideration. That does mean he needs to be democratic and encourage party input. If the leader's ideas really are the best, he can back them up with good reasoning.

Ethics aren't important for decision-making. An Evil character can make a Good decision if the Good decision helps the party. A Good character can't make an Evil decision even if it's the best choice. By putting N or NE in charge, you retain the option of not doing good if it will hurt the party, and you can put some spin on it to make it seem like the lesser of two evils ("Either the town dies or we die, and if we die then the town and the entire surrounding area dies.") Also, an evil character can make evil decisions on an individual basis and not involve the good characters in order to achieve a good outcome.


Mostly this, but I would add the ability to identify troublemakers and the ability to get rid of them.
If they are chaotic, aspiring leaders, do gooders who refuse to act on the parties behalf, gloryseekers etc. Get rid of them as fast as possible. They are like a disease that spreads.

Neutral Evil, Neutral, is what im most likely to follow. A leader that knows what he needs and understands what other brings to the table. If he cant divine himself, he gets one that can. If he cant cast spells, he gets one that can. If he cant fight he gets one that can. But above all, he would never enter into combat without a contingency. Be it social combat, mercantile sculkery or whatever.

A guy thats a better leader than myself i would follow if it was d&d. But throw moral out the window

[Flickerdart]

Sort of the difference between a 12-15 and an 18-20 at first level, I'd think.
You really don't need 15 Wisdom to say "this guy is smarter than me, I will ask his advice." I think anything above 6 Wisdom is probably sufficient for that.

[Ssalarn]

A lawful neutral person with high wis. Preferably a construct.

Someone who is truly lawful will not err in their judgement or if they do, will recognize their mistake and plan a course of action to correct it. If someone is evil they will ultimately only look out for themselves (even if a diabolist is capable of working with the group and putting the party high up on priority level, and they still understand discipline and honor, they won't flinch to rip off the party and take it all for themselves). If they're good then they will muddy up their logic and directions with petty morals and foolish acts of selflessness. Which is not what we need, a leader willing to sacrifice themselves is a leader willing to leave the party leaderless.

***

Is it just me or did someone just vote Skynet for party leader?

[(Un)Inspired]

Is it just me or did someone just vote Skynet for party leader?

I don't think I'd vote for skynet. He's basically running on a "terminate all humans" platform and it's a campaign promise he just can't seem to keep.

[GreyBlack]

Eric Cartman.

No, seriously. I would want an intensely charismatic person with both the survival desire to get out of any situation and the ability to make tough decisions the rest of the party can't make. While able to trick you with buffoonery, also be fiercely intelligent (Cartman can speak German and Spanish, remember). Also, someone who shares my undying hatred of hippies helps.

[Flickerdart]

Knowing more languages is not a sign of intelligence. Even in D&D terms where any Int 3 moron could take Speak language ranks.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Party leaders are an obsolete classist construct designed to stifle and subjugate the proletariat. My party would be an anarcho-syndicalist union with all issues settled through direct representation debates.

Supreme executive power if derived from a mandate of the masses. All decision have to be ratified at a bi-weekly meeting.

[Coidzor]

You really don't need 15 Wisdom to say "this guy is smarter than me, I will ask his advice." I think anything above 6 Wisdom is probably sufficient for that.

A 15 is rather generous but it's more the dividing line between "nice" and "my build is based upon this ability score's use." Which I place at 16. Because barring some form of exotic ability score generation or piss poor luck, it's 16 in one's primary ability score or go home.


Is it just me or did someone just vote Skynet for party leader?

Nah. Skynet's both Evil and mentally deficient. Terrible leader, 1/10, would not work as an android death enforcer for again.


Eric Cartman.

No, seriously. I would want an intensely charismatic person with both the survival desire to get out of any situation and the ability to make tough decisions the rest of the party can't make. While able to trick you with buffoonery, also be fiercely intelligent (Cartman can speak German and Spanish, remember). Also, someone who shares my undying hatred of hippies helps.

Well, he is a Paladin of sorts, I suppose. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?194888-d20r-Eric-Cartman-Mantle-Paladin)

I'd prefer following a leader who was *less* liable to sacrifice or doublecross me, though. Also, someone more personally pleasant to interact with.

[(Un)Inspired]

Supreme executive power if derived from a mandate of the masses. All decision have to be ratified at a bi-weekly meeting.

Now, how do GULAGs factor into this regime?

