#881 and Roy's leadership

[enq]

Second strip, second panel (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html). Belkar lists all the ways the Order sucks without Roy to lead them, and I'm curious to hear other people's takes on it. I skimmed that strip's thread but it didn't seem very interested in this.

Point 1) Belkar does stupid things without Roy to keep him in check: Absolutely. No way he would have dared to kill that innocent gnome if Roy were there, and probably not the Oracle either. The Mark of Justice kept him from (knowingly) killing inside a town; Roy kept him from killing randomly.
Point 2) Haley can't lead: Wrong. She couldn't lead well enough to control Belkar, but she certainly did lead the resistance movement.
Point 3) Durkon took the Impaired Initiative feat: Yeah, that seems spot on. He needed someone to tell him what to do.
Point 4) V went nuts: Yes, I certainly expect Roy could have done a better job at reining them in, even disregarding that much of their stress stemmed from thinking Roy was dead with possibly no hope of resurrection.
Point 5) Elan and the "lame subplot": I don't know that Roy would have made much difference here, other than as muscle. If anything, the fact that Roy wasn't there might have meant Kubota didn't get to live to fool the court.

So what do you folks think?

[Tzardok]

[
Point 5) Elan and the "lame subplot": I don't know that Roy would have made much difference here, other than as muscle. If anything, the fact that Roy wasn't there might have meant Kubota didn't get to live to fool the court.

So what do you folks think?

I think the point is that with Roy keeping things on track, the Order wouldn't have gotten involved with Kubota's intrigue in the first place. They would've left much earlier to take car of their own plotline.

[Peelee]

Point 2) Haley can't lead: Wrong. She couldn't lead well enough to control Belkar, but she certainly did lead the resistance movement.

Ah, so she took initiative to restore the Order and fulfill the goals of defeating Xykon or defending the Gate she knows he will go to next or bring Roy back to life?

She sat in Gobbotopia waiting for someone else to come get her, abd while she was there, she helped resistance fighters. That's not leading.

[Metastachydium]

Point 2) Haley can't lead: Wrong. She couldn't lead well enough to control Belkar

…or Celia. Or even exert proper authority over Isamu (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html). And for most of her tenure as leader, the resistence spent inordinate amounts of time fighting the other resistences for supplies. And let's not even get into the bit with setting strategic priorities. She did fine, all things considered, but nothing more than that and hated most of it quite fiercely.

[dancrilis]

Point 2) Haley can't lead: Wrong. She couldn't lead well enough to control Belkar, but she certainly did lead the resistance movement.


She led a resistance group and spent more time fighting with the other two groups for supplies then resisting the hobgoblins (panel 6 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html)), and it was Belkar that got those two groups to stop fighting each other (panel 14 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0533.html)).

So I think giving Haley credit for the resistance is overstating her leadership role, but seperately from that she wasn't up to the task of leading Celia* or Belkar which was the adventuring party she ended up with.

*an arguement could be made that Celia was the actual leader of the group - so that would be Haley giving up the position to someone who wasn't really suited for it either.

[Tubercular Ox]

Without laying out a huge pile of evidence, my feeling about Rich is that he tries to show us as much as possible without telling us, because that's what makes a good story, but after the showing is over sometimes he just tells us what we should've learned by now.

I don't know if it's on purpose or accidental or what he thinks about it either way. Maybe he doesn't think about it and it just happens.

So I'm leaning towards Belkar is telling us what Rich tried to show us. It's compatible with his author's notes from Don't Split The Party.

[Metastachydium]

Without laying out a huge pile of evidence, my feeling about Rich is that he tries to show us as much as possible without telling us, because that's what makes a good story, but after the showing is over sometimes he just tells us what we should've learned by now.

I don't know if it's on purpose or accidental or what he thinks about it either way. Maybe he doesn't think about it and it just happens.

So I'm leaning towards Belkar is telling us what Rich tried to show us. It's compatible with his author's notes from Don't Split The Party.

Well given that Belkar being right shows us how surprisingly insightful that little ball of violence actually is, it's not even in "violation" of the usual show-don't-tell guidelines.

[Jasdoif]

Ah, so she took initiative to restore the Order and fulfill the goals of defeating Xykon or defending the Gate she knows he will go to next or bring Roy back to life?

She sat in Gobbotopia waiting for someone else to come get her, abd while she was there, she helped resistance fighters. That's not leading.
…or Celia. Or even exert proper authority over Isamu (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html). And for most of her tenure as leader, the resistence spent inordinate amounts of time fighting the other resistences for supplies. And let's not even get into the bit with setting strategic priorities. She did fine, all things considered, but nothing more than that and hated most of it quite fiercely.
She led a resistance group and spent more time fighting with the other two groups for supplies then resisting the hobgoblins (panel 6 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html)), and it was Belkar that got those two groups to stop fighting each other (panel 14 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0533.html)).

So I think giving Haley credit for the resistance is overstating her leadership role, but seperately from that she wasn't up to the task of leading Celia* or Belkar which was the adventuring party she ended up with.

*an arguement could be made that Celia was the actual leader of the group - so that would be Haley giving up the position to someone who wasn't really suited for it either.

I can certainly see why this is a point of contention.



We could discuss, for example, how the Giant could have achieved his goals while empowering Haley as a strong leader (or, perhaps, if he could have achieved his goals while doing so, or if the goal of empowering the male leader necessitated that his replacement was not nearly as good as him in order to lend him confidence when it faltered, as per #881), and many other topics.The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.



While I understand what you're trying to say, I merely point out that perhaps it could have been possible to preserve the goals you're trying to achieve with the character while still portraying her as a strong leader. Of course, this would've somewhat lessened the impact of Belkar's speech to Roy, but it's possible to preserve most of it by having Haley state that it's not that she's bad at leadership, she just doesn't like it or want it (because she's an individualist, and doesn't like having that kind of responsibility), thereby retaining some of the punch of Belkar's "you are a valuable team member" speech to Roy.Well, I would argue that Haley's previously-established characteristics would lead her to say she was bad at it, because she has a tendency toward self-criticism. Certainly, Thanh and Niu never expressed that she was a bad leader.

The problem is precisely that the dearth of female leaders leads us to looking closely at the main example we have. I know I wouldn't have analysed Haley's leadership skills so closely if we had had a wealth of other female leaders to talk about (which is precisely why I don't really debate Nale's leadership skills, because we have Tarquin, Roy, Hinjo, Shojo and others to compare, contrast and analyse in terms of male leadership).Yeah, OK, that's fair. My only defense is that almost all of those decisions were made within the first ~200 strips, when I didn't think about stuff like this. Even Tarquin, since I picked him to be the Evil Parent over Elan's mom back in strip #50. I think the last completely-new leader character I created was...Kubota, maybe? And since I knew what his fate was going to be, I didn't want to get accused of only killing off the female characters.

Ultimately, I think I never thought about this aspect before because "leadership skills" are not a trait I particularly possess or value, so I don't feel a character suffers for not having them. I'm far more concerned with screen time and general importance to the story. Miko was far more important to the narrative than Shojo or Hinjo, for example; she's been dead for 300+ strips and Hinjo has only just edged her in number of appearances. And when she did appear, she was always the center of attention (while Hinjo sometimes just stands around and expostions). But by this criteria, she is less important than either of them.



True, I suppose, but by that same token, I would have unquestionably supported giving Haley the "leader" title if we had been told via flashback or dialogue that she was an excellent leader in the past (as a part of her backstory). Just like Shojo's mistake is excusable by the years of successful leadership and deception, so would've Haley's leadership flukes would have been excusable by a backstory of good leadership.But again, that's not who she was in the past. That would have cut the legs out from her actual character development, from a greedy self-centered rogue who didn't trust anyone. I could have done it, yes, but I think it would have made a more muddled story.


We don't really have much information on what happened during the three months she spent being the leader of that third/quarter of the Azure Resistance, so it's possible that she might have been a good leader then. All we have on it is Roy's comment about how "she's been doing well for herself", which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it refers to her leadership skills or if whether merely surviving in such a hostile and dangerous environment wouldn't count as "doing well" on its own.When you lead a group living behind enemy lines, they're one and the same. And given that Thanh and Niu and the rest of the Resistance unquestioningly looked to Haley as their leader even though she is not even native to the country said everything that was needed about how well she did in the intervening time. After all, it's not like there weren't two other options they could have joined instead. The only people who disputed her effectiveness were Belkar (who was half the problem), and herself.
Because....