[Seto]

Not to derail this thread, but out of curiosity : do you actually have a party leader in your groups ? I never have had one. I wonder how it would change the game.

[Ssalarn]

Not to derail this thread, but out of curiosity : do you actually have a party leader in your groups ? I never have had one. I wonder how it would change the game.

I've found that in some groups, it is a necessity, even if "party leader" just means your vote always wins in a tie and you carry the loot until it's time to divvy up. Sometimes there just has to be an organizing and driving force to keep a game on track.

Sometimes no one gets named party leader but someone rises to the role naturally and serves the function whether everyone realizes that's what happening or not. This is pretty common in organized play like Pathfinder Society, in my experience.

In a couple of the best groups I've had, there was no need for a party leader because everyone was on the same page and usually if someone had a good idea, everyone else agreed and acted on it, and sometimes the group follows a not-very-good suggestion because they trust each other and things tend to have a way of working out.

So, the direct answer to your question... Yeah, probably about 2/3 of the groups in games I am playing or have played in have a party leader. All of the ones that lasted more than a couple months had one.

[Honest Tiefling]

Not to derail this thread, but out of curiosity : do you actually have a party leader in your groups ? I never have had one. I wonder how it would change the game.

Of course there is a party leader! It is just that everyone thinks they are the best suited to be the party leader.

[Vhaidara]

Usually the Face ends up getting trusted as the leader, in my experience, because they have to make the most on-the-spot determinations of party opinion.

My groups usually have a face leader and a "warleader". Face leader does the talking, after figuring out what everyone wants said. Warleader is the strategic expert.

As a note: How suicidal is it that I want Red Fel as my party leader?

[Honest Tiefling]

Terribly. Why would you want an aspiring evil overlord to be your party leader? I disagree with wanting to follow LE...I want to follow LN so they don't throw me onto traps to disarm them.

[Grim Portent]

Terribly. Why would you want an aspiring evil overlord to be your party leader? I disagree with wanting to follow LE...I want to follow LN so they don't throw me onto traps to disarm them.

If a LE person were to throw you onto a trap that would imply that you're worth less to them than a summoned monkey. Are you a level 1 Commoner or merely mistrusting? Because anyone with a PC class level is an asset not to be wasted lightly and it is far better to encourage efficient and loyal conduct among one's underlings and allies than fear and doubt.

[Hiro Quester]

A well built buffer/battlefield control Bard/Sublime Chord. True Neutral. Ruthlessly pragmatic, but fiercely loyal to their party members.

Someone with diplomacy and charisma, who specializes in making everyone else better at what they do, and who has enough wisdom to see what needs to be done, and enough intelligence to strategize.

and who Has Melodic Casting so can use a perform check to Concentrate in the thick of battle, and to use loud singing, perform (horn) etc. to call to arms, change the rhythm of battle, etc.

A good bard specializes in making others better at what they do: They can determine:
who best to give extra temporary hit points (Inspire Greatness),
who to give skill boost to (inspire competence),
when to give everyone a bonus to hit (Inspire courage) or extra dice damage (Dragonfire Inspiration).
when to haste the group,
when to cast grease or glitterdust or Black Tentacles at the enemies.

And a bard like that can be someone with enough versatility to be able to step in and fill any role that the party composition and situation require.
Need more melee? I'll start a Snowflake Wardance, cast Sirine's Grace and jump in;
Party arcane caster has been grappled? I'll Disintegrate or Dominate the one grappling him;
Need healing when the Cleric can't get there? I'll be right there with my CMW or my scroll of Heal.

[ZamielVanWeber]

As a note: How suicidal is it that I want Red Fel as my party leader?

I'd take levels in Death Master to have Red Fel as my party leader.

Also a cleric would be my chosen party leader. Strong (enough [he can fix it with magic]), wise, and at least a little charismatic.

[Xelbiuj]

Chaotic good band & legendary captain

[Red Fel]

As a note: How suicidal is it that I want Red Fel as my party leader?

Not suicidal at all. I find my minions are usually far more useful to me alive than dead (or Undead, for that matter).

Usually.


Terribly. Why would you want an aspiring evil overlord to be your party leader?

... "Aspiring?"


I'd take levels in Death Master to have Red Fel as my party leader.

Now, when I said "usually..."

[Honest Tiefling]

You're aspiring so I am not accessory to anything I don't want to know about. I think there's another trait you'd want in a leader, a decent bluff score.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Not suicidal at all. I find my minions are usually far more useful to me alive than dead (or Undead, for that matter).
Now, when I said "usually..."