On the other side, Haley is a natural leader whether she likes it or not--so much so that she has attracted followers who are holding her down. Sure, the Azurite Resistance is a worthy cause, but Haley has bigger fish to fry. She's not the type to sit around and do nothing, but her relationship with the Resistance has fooled her into thinking she's doing something, when even she knows (on some level) that she's just rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

[gbaji]

I would interpret those statements by the Giant as treating "natural leader" in the context of "people look to you", but that does not mean that she herself feels confident in the role. Sure, if she's putting together some strike group in the moment? She's great. Big picture and long term plans? Not so much. She took on the mantle of "leader of the resistance" because other people looked to her to do it, so she did. But it was not a role she sought out, and it wasn't what she really should have been focusing on (getting the Order back together). It took outside action (Celia) to push her out of the role others had put her into, to finally get on with what she should have been focusing on.

There's also a huge difference between what you "can do", and what you "want to do" (or even "what you should do"). She was leader because others wanted her to do so, and she just didn't say "no".

[WanderingMist]

Thanh was a paladin, and they tend to be leaders. So the fact that he was supporting her rather than trying to lead himself is already a pretty big statement.

[Peelee]

Thanh was a paladin, and they tend to be leaders.

Do they?

[brian 333]

Thanh was a paladin, and they tend to be leaders. So the fact that he was supporting her rather than trying to lead himself is already a pretty big statement.


Do they?

Weeeelll,

Back in the day one could not be a paladin with less than 17 CHA. By the time of 3x that was no longer true. In fact, Serini jokes about having the Charisma to qualify for paladin levels.

But you already knew that.

[Kish]

For whatever it says about the current question, I would guess that Roy has the third highest Charisma in the Order. One could argue his being higher than Haley's, but I think it would be a very hard sell to suggest his is as high as Elan's--and Elan is at least tied with Belkar for absolute last place in "Order members ever likely to lead anything."

(Flashbacks to people declaring immediately when Don't Split the Party started that Elan was clearly now the leader of the Order...aside, preferably in an oubliette that the tarrasque could not escape from.)

[Keltest]

For whatever it says about the current question, I would guess that Roy has the third highest Charisma in the Order. One could argue his being higher than Haley's, but I think it would be a very hard sell to suggest his is as high as Elan's--and Elan is at least tied with Belkar for absolute last place in "Order members ever likely to lead anything."

(Flashbacks to people declaring immediately when Don't Split the Party started that Elan was clearly now the leader of the Order...aside, preferably in an oubliette that the tarrasque could not escape from.)

Elan seems to have led Thog in a fairly successful mission to reunite with their respective parties just fine, and he crafted a plan with which to overthrow Tarquin, which apparently met the approval of factions inclined to be hostile towards him.

He might lead people to stupid places, but I actually feel confidant that he could effectively lead them there, except for the fact that he is comfortable being a follower.

[Mic_128]

Elan seems to have led Thog in a fairly successful mission to reunite with their respective parties just fine, and he crafted a plan with which to overthrow Tarquin, which apparently met the approval of factions inclined to be hostile towards him.

The first, let's be honest, was pure luck. Elan didn't plan to wander into getting his own airship.

The second is more to do with his knowledge of narrative conventions than any display of 'Leadership'.

[Metastachydium]

Thanh was a paladin, and they tend to be leaders. So the fact that he was supporting her rather than trying to lead himself is already a pretty big statement.


Do they?

I'm not going to argue with the Giant on canon (obviously; although I maintain that Haley had serious difficulty keeping her strategic priorities as the interim leader of the Order and the leader of her resistence movement straight), but yeah, Thanh's attitude is hardly indicative of much. I'd say Paladins in general make better followers than leaders, and Thanh himself in particular is even more anxious about taking on a leadership role than Haley herself was (seriously, dude's got some self-esteem issues (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0535.html)).

[Keltest]

The first, let's be honest, was pure luck. Elan didn't plan to wander into getting his own airship.

The second is more to do with his knowledge of narrative conventions than any display of 'Leadership'.

The idea that leadership fundamentally involves meticulous planning is a myth I fervently believe needs to be dispelled.

[Peelee]

I'm not going to argue with the Giant on canon (obviously; although I maintain that Haley had serious difficulty keeping her strategic priorities as the interim leader of the Order and the leader of her resistence movement straight), but yeah, Thanh's attitude is hardly indicative of much. I'd say Paladins in general make better followers than leaders, and Thanh himself in particular is even more anxious about taking on a leadership role than Haley herself was (seriously, dude's got some self-esteem issues (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0535.html)).


Imean, I'd say Paladins in general make good soldiers, with the leader/follower thing being no more representative among them than any other class or group.

[Metastachydium]

Elan seems to have led Thog in a fairly successful mission to reunite with their respective parties just fine, and he crafted a plan with which to overthrow Tarquin, which apparently met the approval of factions inclined to be hostile towards him.

He might lead people to stupid places, but I actually feel confidant that he could effectively lead them there, except for the fact that he is comfortable being a follower.

Yeah, no. I have to agree with Mic on that. From the prison break onwards, Thog was strictly liability and swindling him into tagging along actively hurt Elan (and physically hurt Haley). Plus… You know… Thog thinks Nale of all people is a good leader worth devoting his talents to. His understanding of narrative structures can help him indeed, but he has next to zero forward thinking, precious little situational awareness and a short attention span, in addition to being really, really dumb.


Imean, I'd say Paladins in general make good soldiers, with the leader/follower thing being no more representative among them than any other class or group.

I mean, what they do is serve: the gods, the righteous ruler, the weak…

[dancrilis]

For whatever it says about the current question, I would guess that Roy has the third highest Charisma in the Order. One could argue his being higher than Haley's, but I think it would be a very hard sell to suggest his is as high as Elan's--and Elan is at least tied with Belkar for absolute last place in "Order members ever likely to lead anything."

I don't know - I think I might* rate Vaarsuvius below both of them, and until recently** I wouldn't have rated Durkon as higher then Elan or Belkar.

*it is possible that I might just rate all of the four non-Roy non-Haley members of the order as 'not showing much leadership material' and grading between to be fairly pointless other then that.
** Durkon I think post-vampire post-fatherhood has likely taken a step up, but how much that step is worth I am unsure might place him on Haley's level might not move him out of the above asterisk point, just haven't seen enough.

[Provengreil]

The idea that leadership fundamentally involves meticulous planning is a myth I fervently believe needs to be dispelled.

Nobody said it has to, but I'm gonna need to see Elan lead someone with a bit more sense than Thog before I buy that his charisma allows him to be a leader. Most of us have experienced the ultra-silly guy at the table: would you expect putting him in charge to actually lead a group anywhere more than wherever the current is already going?

[brian 333]

Charisma is supposed to represent force of personality. More than mere likeability, it was supposed to be a measure of a being's ability to dominate social situations. This includes concepts such as leadership.

Then someone decided to make it link to magic, and made the stereotypical practitioners of that magic into antisocial loners. The one ability specifically intended to reflect a character"s ability to lead and to manipulate and control social and interpersonal situations became... confusing.

Elan is actually a good example of a high charisma character because he virtually always uses charm and likeability to accomplish his goals. The fact that he is stupid makes him a bad leader, but if he wanted to he could convince a lot of people to follow him.

The paladins may be poor leaders, but then Charisma is not a requirement for paladins in 3.5 Ed. Now a 1st ed. paladin, with a 17 Cha should be a formidable leader. But that was back in the day.

[hamishspence]

It's not a requirement - but so many of a paladin's special abilities are dependent on, or boosted by, high Charisma, that "dumping" it in character creation is going to be very rare.

[Peelee]

Then someone decided to make .... the stereotypical practitioners of that magic into antisocial loners.

Was that person R. A. Salvatore? Because having never read any of the D&D novels, and only the sourcebooks, and they don't indicate that sorcerers or bards are antisocial loners at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Was that person R. A. Salvatore? Because having never read any of the D&D novels, and only the sourcebooks, and they don't indicate that sorcerers or bards are antisocial loners at all. I never got that either. Not sure which novels may have had that characterization. (I read a bunch of the FR novels in the 80's and 90's...mostly forgettable, but fun once through).

[Keltest]

Was that person R. A. Salvatore? Because having never read any of the D&D novels, and only the sourcebooks, and they don't indicate that sorcerers or bards are antisocial loners at all.

Salvatore started writing his books before charisma had any numerical affect on a character besides allowing access to certain classes.