It's agreed then. I am a Death Master in service of Red Fel.

[SiuiS]

I agree with some people in that it comes down a lot to the player behind the character.


Forest & trees. [i]There is no player behind the character.[/quote] the question is what traits do you want your real life leader to have if this were a world like D&D. Saying it depends on the player is like saying it depends on who is mind-controlling them. That's a terrible trait to work with – if that's true then pick the mind controller as your leader, not his puppet.


You really don't need 15 Wisdom to say "this guy is smarter than me, I will ask his advice." I think anything above 6 Wisdom is probably sufficient for that.

We both know that's not true at all. Wisdom six isn't enough to recognize your own faults. That's the biggest issue with wizards. It all comes down to equations and hubris. The more intelligent you are the more confident I. Your own ability. Wisdom commensurate with your intelligence gives you the perspective to equally value the decisions (not capabilities) of others. I sincerely doubt someone with a wisdom of six and a commensurate intelligence would make a good leader in any possible sense.

Unless you want to believe a system of proletariat rule could allow one leader to be a vehicle for an ideology. I which case the ideology is the leader and you've stepped from D&D territory clear to Mage: the awakening.


I don't think I'd vote for skynet. He's basically running on a "terminate all humans" platform and it's a campaign promise he just can't seem to keep.

Why would to follow someone who successfully killed all humans?


Not to derail this thread, but out of curiosity : do you actually have a party leader in your groups ? I never have had one. I wonder how it would change the game.

Yes. Someone is always going to be more forceful and others are always going to either clash and resolve things down to one person (even temporarily) or let that one person do the pushing. Having a party leader means the leader isn't just the person with the most neuralgia to swing around the room, metaphorically.


You're aspiring so I am not accessory to anything I don't want to know about. I think there's another trait you'd want in a leader, a decent bluff score.

I find the idea someone would rather blindly follow a wicked lair than a straight shooting upholder of virtue to be rather unsettling.

[Judge_Worm]

Is it just me or did someone just vote Skynet for party leader?

I had three replies to this and couldn't pick one. So I decided to post all three.
Yeah, Sean Conner isn't working out too well.
Friend computer is your friend.
I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that.

[Honest Tiefling]

I find the idea someone would rather blindly follow a wicked lair than a straight shooting upholder of virtue to be rather unsettling.

Why does a decent bluff score instantly mean that they are wicked? I mean, a good bluff score means never having to say you're sorry nor having to explain exactly what you are doing. "You don't understand! I really need to get into this party and speak with the extremely attractive noble for good and virtuous reasons!"

[Flickerdart]

We both know that's not true at all. Wisdom six isn't enough to recognize your own faults
We "both know" nothing of the sort. You don't need to recognize your own faults to be aware of having them, in a general sense, and also be aware that your friends are more than willing to point out these problem areas if you'd just ask.

[(Un)Inspired]

Why would to follow someone who successfully killed all humans?

SiuiS, I'm just so tied of politicians who fail to keep their campaign promises. If Skynet was able to terminate all humans then how could I not vote for it?

A politician who sticks to its guns and never forgets ( to terminate) the little guy? Show me where to sign.

[Red Fel]

Why does a decent bluff score instantly mean that they are wicked? I mean, a good bluff score means never having to say you're sorry nor having to explain exactly what you are doing. "You don't understand! I really need to get into this party and speak with the extremely attractive noble for good and virtuous reasons!"

On the one hand, I would want a leader to have a good Bluff score, in order to enable him to issue tactical instructions in such a manner that only the party will pick up on his meaning. On the other hand, that requires the rest of the party to either have (a) memorized a series of sneaky signals, or (b) a great Sense Motive score to match.

That said, I don't generally like a leader who bluffs, and for one very simple reason: A guy who never bluffs is terrifying. The guy who tells you that he will hunt you down, torture and kill you, then do the same for your family, friends, and everyone who ever knew you - and you know he is being 100% truthful - is scarier than anybody against whom I'd have to roll Sense Motive.

[atemu1234]

On the one hand, I would want a leader to have a good Bluff score, in order to enable him to issue tactical instructions in such a manner that only the party will pick up on his meaning. On the other hand, that requires the rest of the party to either have (a) memorized a series of sneaky signals, or (b) a great Sense Motive score to match.

That said, I don't generally like a leader who bluffs, and for one very simple reason: A guy who never bluffs is terrifying. The guy who tells you that he will hunt you down, torture and kill you, then do the same for your family, friends, and everyone who ever knew you - and you know he is being 100% truthful - is scarier than anybody against whom I'd have to roll Sense Motive.

I feel like making a bard to follow you around strumming a lute and singing, "Ain't No Rest For The Wicked".

[Vhaidara]

I feel like making a bard to follow you around strumming a lute and singing, "Ain't No Rest For The Wicked".

I'd add to this band.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

My ideal party leader would be different from my ideal military leader or my ideal political leader.

I want someone tactically experienced, who shows true cunning and an ability to think outside of the box. Enough charisma to be noticeable without being a magnet for all eyes/trouble. And someone Neutral Good. Character class is irrelevant for the leader position (and at the table top these features, except the charisma, will be more about the player than whatever is written on the character sheet).

[Magma Armor0]

Probably a healer. Yes, I mean the class from miniatures. Having a leader who can true res you for free once a week is fun. Lets you do all kinds of crazy scry and die stuff.

[Allianis]

Ok, this is a fun one.....

Let's start with alignment. I want someone I could trust, so Evil is out. I want someone I can rely on, so Chaotic is out. I want someone who won't be dogmatic, so Lawful is out. I want someone to willing to get their hands dirty, so Good is out.

Now, let's do class. Bards are ridiculous, so they're out. Barbarians are reckless, so they're out. Monks and Paladins are restricted to alignments already disqualified above, so they're out. Clerics have strongly held beliefs which I may or may not agree with, so they're out. Druids like to play in the mud, so they're out. Wizards spend too much time with their books, they're out. Sorcerers are just bitter about being discount wizards, so they're out. Rogue used to be called thief, they're out.

I guess that just leaves a true neutral fighter. (S)he wouldn't hold beliefs strongly enough to be obnoxious. They've got the blunt-force power to keep me safe when I'm doing my thing (probably summoning). And, if (s)he annoys me too much, I can always just scale back my support at the wrong moment and *poof* it's time for a new leader. Done and done.

[Melcar]

I would say an open minded cleric of some nice good deity.

[Flickerdart]

I would say an open minded cleric of some nice good deity.
Such a cleric would be averse to plundering, and what kind of a party doesn't plunder? You probably want someone more pragmatic than that.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Such a cleric would be averse to plundering, and what kind of a party doesn't plunder? You probably want someone more pragmatic than that.
An open minded cleric of Bahamut would be all for the plundering from evil(especially evil dragons).

[Der_DWSage]

Hm. I think I'm going to buck the trend slightly and say a pantheistic, Neutral Good (As far as I can tell, because I'm assuming I'm a Commoner or Expert 1 in this scenario) Archivist would be my primary choice for party leader.

Pantheistic, because that strongly implies that in a world where deities are real and observable, they aren't going to follow a single one's beliefs without questioning things first. And while I have a decent amount of trust for Paladins and Clerics of a single deity, I'd still prefer to follow someone who questions things more often.

Neutral Good, because that's what I perceive my own alignment as being. We'll fall into a lot less conflict this way. I'd also accept Lawful Good or a thoughtful Chaotic Good, or any well-intentioned Neutral. That said, if I could assume they're Neutral Good at first glance, that's probably good enough for me.

Finally, an Archivist. I want to follow someone smart. Someone who knows what's going on in any given situation, whether it's combat, social, or exploratory, and I'm making assumptions that an Archivist would be the kind of person to explain what's going on when they have time. And while Wizards are also pretty good for that, they also don't have the best reputation of caring for the well-being of others.

You all keep your Paladins and Bardsaders and whatnot. I'll be over here, chatting with the guy that knows what's going on. And is willing to share that information with me, so long as I keep on his good side and carry his books.

[Honest Tiefling]

I dunno if chaotic means you cannot trust them. Sure, they might lie, but I assume chaotic good people lie for the greater good, not to be jerks all of the time. Of course, you might find yourself roped into crazy hi-jinks, so that would be quite...Interesting.

Odd question, but do we assume that this theoretical party is pursuing real life missions, or typical PC missions?

[(Un)Inspired]

I dunno if chaotic means you cannot trust them. Sure, they might lie, but I assume chaotic good people lie for the greater good, not to be jerks all of the time. Of course, you might find yourself roped into crazy hi-jinks, so that would be quite...Interesting.

Odd question, but do we assume that this theoretical party is pursuing real life missions, or typical PC missions?