I THINK theyre talking about sorcerers? Maybe? In which case I have no idea what they mean, because sorcerers have always been personable in the books ive read, which are many.

[Tubercular Ox]

How do y'all feel about Xykon? Is he antisocial?

[Peelee]

How do y'all feel about Xykon? Is he antisocial?

An undead abomination that is a metaphor for being stripped of humanity?

[Kish]

Clearly not. He is extremely extroverted, constantly interacting with other people. That he can go from "I told him to blow off work and hang with the Cool Kids (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html)" to choking Jirix and not remembering his name is about him being extremely Chaotic Evil, not about him being antisocial because he's a sorcerer.

[brian 333]

Clearly not. He is extremely extroverted, constantly interacting with other people. That he can go from "I told him to blow off work and hang with the Cool Kids (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html)" to choking Jirix and not remembering his name is about him being extremely Chaotic Evil, not about him being antisocial because he's a sorcerer.

Yeah, he was anti-social long before he got lichified.

However, I got the 'Sorcerers are antisocial' from the 3.0 PHB which states that sorcerers are feared and often shunned. Even if these guys became sorcerers because of draconic or demonic hybridization, they should still be charming, liked, and attract followers everywhere they go. Their best ability is the one that controls and amplifies social interaction.

[Peelee]

Yeah, he was anti-social long before he got lichified.

Social. He was social long before he got lichified. There's a difference between antisocial and evil.

[hamishspence]

Even if these guys became sorcerers because of draconic or demonic hybridization, they should still be charming, liked, and attract followers everywhere they go. Their best ability is the one that controls and amplifies social interaction.
They still need to spend skill points if they want to be more than so-so. It's entirely possible for a Sorcerer who has not spent the points to be outclassed at most social things by an average-Char character that's spent the skill points that the Sorcerer has not.

Same with the Leadership feat - not every Sorcerer takes it, so not every Sorcerer will attract many minions.

[Trixie_One]

I'd have put down Xykon as pretty social prior to lich'ing, even if it might have been reducing quite a bit as he was seriously getting on in years when he met the goblin brothers. He was always a self-interested git, don't get me wrong, but had people he was on solidly friendly terms with, he had romantic relations, and was even nice to serving staff when he had no call to be.

[Keltest]

Yeah, he was anti-social long before he got lichified.

However, I got the 'Sorcerers are antisocial' from the 3.0 PHB which states that sorcerers are feared and often shunned. Even if these guys became sorcerers because of draconic or demonic hybridization, they should still be charming, liked, and attract followers everywhere they go. Their best ability is the one that controls and amplifies social interaction.

If I think you're playing with a live grenade I don't care how personable you are, I don't want you in my presence.

[Peelee]

If I think you're playing with a live grenade I don't care how personable you are, I don't want you in my presence.

Dang, wish i could have put it as well. Yeah, they're feared and shunned for their sudden and inexplicable powers, not because they're not charming enough.

[woweedd]

Yeah, Xykon is clearly an Extrovert who's more then capable of seeming friendly if need be. He's like the Joker: a Chaotic Evil monster with no redeeming traits, but one who can come across as funny, charming, and refuses to stop making "jokes". Which are usually along the lines of cheerily offering to let his opponents keep two organs of their choice. Because he is a sadistic monster at heart. Even on a meta level: no OOTS reader will ever deny that Xykon is pure evil...But he's also often regarded as hilarious, percisely because of the over-the-top sense of dark conedy that he tends to excude. Which makes the moments he stops screwing around all the scarier.

[Peelee]

no OOTS reader will ever deny that Xykon is pure evil...

I admire your optimism. :smalltongue:

[brian 333]

Social. He was social long before he got lichified. There's a difference between antisocial and evil.

Where are his lifelong friends?
Where are the ex-girlfriends waiting for him to call?
Where are the people who love him and care about his happiness and his welfare?

Being social necessitates that such connections exist. Even folks who have modest Cha scores can make one or two such connections.

[Keltest]

Where are his lifelong friends?
Where are the ex-girlfriends waiting for him to call?
Where are the people who love him and care about his happiness and his welfare?

Being social necessitates that such connections exist. Even folks who have modest Cha scores can make one or two such connections.

Dead, presumably, given that he has lived well beyond the length of a typical human lifespan when he would have made those connections, and also because he kills people for fun. We know he had at least cordial relations with other evil type people in the same industry back when he was alive.

[KorvinStarmast]

Where are the people who love him and care about his happiness and his welfare? He killed them when he was a teenager.
:smallyuk:

[Peelee]

Where are his lifelong friends?
Where are the ex-girlfriends waiting for him to call?
Where are the people who love him and care about his happiness and his welfare?

Being social necessitates that such connections exist. Even folks who have modest Cha scores can make one or two such connections.

Your beliefs and assertions are not universal truths. Ted Bundy, famously charismatic and social, had no lifelong friends and described himself as "the most cold-hearted son of a bitch you'll ever meet", and one of hos own lawyers on his defense team said he "was the very definition of heartless evil."

Because being charismatic and being social and being evil are not conflicting.

[Ruck]

A relatively minor point overall, but Xykon is, I believe, a little north of 110 years old, so even if he ever did have meaningful relationships or people he cared about once, they'd be long dead by now.

[brian 333]

Your beliefs and assertions are not universal truths. Ted Bundy, famously charismatic and social, had no lifelong friends and described himself as "the most cold-hearted son of a bitch you'll ever meet", and one of hos own lawyers on his defense team said he "was the very definition of heartless evil."

Because being charismatic and being social and being evil are not conflicting.

That is a point I've never contested. I am not, nor have I ever, equated evil with anti-social.

I have simply not seen any characterization of Xykon which demonstrates him to be a charismatic character.

Where are his psychophants? To use your example, Ted Bundy has a fan club! Literally thousands of real humans pretend to be his victims.

Where, in comic, does he use his charm to gain cooperation from an NPC? Sure, we see it, but his funny quips are a lot less endearing to those who are dying at the time.

Where are the appeasers trying to mollify him with concessions and gifts so that he doesn't murder them and everyone he knows?

And why, if he is a being with a god-like charisma stat, is he not a legend in his own time, spoken of in hushed whispers in taverns around the world, with stories of him used to frighten young children into obedience?

Certainly not all of these things must be true for all charismatic characters, but at least some should be. Julio Scoundrel has fan-girls and endorsements on two continents!

[hroþila]

Where are his psychophants?
https://i.imgur.com/63fRbp0.gif

Which neatly illustrates the problem with your reasoning. Being around Xykon is extremely dangerous, but that has nothing to do with his being extroverted and charismatic.

And why, if he is a being with a god-like charisma stat
What's with the CR30 strawman?

[brian 333]

https://i.imgur.com/63fRbp0.gif

Which neatly illustrates the problem with your reasoning. Being around Xykon is extremely dangerous, but that has nothing to do with his being extroverted and charismatic.

What's with the CR30 strawman?

Cheap strawmen are exactly as good as expensive ones, but I do not recall purchasing one.

Tsukiko was not attracted to Xykon because of his fame, his reputation, or his charm. He just happened to be the dead guy on the scene.

But even so, I must have missed all those examples of Xykon being extraverted and charismatic. Plenty of him being snide, cold-blooded, ruthless, demanding, and an all-around jerk. But he's not even the kind of jerk that would be fun at parties. Perhaps you could show me what I missed?

(I don't have access to any but the public comic.)

[Peelee]

That is a point I've never contested. I am not, nor have I ever, equated evil with anti-social.

I have simply not seen any characterization of Xykon which demonstrates him to be a charismatic character.

Where are his psychophants? To use your example, Ted Bundy has a fan club! Literally thousands of real humans pretend to be his victims.

Sycophants, you mean? Even if you aren't equating evil eith antisocial (which i still think you are), you are still absolutely insisting that charisma necessitates sycophants. It doesn't, and thats a baseless idea that only exists in your own mind. Elan, before joining the Order, had the same charisma but zero sycophants, the only person who loved him was his mom, and the person he worked for hated him. Even now, he doesn't have the Order's love and care for him due to his charisma. You're making up highly specific criteria out of whole cloth and then demanding to know why these criteria aren't being met. That's your problem, not the narrative's.

[Tubercular Ox]

Elan, before joining the Order, had the same charisma but zero sycophants, the only person who loved him was his mom, and the person he worked for hated him. Even now, he doesn't have the Order's love and care for him due to his charisma

Samantha, Haley, Therkla, the Orcs on the island with Banjo's brother. Even Sabine swoons for him (briefly). How many sycophants does a character need, and how often, to demonstrate Charisma?

[hroþila]

Even stretching the definition of 'sycophant' beyond its breaking point, only Therkla might qualify

[Keltest]

Samantha, Haley, Therkla, the Orcs on the island with Banjo's brother. Even Sabine swoons for him (briefly). How many sycophants does a character need, and how often, to demonstrate Charisma?

You are using a very non-standard definition of sycophant.

[Tubercular Ox]

You are using a very non-standard definition of sycophant.

I'm using the definition context tells me people actually care about: A character whose attraction to another character demonstrates the other character's Charisma.

Name it and we can switch words, but that's what's going on here.

[Kish]

What's with the CR30 strawman?
He does, in fact, have a godlike Charisma stat. But the answer to why he doesn't have a cult is that he's Chaotic, not Lawful; he has no interest in organizing a program of conquest that can't be delegated to Redcloak.

Which means, of course, that brian 333 is now pointing to another trait that has nothing to do with being social and declaring Xykon can't be social because he doesn't match it.

The orcs on the island actively cared about Banjo, not Elan. Their attitude toward Elan was that he wasn't worthy of holding their god and should be summarily sacrificed to Banjo if he protested this.

[Keltest]

I'm using the definition context tells me people actually care about: A character whose attraction to another character demonstrates the other character's Charisma.

Name it and we can switch words, but that's what's going on here.

I strongly suggest against trying to redefine words people are using. Its a very good way to convince people that you are not interested in what theyre trying to say.

[hamishspence]

I'm using the definition context tells me people actually care about: A character whose attraction to another character demonstrates the other character's Charisma.


A sycophant is a person who pours flattery on someone in a position of power. It has nothing to do with whether the person with power is charismatic or not. A totally uncharismatic ruler can still have plenty of sycophants.

[Kish]

The ox's claim might work if the only "people" here was brian 333, but that's a Catch-22. Everyone else here has been telling brian 333 he's using words to mean things that they don't mean, then Ox comes in and says, in essence, that he's using words right as long as the words are redefined to what goes with the way he's been using them.

[Bacon Elemental]

Xykon clearly had a sycophant anyway. Redcloak, circa Dungeon of Dorukan / everything up to War and XPs is a classic sycophantic second in command. Sycophants have nothing to with how social or charismatic you are anyway - the very term implies you're sucking up to someone because they're powerful and not because you like them!

[brian 333]

Sycophants, you mean? Even if you aren't equating evil eith antisocial (which i still think you are), you are still absolutely insisting that charisma necessitates sycophants. It doesn't, and thats a baseless idea that only exists in your own mind. Elan, before joining the Order, had the same charisma but zero sycophants, the only person who loved him was his mom, and the person he worked for hated him. Even now, he doesn't have the Order's love and care for him due to his charisma. You're making up highly specific criteria out of whole cloth and then demanding to know why these criteria aren't being met. That's your problem, not the narrative's.

Once again, funny doesn't translate. I was saying psycho as in crazy and using it because it sounds... Nevermind.

I gave some examples, and you claim the absence of those specific examples negates my argument. However, they were only some of many possible examples. So, where are these examples in comic which demonstrate Xykon to be a charismatic character?

Another possible example of a charismatic evil character might be one who invokes fear by his demeanor. I've never even seen Xykon make an Intimidate check.



A sycophant is a person who pours flattery on someone in a position of power. It has nothing to do with whether the person with power is charismatic or not. A totally uncharismatic ruler can still have plenty of sycophants.

True enough, but the argument was never over the definition of the word sycophant.

The poster gave a list of examples of a character using his charisma in story. There should be a similar list for virtually any character that has had screen time.

Haley is smart. We see her disarming traps, thinking her way through logic puzzles, (my foot still hurts from that one,) and staying one jump ahead of an entire theives' guild which she ultimately defeats using her intelligence.

Durkon is wize. We see him figure out that his god wants The Order to go with Miko, save Belkar from being vampirized, and defeat his own nemesis before he brings the whole destruction of the world to a halt by choosing the right target.

Redcloak is intelligent. We see him manipulate Xykon repeatedly, demonstrate knowledge of obscure facts like the process of creating a lich or knowledge of the periodic table, and we see him outwit Tsuikiko before she can expose his duplicity.

Every character shows his core abilities in comic, in very specific examples. But Xykon? Going down the list of things he's done one could say he is smart, tough, and strong. I'm still drawing a blank on charismatic.

[Keltest]

Once again, funny doesn't translate. I was saying psycho as in crazy and using it because it sounds... Nevermind.

I gave some examples, and you claim the absence of those specific examples negates my argument. However, they were only some of many possible examples. So, where are these examples in comic which demonstrate Xykon to be a charismatic character?

Another possible example of a charismatic evil character might be one who invokes fear by his demeanor. I've never even seen Xykon make an Intimidate check.

Then you haven't been paying (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html) attention (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html), I guess.

Plus a bunch of stuff in SoD I can't conveniently link to.

[Tubercular Ox]

I gave some examples, and you claim the absence of those specific examples negates my argument. However, they were only some of many possible examples. So, where are these examples in comic which demonstrate Xykon to be a charismatic character?

Another possible example of a charismatic evil character might be one who invokes fear by his demeanor. I've never even seen Xykon make an Intimidate check.


When I said, "A character whose attraction to another character demonstrates the other character's Charisma," did you feel like I understood your point?

[brian 333]

Then you haven't been paying (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html) attention (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html), I guess.

Plus a bunch of stuff in SoD I can't conveniently link to.

Xykon is strong enough to bash through walls and having a tantrum in that scene, but I don't see anything charisma-based, unless you consider this (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html) an example of Thog being charismatic.

[Keltest]

Xykon is strong enough to bash through walls and having a tantrum in that scene, but I don't see anything charisma-based, unless you consider this (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html) an example of Thog being charismatic.

So, you ask for examples of Xykon invoking fear, and then when youre given examples, they don't count because the comic doesnt specifically call out that he's rolling an intimidation check?

[Tzardok]

I think Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end of SoD is the best example of Xykon being intimidating with words. It worked well enough to keep Redcloak subservient for at least the first two books.

[Metastachydium]

Tsukiko was not attracted to Xykon because of his fame, his reputation, or his charm. He just happened to be the dead guy on the scene.

I mean, he's not the only undead creature about, but he's the only one who got a plushie version.


But he's not even the kind of jerk that would be fun at parties. Perhaps you could show me what I missed?

(I don't have access to any but the public comic.)

Well, everyone 'round here (et seq.) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html) seems to be having plenty of fun, and despite his witnessing firsthand Xykon being Xykon on quite a couple of occasions before, during and after that, Redcloak still has to explicitly tell Jirix that no, Xykon seems funny and charming, but he's not their friend, much to Jirix's confusion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html).

Meanwhile, even the Oracle thinks he's scary;
from SoD, we learn that he stole the crown to pick up women at parties, which is shown to be working;
and he fooled Roy just fine in the battle of Azure City (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html).


A sycophant is a person who pours flattery on someone in a position of power. It has nothing to do with whether the person with power is charismatic or not. A totally uncharismatic ruler can still have plenty of sycophants.

Interesting fact: it originally meant 'nosy informant who reports on people for petty reasons'.


staying one jump ahead of an entire theives' guild which she ultimately defeats using her intelligence.

Um, no? The entire guild she defeated by someone else accidentally waking up Belkar.


Durkon is wize. We see him figure out that his god wants The Order to go with Miko,

And we are shown that he was wrong about that.


save Belkar from being vampirized,

That's not exceptional Wisdom; that's just basic common sense. (I mean, vampire!Belkar? Whoever would think that's a good idea?)


and defeat his own nemesis before he brings the whole destruction of the world to a halt by choosing the right target.

Not sure what you mean there, really.

[brian 333]

So, you ask for examples of Xykon invoking fear, and then when youre given examples, they don't count because the comic doesnt specifically call out that he's rolling an intimidation check?

I don't see any attempt to intimidate in those pages. It's just a temper tantrum while trying to kill people in one case, and in the other to vent on a guy whose whole schtick is to appease him until he gets what he wants.


I think Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end of SoD is the best example of Xykon being intimidating with words. It worked well enough to keep Redcloak subservient for at least the first two books.

a) SoD is not a part of the online comic, so it is something I cannot confirm, but if it is the the conversation after his brother's issue,
b) Redcloak has pretended from the start to fear and obey Xykon because he views him as a tool, to be used for a specific function then discarded when it is done.