I'm gonna say you can imagine your party as pursuing real life missions (I need more missions in RL) or typical PC missions. Whichever works better/ helps you produce an interesting answer.

[SiuiS]

Why does a decent bluff score instantly mean that they are wicked?

It doesn't. The evil alignment does.


I mean, a good bluff score means never having to say you're sorry nor having to explain exactly what you are doing. "You don't understand! I really need to get into this party and speak with the extremely attractive noble for good and virtuous reasons!"

A good bluff means they believe you, not they let you do the thing. It's entirely possible for a bluff to 'fail' because they believe you but they aren't going to risk liability, or similar.


We "both know" nothing of the sort. You don't need to recognize your own faults to be aware of having them, in a general sense, and also be aware that your friends are more than willing to point out these problem areas if you'd just ask.

You're honestly going to say that it doesn't take more than the average level of wisdom and common sense to actually benefit from the resources around you when they conflict with your view if things? You should look into rationalization, cognitive dissonance, and how the standard-model human justifies being correct in the face of facts. Because that's exactly what a low or even average wisdom will bet.

[Flickerdart]

You're honestly going to say that it doesn't take more than the average level of wisdom and common sense to actually benefit from the resources around you when they conflict with your view if things? You should look into rationalization, cognitive dissonance, and how the standard-model human justifies being correct in the face of facts. Because that's exactly what a low or even average wisdom will bet.
Pride is not a function of WIS.

[Deophaun]

You really don't need 15 Wisdom to say "this guy is smarter than me, I will ask his advice." I think anything above 6 Wisdom is probably sufficient for that.
A Wis 19, as held by the 5th level philosopher Socrates (on the scale that puts Einstein as a 5th level physicist), will tell you that you aren't smart at all, and be amazed by all the people around you that must obviously be so much smarter, seeing how sure they are of everything. Of course you will ask their advice, only to find out they some how know even less.

[(Un)Inspired]

A Wis 19, as held by the 5th level philosopher Socrates (on the scale that puts Einstein as a 5th level physicist), will tell you that you aren't smart at all, and be amazed by all the people around you that must obviously be so much smarter, seeing how sure they are of everything. Of course you will ask their advice, only to find out they some how know even less.

Well, Socrates is probably best represented by a cleric. His divine guidance was a pretty critical part of his character, as written by Aristocles.

I stand by my claim that a cleric of knowledge, without the conceit of certainty, is the best leader.

[OldTrees1]

I stand by my claim that a cleric of knowledge, without the conceit of certainty, is the best leader.

Well that is certainly a very good choice. However when picking a leader to follow, shouldn't you also want a leader that with further your agenda/goals/dreams? For instance, if my goal was to be a moral person, then I would want my leader to be a more moral person than I am. Sort of like what you did with wisdom here(choosing a leader that was wiser).

[Flickerdart]

Well that is certainly a very good choice. However when picking a leader to follow, shouldn't you also want a leader that with further your agenda/goals/dreams? For instance, if my goal was to be a moral person, then I would want my leader to be a more moral person than I am. Sort of like what you did with wisdom here(choosing a leader that was wiser).
That really depends on the character you're playing at the time, though. Besides, "someone like me but better" is kind of a glib answer.

[OldTrees1]

That really depends on the character you're playing at the time, though. Besides, "someone like me but better" is kind of a glib answer.

I was saying that matching agendas/goals is one of the many characteristics you would want in an ideal leader to follow. Obviously I agreeded with the idea that Wise, Knowledgable, and not conceited are very important too.

[Flickerdart]

Obviously I agreeded with the idea that Wise, Knowledgable, and not conceited are very important too.
Though when you think about it, picking a classic Dastardly-style villain as a leader every once in a while would be pretty fun. Dumb as a brick, but how ambitious!

[SiuiS]

Pride is not a function of WIS.

No, but perspective is.

You could hold the idea that attributes mean absolutely nothing about the abstracts of a person and only represent the outputs shown, but the idea behind attributes in a question like this is that they are informed by the abstracts. Wisdom does not bestow perspective or pride. Pride or perspective are represented by wisdom. If you have the perspective necessary to recognize the common sense faults you've got, you have high wisdom.

[Coidzor]

I was saying that matching agendas/goals is one of the many characteristics you would want in an ideal leader to follow. Obviously I agreeded with the idea that Wise, Knowledgable, and not conceited are very important too.

Generally that's a given. If your goals are not in sync, then there's naturally going to be issues with how there's a group in the first place.