I mean, he's not the only undead creature about, but he's the only one who got a plushie version.

I think she made that herself, and while funny, I think it says more about her than it does about Xykon.


Well, everyone 'round here (et seq.) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html) seems to be having plenty of fun, and despite his witnessing firsthand Xykon being Xykon on quite a couple of occasions before, during and after that, Redcloak still has to explicitly tell Jirix that no, Xykon seems funny and charming, but he's not their friend, much to Jirix's confusion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html).

The victory party? Would they have rallied 'round Xykon in defeat?


Meanwhile, even the Oracle thinks he's scary;
from SoD, we learn that he stole the crown to pick up women at parties, which is shown to be working;
and he fooled Roy just fine in the battle of Azure City (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html).

Someone else pointed out the idea of not wanting to be around a guy playing with live hand grenades, but this actually is a good example of what I was asking for.

Since I do not have SoD, I requested examples from the online comic. As for fooling Roy, I think Roy did that to himself. He leapt before looking.



Um, no? The entire guild she defeated by someone else accidentally waking up Belkar.

At that point she had managed to hold her own against the entire guild, until Belkar woke up and Celia brokered a deal behind her back on the verge of victory.

However, the true victory by Haley I was referencing is when she convinced Crystal Golem to rend Bozzok limb from limb then pound those limbs into pulp.


And we are shown that he was wrong about that.

I withdraw the example. You are correct.


That's not exceptional Wisdom; that's just basic common sense. (I mean, vampire!Belkar? Whoever would think that's a good idea?)

But that was not why he did what he did, and he used his awareness of Malack's nature to convince him to spare the Belkster.


Not sure what you mean there, really.

It was Durkon's understanding of the nature of his enemy and what forms the basis of a personality, along with some excellent timing, that rendered Greg vulnerable exactly when he needed to be, so that he could be destroyed by a badly wounded Belkar.

Again, if you do not like the examples I have chosen, pick a character, pick his best or worst attribute, and I'm certain you will find examples of that character utilizing it. So far, the only examples presented of Xykon being charismatic in comic do not occur online.

[Keltest]

I don't see any attempt to intimidate in those pages. It's just a temper tantrum while trying to kill people in one case, and in the other to vent on a guy whose whole schtick is to appease him until he gets what he wants.

You dont think threatening a guy to his face is trying to be intimidating?

[brian 333]

You dont think threatening a guy to his face is trying to be intimidating?

Perhaps it was an attempt, but long before that we have seen Redcloak appeasing Xykon over and over, literally from the first time we meet him. He knew Redcloak was going to do whatever he said. Being mad about his phylactery just added vitriol onto the burning oil.

So, I concede it may have been an attempt to intimidate, but it was made from a position of assured obedience.

In contrast, Elan's most notable uses of Charisma come at times of uncertainty: the jailbreak, the orc island, sending to Julio for backup, and so on. He might have failed, and then there would have been consequences.

In Xykon's case, what was his chance of failure, and what could have resulted? Instead of being intimidated and dead, V&O would have been not intimidated and dead? Or, Redcloak would have pretended to be intimidated and... wait, that actually happened.

But Intimidate is only one Charisma - based skill. Surely Xylon, having Cha as a primary ability, would use at least one or two skills associated with it, or make a few raw Cha checks here and there.

[Kelenius]

Charisma isn't just about being able to be nice to people, it also represents the strength of one's personality, which is something that Xykon clearly has in abundance.

[brian 333]

Charisma isn't just about being able to be nice to people, it also represents the strength of one's personality, which is something that Xykon clearly has in abundance.

Exactly for the first part of the statement, but I see no examples to support the last part. Strength of personality.

Being a loudmouth, a jerk, and even an extrovert does not imply anything about one's strength of personality. Gaining followers, convincing others to do what you want them to do, imposing one's will over the objections of others, being the voice that is heard and obeyed when many voices shout: these are examples of charisma in action.

Xykon does none of these things.

[Provengreil]

Perhaps it was an attempt, but long before that we have seen Redcloak appeasing Xykon over and over, literally from the first time we meet him. He knew Redcloak was going to do whatever he said. Being mad about his phylactery just added vitriol onto the burning oil.

So, I concede it may have been an attempt to intimidate, but it was made from a position of assured obedience.

In contrast, Elan's most notable uses of Charisma come at times of uncertainty: the jailbreak, the orc island, sending to Julio for backup, and so on. He might have failed, and then there would have been consequences.

In Xykon's case, what was his chance of failure, and what could have resulted? Instead of being intimidated and dead, V&O would have been not intimidated and dead? Or, Redcloak would have pretended to be intimidated and... wait, that actually happened.

But Intimidate is only one Charisma - based skill. Surely Xylon, having Cha as a primary ability, would use at least one or two skills associated with it, or make a few raw Cha checks here and there.

Can you really not think of any times he's done this? It happens in like half of his appearances. Just because everyone in most situations knows he's got the firepower to kill everyone around doesn't mean he's not using the skills.

However, here's a few where that power differential really didn't come into play at all, because either the recipient didn't know or care about the power, or did not believe Xykon would attack:

-Tricking Elan to touch the gate (Bluff, success)
-Convincing Miko he was intending to actually capture her (Bluff, success)
-Convincing Redcloak to leave Girard's Crater within one round (Diplomacy, partial success: RC bargained and got a spell)
-Pushing past Redcloak's racism to recruit the Hobgoblins (Diplomacy, success. Note that he was in the phylactery at the time)
-Convincing Roy to adventure, level up, and come back later (Diplomacy, failure)
-Convincing Redcloak he wouldn't keep endangering O'chul after the acid shark event (Bluff, success)
-Convincing Redcloak he didn't know how Tsukiko got the ritual page (Bluff, outcome technically unclear but I doubt RC bought it)
-Convincing Redcloak not to accept the quinton deal (Technically diplomacy, if a rather intimidating version of a check. Failure)

And that's just what I could remember off my head from only the main comic: SoD has a lot of him in it so it'll have examples too.

[Kish]

On the one hand, I think brian 333's insistence that Xykon is not charismatic is flatly absurd. On the other hand, I really don't think Xykon giving Redcloak bluntly, and often deliberately demeaningly, phrased orders which Redcloak obeys (recruiting the hobgoblins, leaving the crater) are examples of Diplomacy. That Redcloak goes right on obeying Xykon even when Xykon is in the phylactery says much about Redcloak's mentality, not Xykon's. That Xykon accepted the quinton's deal was Redcloak successfully diplomacying Xykon, not the other way around: Xykon is both in charge and the one who had to agree to something there.

[Ruck]

I think she made that herself, and while funny, I think it says more about her than it does about Xykon.

But what does it say about Xykon that she made it of him, specifically?

[Provengreil]

On the one hand, I think brian 333's insistence that Xykon is not charismatic is flatly absurd. On the other hand, I really don't think Xykon giving Redcloak bluntly, and often deliberately demeaningly, phrased orders which Redcloak obeys (recruiting the hobgoblins, leaving the crater) are examples of Diplomacy. That Redcloak goes right on obeying Xykon even when Xykon is in the phylactery says much about Redcloak's mentality, not Xykon's. That Xykon accepted the quinton's deal was Redcloak successfully diplomacying Xykon, not the other way around: Xykon is both in charge and the one who had to agree to something there.

At risk of dragging the thread even more off topic, I'm one of the people who believe that in the "who controls who" power struggle Xykon and Redcloak are having, RC is winning, so I view Xykon trying to get out of the deal as the real check to be made. That said, I just re-read the scene and the quinton itself accepted the odd letters counteroffer directly from Xykon, so consider the example withdrawn.

I'm sticking by the rest though, for the same reason: Redcloak is ultimately calling the shots even though he plays second fiddle on the surface, so it's ultimately Xykon who has to convince RC to do that stuff, given that RC otherwise wouldn't. Do remember that easy checks are still checks, and the examples I gave were when they happened with little or no reliance on a power balance.

[Liquor Box]

Being a loudmouth, a jerk, and even an extrovert does not imply anything about one's strength of personality. Gaining followers, convincing others to do what you want them to do, imposing one's will over the objections of others, being the voice that is heard and obeyed when many voices shout: these are examples of charisma in action.

Xykon does none of these things.

Xykon does all of those things. Certainly he does all of things to a greater extent than Elan, who we know is high charisma.

Anyway, we know Xykon is high Charisma from the Geekery thread.

[Kish]

At risk of dragging the thread even more off topic, I'm one of the people who believe that in the "who controls who" power struggle Xykon and Redcloak are having, RC is winning, so I view Xykon trying to get out of the deal as the real check to be made. That said, I just re-read the scene and the quinton itself accepted the odd letters counteroffer directly from Xykon, so consider the example withdrawn.

I'm sticking by the rest though, for the same reason: Redcloak is ultimately calling the shots even though he plays second fiddle on the surface, so it's ultimately Xykon who has to convince RC to do that stuff, given that RC otherwise wouldn't.
Okay, well, whether that perspective about who's in charge in right or not doesn't matter. Diplomacy Does Not Work That Way. Look at what actually happens here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html), don't just treat it as "meaningless fluff for Xykon making a Diplomacy check to convince his master to leave." The creature in the darkness makes his argument, Xykon is convinced by it (which is how Diplomacy works). Then Xykon says "No." in the middle of one of Redcloak's sentences, followed by, "Zip it. We're leaving now." Redcloak grits his teeth and protests and makes it very clear that he would never choose to leave the Order alive there if he had a choice, and finally, when Xykon orders everyone to huddle up for the teleport, says, with an enraged scowl on his face, "...Yes, Lord Xykon." Then Redcloak asks Xykon "sir" to permit him to cast one single spell before they go. No part of Xykon and Redcloak's relationship in the online comic has ever had Xykon making Diplomacy checks to get Redcloak to do things or to let Xykon do things. Believe that Redcloak is right to think he's successfully manipulating Xykon if you want, that's at least supportable, but it's completely insupportable to reverse which one gives orders and which one tries to subtly manipulate the other one.

[brian 333]

Leadership is a Cha based skill, and everywhere it is seen being used in comic by Team Evil, Leadership is being used by Redcloak.

Thank you all for entertaining my thesis, whether pro or con. Your opinions and feedback are valued by me.

But as I have been recently reminded, this thread is about Roy's leadership. He demonstrates it when he has his companions sign contracts, and again when he releases everyone from them. He checks Belkar and aims his violence at his enemies. He gets increasingly less marginal use of Elan until, at this point, Elan is a proven asset. He is a confidant of V, an advisor to Haley, and a brother to Durkon.

His team follows him. Nobody has to push them. I would argue that Roy has spent skill points in Leadership skill, except that in 3.5 Leadership is a feat which has little to do with aiding a party of PCs. However, he uses what skill, knowledge, and native ability he has to turn a handful of characters into a team.

Roy is a leader.

[Peelee]

Leadership is a Cha based skill,

Leadership is a Charisma skill. It is not the only Charisma skill, and it is certainly not the only indicator of Charisma. Elan, for example, has no leadership, and when pushed by his father directly rejects leadership.

This thread started about Roy's leadership, and then went into leadership in paladins, and then went into charisma, and then went into sorcerers, and then went into claims of Xykon being antisocial. Discussions ebb and flow. But nobody ever said Roy wasn't a leader.

[brian 333]

Again, I never said anyone contested that. I simply gave examples of Roy being a leader in support of the OP.

[Peelee]

Again, I never said anyone contested that. I simply gave examples of Roy being a leader in support of the OP.

That's not supporting the OP, though, since the OP never questioned Roy's leadership.

[Metastachydium]

[NOW OFFICIALLY OFF-TOPIC]
I think she made that herself, and while funny, I think it says more about her than it does about Xykon.

Because he impressed her so much!


The victory party?

No, the "let's do some slacking and torture the paladin in a game".


As for fooling Roy, I think Roy did that to himself. He leapt before looking.

The dragon started moving in circles ellipses after that.


At that point she had managed to hold her own against the entire guild, until Belkar woke up and Celia brokered a deal behind her back on the verge of victory.

Not really. She used Celia's fog to tag a few wannabes, got jumped by Hank and his retinue, got bailed out by Celia, of all people, and from there, it was all downhill for her.


However, the true victory by Haley I was referencing is when she convinced Crystal Golem to rend Bozzok limb from limb then pound those limbs into pulp.

Yeah, that's fair.


But that was not why he did what he did, and he used his awareness of Malack's nature to convince him to spare the Belkster.

It was explicitly part of the reason, though. And then he foolishly tried to solo Malack instead of playing him.


It was Durkon's understanding of the nature of his enemy and what forms the basis of a personality, along with some excellent timing, that rendered Greg vulnerable exactly when he needed to be, so that he could be destroyed by a badly wounded Belkar.

Technically, that wasn't a matter of timing; he could have had Hilgya kill Greg. But yeah, figuring Greg out was a feat of pure awesome.


Leadership is a Cha based skil

[Obnoxious pedant voice.] Actually, it's a feat.[/NOW OFFICIALLY OFF-TOPIC]

[KorvinStarmast]

A sycophant is a person who pours flattery on someone in a position of power. It has nothing to do with whether the person with power is charismatic or not. A totally uncharismatic ruler can still have plenty of sycophants. Nailed it in one, but they may also have to watch their back...

Another possible example of a charismatic evil character might be one who invokes fear by his demeanor. I've never even seen Xykon make an Intimidate check. I may be leaning into 5e here instead of 3.5e, but you don't have to make a roll for something to happen. :smallwink:

He scares and bullies people in the main strip on a variety of occasions. He also inspires a certain amount of awe as the leader of the hobgoblin army, (per the strips before the actual attack on Azure City) while his smart guy (Redcloak) organizes stuff.

With that said, he illustrates nicely one of the problems of Charisma being introduced as a casting stat (and sorcerers in general) in the 3d edition ... but that's a rant for another time.


Every character shows his core abilities in comic, in very specific examples. But Xykon? He uses power. Depending on which edition you are referring to, Charisma is a reflection of the force of character's will or will power.

Charisma isn't just about being able to be nice to people, it also represents the strength of one's personality, which is something that Xykon clearly has in abundance. Something like that also. :smallsmile:

Hannibal Lecter has charisma, but he's scary as all get out, isn't he?

[gbaji]

Leadership is a Charisma skill. It is not the only Charisma skill, and it is certainly not the only indicator of Charisma. Elan, for example, has no leadership, and when pushed by his father directly rejects leadership.

This thread started about Roy's leadership, and then went into leadership in paladins, and then went into charisma, and then went into sorcerers, and then went into claims of Xykon being antisocial. Discussions ebb and flow. But nobody ever said Roy wasn't a leader.

Yeah. I think our tangents have tangents (does that mean we've like done a 180 then?). I do find the whole "sorcerers muddled up Charisma" to be a valid point. Prior to the introduction of that class, the two classes that did use charisma as an important stat (bards and paladins) you could at least see the these two classes needed to be "charismatic" in the traditional sense (people who are good at influencing/impressing others). There's no reason why a sorcerer would have some innate need have a higher charisma other than they just wanted to use a different stat than intelligence and came up with charisma (force of will, I suppose?).

But yeah, for secondary effects, it makes a bit less sense. Honestly not a huge deal though IMO. Just one of those oddities where one might question why, everything else being the same, folks might be more inclined to trust/believe/follow/whatever a sorcerer than a wizard, just because the game mechanics make it that way.

As to whether high charisma is necessary for leadership? No. But it helps. On the flip side, as we've seen, just having a high charisma is also no indicator that you will be a good leader (or even want to be). The charisma stat just means that you have some natural traits that, if do choose to lead people, give you a bit of an advantage. Elan certainly is good at inspiring and influencing people. He's pretty terrible at what he inspires or influences them into doing, but that's another story.

Roy's a good leader because he has a high intelligence, makes plans and executes them, and yeah has a decent charisma, so he can get people to pay attention to him in a crowd. And he also has goals. And he seeks out people to assist him with those goals. None of the others in the group really have those sets of traits. And yeah, that's going to have more to do with personality written on the character sheet in prose rather than stats/skills/feats written down in numerical form somewhere on the sames sheet.

[Kish]

Yeah. I think our tangents have tangents (does that mean we've like done a 180 then?). I do find the whole "sorcerers muddled up Charisma" to be a valid point. Prior to the introduction of that class,
druids were required to have 15 Charisma.

Fit that into your schema if you can.

[Peelee]

Speaking as someone who only got into D&D at 3.5, I found Charisma-based sorcerers to make plenty of sense, calling spells into being with their sheer force of personality. Its my favorite class to play.

[Kish]

Yes, I don't get where the "arcane spellcasters other than bards are supposed to be antisocial loners" thing even comes from. Stereotypically, wizards were noted for their low Strength, not low Charisma; the kind of player who automatically dumped Charisma when playing a wizard could be counted on to also do so when playing a fighter, or a cleric, or a thief, for minmax reasons, not roleplaying reasons.

[Provengreil]

Speaking as someone who only got into D&D at 3.5, I found Charisma-based sorcerers to make plenty of sense, calling spells into being with their sheer force of personality. Its my favorite class to play.

I had the same intro, but my headcanon reversed cause and effect: the magic made them more forceful.


Yes, I don't get where the "arcane spellcasters other than bards are supposed to be antisocial loners" thing even comes from. Stereotypically, wizards were noted for their low Strength, not low Charisma; the kind of player who automatically dumped Charisma when playing a wizard could be counted on to also do so when playing a fighter, or a cleric, or a thief, for minmax reasons, not roleplaying reasons.

For the descriptions I remember, Sorcerors weren't antisocial per se, they were just feared and shunned due to a (mostly) undeserved reputation for not being able to control their powers. Usually it's just the first few times where they don't know what's happening, after some practice it becomes normal, but randos on the street don't know to make that distinction. Smarter ones just pass for hedge wizards if the setting allows it.

Wizards are often written as scientists buried in their labs, which has the feel of being antisocial. Most descriptions that I've seen seem to imply this to be a slow, but safe and effective way to gain wizard levels for those sane enough to not go dungeon delving.

[KorvinStarmast]

druids were required to have 15 Charisma. It made considerable sense in the edition where they were introduced, since they were positioned as leaders (originally as a monster/NPC in Greyhawk leading non-urban/non-settlement folks) which carried over into the Eldritch Wizardry (higher Cha stat minimums) version (also in the AD&D 1e version). Having retainers/loyalty matters if you are a group leader.

...I don't get where the "arcane spellcasters other than bards are supposed to be antisocial loners" thing even comes from. I think it comes from Harry Potter. :smallyuk:

[brian 333]

It made considerable sense in the edition where they were introduced, since they were positioned as leaders (originally as a monster/NPC in Greyhawk leading non-urban/non-settlement folks) which carried over into the Eldritch Wizardry (higher Cha stat minimums) version (also in the AD&D 1e version). Having retainers/loyalty matters if you are a group leader.
I think it comes from Harry Potter. :smallyuk:

A Pottery! Abandon thread, abandon thread! All hands abandon thread!

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, I don't get where the "arcane spellcasters other than bards are supposed to be antisocial loners" thing even comes from. Stereotypically, wizards were noted for their low Strength, not low Charisma; the kind of player who automatically dumped Charisma when playing a wizard could be counted on to also do so when playing a fighter, or a cleric, or a thief, for minmax reasons, not roleplaying reasons.

Wizards are the class that has a class feature that encourages forming large organizations. Wizard colleges/schools/guilds/social clubs can share spells.

To more or less quote my disertation advisor, "You haven't finished the research till you tell someone else about it."

A lone wizard is a vastly worse researcher than a social wizard, simply because the social wizard has access to far more spells than the lone wizard can research, AND he can also research additional spells without being the 5,000th wizard in his world to invent the same spell.

[Peelee]

Wizards are the class that has a class feature that encourages forming large organizations. Wizard colleges/schools/guilds/social clubs can share spells.

To more or less quote my disertation advisor, "You haven't finished the research till you tell someone else about it."

A lone wizard is a vastly worse researcher than a social wizard, simply because the social wizard has access to far more spells than the lone wizard can research, AND he can also research additional spells without being the 5,000th wizard in his world to invent the same spell.

A group of smart people gathering around in clubs with other smart people and not really having any of the athletic or musical or naturalistic people in it.

You have successfully described high school nerd cliques. :smalltongue:

[Liquor Box]

A group of smart people gathering around in clubs with other smart people and not really having any of the athletic or musical or naturalistic people in it.

You have successfully described high school nerd cliques. :smalltongue:

Maybe that's where the trope of the antisocial spellcaster comes from - them being associated with nerds who tend to be (or at least stereotypically are) less successfully socially than the fighter and bard analogues.

[brian 333]

Maybe that's where the trope of the antisocial spellcaster comes from - them being associated with nerds who tend to be (or at least stereotypically are) less successfully socially than the fighter and bard analogues.

Those jocks really cheese my crackers, and guitar guy... I hate guitar guy!

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe that's where the trope of the antisocial spellcaster comes from - them being associated with nerds who tend to be (or at least stereotypically are) less successfully socially than the fighter and bard analogues. Ya think? :smallwink:

for brian333:
Guitar guy is OK, and you can learn to play guitar if you put the work into it.
Will you be the next Jimmy Page?
The Next Eddie Van Halen?
The next Ziggy Stardust?
Probably not, but you can learn to play guitar.

[brian 333]

Ya think? :smallwink:

for brian333:
Guitar guy is OK, and you can learn to play guitar if you put the work into it.
Will you be the next Jimmy Page?
The Next Eddie Van Halen?
The next Ziggy Stardust?
Probably not, but you can learn to play guitar.

After forty years of effort, I'm here to tell you this is untrue. I can tune a guitar so well that it hardly needs tweaking when tuned on an o-scope. I can play scales and chord progressions. I can't maintain a rhythm or pick to save my life.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can play scales and chord progressions. Chord progressions allow you to be the rhythm guitar player. :) Sorry about the rhythm problem, but if you follow the drummer you should be OK.
My picking never got beyond 'basic' and I no longer play.

[Metastachydium]

Speaking as someone who only got into D&D at 3.5, I found Charisma-based sorcerers to make plenty of sense, calling spells into being with their sheer force of personality. Its my favorite class to play.

Speaking as someone who only got into D&D after 5e rolled about, but still never bothered to play anything more recent than 3.5 (barring PF1), I still haven't gotten over Warlocks being Charisma-based. I still like them, though.

[gbaji]

druids were required to have 15 Charisma.

Fit that into your schema if you can.

They're good with animals? Ok. Someone else answered this, sorta. Eh...

I'm more going with there being no really innate reason why one class would need people with more charisma than another. Bards and Paladins I can see. Druids I can see as well (sorta). And yeah, I get the whole "force of personality" bit for sorcerers. Maybe? If I squint a bit and hold my head to the side.

I just don't see sorcerers, personality wise, really being more "charismatic" than any other wizard type person. If anything, as a couple have pointed out, sorcerers have no need or gain any benefit magically from socializing or interacting with others. They just know what they can do magically. Wizards actually do have to work with others. They have to apprentice, then learn, join guilds to gain access to spells, earn money not just by casting their magic, but also teaching it, etc.

But yeah. Mechanically, there are 6 stats, and when creating a class you have to try to balance out the stats to the class you are creating (er. though some far less balanced than others in various editions, so whatever). I really think it was not much more complicated than that Int was already connected to traditional magic users, and Wis to clerics and druids, so they kinda went "welp. What other stat is there that isn't a purely phyisical thing we can use. Str, Con, and Dex (I could make a case for a dex based caster though) make even less sense, so... Charisma it is!".

[Keltest]

Druids needed a 15 charisma because they were a theoretical leadership societal class (not mechanical class) for their people, not because of any intrinsic requirement for their combat abilities or anything. This was back when "class" was tied much more closely to "day job."

[Peelee]

Wizards actually do have to work with others. They have to apprentice, then learn, join guilds to gain access to spells, earn money not just by casting their magic, but also teaching it, etc.

Unless they adventure, at which point they just learn everything and gain spells out in the wilderness with a bunch of non-wizards not really helping out. :smalltongue:

[brian 333]

Druids needed a 15 charisma because they were a theoretical leadership societal class (not mechanical class) for their people, not because of any intrinsic requirement for their combat abilities or anything. This was back when "class" was tied much more closely to "day job."

The real world example from which the class originally derived was much more like the Bard class: messengers, teachers, knowers of legends, history, genealogy, and so on. Bard didn't exist as a class then, and only later was a bard, (multiclass fighter/thief/druid,) added as an optional class.

[Doug Lampert]

A group of smart people gathering around in clubs with other smart people and not really having any of the athletic or musical or naturalistic people in it.

You have successfully described high school nerd cliques. :smalltongue:

So, you're claiming that the wizard organizations not only cooperate in research, but they also get together for roleplaying games set in a fascinating world of people with strange powers called something like Papers and Paychecks?

The kids I hung out with in highschool would definitely have been colaborating in researching spells to cause explosions if we'd been in D&D land.

[WanderingMist]

They're good with animals? Ok. Someone else answered this, sorta. Eh...

I'm more going with there being no really innate reason why one class would need people with more charisma than another. Bards and Paladins I can see. Druids I can see as well (sorta). And yeah, I get the whole "force of personality" bit for sorcerers. Maybe? If I squint a bit and hold my head to the side.

I just don't see sorcerers, personality wise, really being more "charismatic" than any other wizard type person. If anything, as a couple have pointed out, sorcerers have no need or gain any benefit magically from socializing or interacting with others. They just know what they can do magically. Wizards actually do have to work with others. They have to apprentice, then learn, join guilds to gain access to spells, earn money not just by casting their magic, but also teaching it, etc.

But yeah. Mechanically, there are 6 stats, and when creating a class you have to try to balance out the stats to the class you are creating (er. though some far less balanced than others in various editions, so whatever). I really think it was not much more complicated than that Int was already connected to traditional magic users, and Wis to clerics and druids, so they kinda went "welp. What other stat is there that isn't a purely phyisical thing we can use. Str, Con, and Dex (I could make a case for a dex based caster though) make even less sense, so... Charisma it is!".

There's multiple types of charisma. Like, say, manipulation requires a great deal of charisma and is highly associated with evil sorcerers like the Evil Queen in Snow White, or Jafar from Aladdin or Sauron.

Good sorcerers use charisma because sorcerers tend to be natural show-offs. They enjoy using their magic for fun and bringing happiness to people, like Genie, (also from Aladdin).

[woweedd]

They're good with animals? Ok. Someone else answered this, sorta. Eh...

I'm more going with there being no really innate reason why one class would need people with more charisma than another. Bards and Paladins I can see. Druids I can see as well (sorta). And yeah, I get the whole "force of personality" bit for sorcerers. Maybe? If I squint a bit and hold my head to the side.

I just don't see sorcerers, personality wise, really being more "charismatic" than any other wizard type person. If anything, as a couple have pointed out, sorcerers have no need or gain any benefit magically from socializing or interacting with others. They just know what they can do magically. Wizards actually do have to work with others. They have to apprentice, then learn, join guilds to gain access to spells, earn money not just by casting their magic, but also teaching it, etc.

But yeah. Mechanically, there are 6 stats, and when creating a class you have to try to balance out the stats to the class you are creating (er. though some far less balanced than others in various editions, so whatever). I really think it was not much more complicated than that Int was already connected to traditional magic users, and Wis to clerics and druids, so they kinda went "welp. What other stat is there that isn't a purely phyisical thing we can use. Str, Con, and Dex (I could make a case for a dex based caster though) make even less sense, so... Charisma it is!".
In this case, I think being Charisma is meant to represent force of personality. Wizards learn magic, Druids and Clerics intuit outside forces to serve their magic, Sorcerers master their own INTERNAL power, directed by their own personality and sense of self. Charisma as PRESENCE, basically. A Sorcerer must exert herself OVER her magic, as opposed to the Wizards' memorization, or the Druid and Cleric, who work in intuitive sympatico with an outside power.

[Jasdoif]

Speaking as someone who only got into D&D after 5e rolled about, but still never bothered to play anything more recent than 3.5 (barring PF1), I still haven't gotten over Warlocks being Charisma-based. I still like them, though.Functional charisma-deprived warlocks can exist, at least; unlike spellcasters there's no minimum ability score for invocations, and there are enough save-less invocations to choose from that you might avoid the penalty entirely.

[gbaji]

In this case, I think being Charisma is meant to represent force of personality. Wizards learn magic, Druids and Clerics intuit outside forces to serve their magic, Sorcerers master their own INTERNAL power, directed by their own personality and sense of self. Charisma as PRESENCE, basically. A Sorcerer must exert herself OVER her magic, as opposed to the Wizards' memorization, or the Druid and Cleric, who work in intuitive sympatico with an outside power.

Oh yeah. I can totally see it. I guess it comes down to what exactly the Charisma stat actually represents. And it's a bit tricky because the default is that it's a measure of the ability of the character to "positively influence other people". The more charismatic you are, the more people are inclined to listen to you, trust you, follow you, etc. It's a very "personable" type of stat. We can certainly extend that to "force of will" concepts, wihch absolutely lead us into "folks who can just make things happen" (like sorcerers). But I still find it problematic when you backfill that into the default purpose.

Just because someone has a strong will, and can use that will to create magical effects (or maybe control animals or whatever) doesn't mean that they're going to have more positive reactions from actual people though. And at the end of the day, charisma as a stat mostly determines how well you can do things that involve influencing other people (although some of those could be said to be "negative" effects, so there is that). Again. Not something that is "broken" in any way IMO. And more just an artifact of stat granularity (there's only 6, and every skill has to have a stat that's associated with it, so...).

Just one of those things that you accept as part of the rules, isn't really a major deal, but yeah, maybe don't really try to think about it too hard.

[super dark33]

Yes, I don't get where the "arcane spellcasters other than bards are supposed to be antisocial loners" thing even comes from. Stereotypically, wizards were noted for their low Strength, not low Charisma; the kind of player who automatically dumped Charisma when playing a wizard could be counted on to also do so when playing a fighter, or a cleric, or a thief, for minmax reasons, not roleplaying reasons.

Youd also get Warlocks and Hexblades later being dark edgy untrusted loners and charisma stat users who i personally think are the main culprits in the "CHA spellcasters are loners" presumptions, maybe there were a few more examples but I Forgor.

the problem with Sheer Power Of Personality is that a lot of people self describe as Powerful Personality because they believe their inner innateness (quiddity if you will) is so Cool and Correct and Special thats how you get all the edgy archetypes from, Sigma Loners who hide a Dark Secret from the rest of Society, thankless and persecuted.

[KorvinStarmast]

Youd also get Warlocks and Hexblades later being dark edgy untrusted loners and charisma stat users who i personally think are the main culprits in the "CHA spellcasters are loners" presumptions, maybe there were a few more examples but I Forgor.

the problem with Sheer Power Of Personality is that a lot of people self describe as Powerful Personality because they believe their inner innateness (quiddity if you will) is so Cool and Correct and Special thats how you get all the edgy archetypes from, Sigma Loners who hide a Dark Secret from the rest of Society, thankless and persecuted. I think I am seeing a description of "edge lords" here, but am not sure. And to relate that to the OP topic, I have a hard time seeing an "edge lord" as a leader. Might be a successful adventurer, yes, but a leader? Not seeing it.

[Metastachydium]

Functional charisma-deprived warlocks can exist, at least; unlike spellcasters there's no minimum ability score for invocations, and there are enough save-less invocations to choose from that you might avoid the penalty entirely.

I know that, but it still bugs me. That's just another reason why it could safely be the one CON-based "caster" class.


I think I am seeing a description of "edge lords" here, but am not sure. And to relate that to the OP topic, I have a hard time seeing an "edge lord" as a leader. Might be a successful adventurer, yes, but a leader? Not seeing it.

But that's the whole "sigma" deal! A true "sigma" is so much better than everyone else that he doesn't need followers who couldn't understand his greatness and capacity for leading anyhow!

[gbaji]

But that's the whole "sigma" deal! A true "sigma" is so much better than everyone else that he doesn't need followers who couldn't understand his greatness and capacity for leading anyhow!

So... Charisma so high it wraps back around into negative numbers?

[KorvinStarmast]

So... Charisma so high it wraps back around into negative numbers?
Yeah, that old 256 bit wrap around from a couple of decades back ... :smallbiggrin: (IIRC, original Diablo ran into that in a few game quirks...like limits on chain lightning ...)

[gbaji]

Yeah, that old 256 bit wrap around from a couple of decades back ... :smallbiggrin: (IIRC, original Diablo ran into that in a few game quirks...like limits on chain lightning ...)

Sadly, this is a very real thing with computers (er... that's technically a 8 bit wrap though). Gets even more amusing (and produces more bizzare results) when using signed integers too. Improper bounds/value checking is a common problem.

[Kish]

I once read a comment by someone whose level 3 cleric was level drained twice by the spectre in Mandor's Library, in the Pool of Radiance computer game.

Note that a spectre, in 1ed AD&D, drained two levels per hit. So that was four levels lost, and of course his cleric died. And he went to a temple and had them raised. And looked at the character sheet and went, "...level 255? I can prepare how many spells now? A lot of which aren't meant to be cleric spells?"

Unfortunately, the game locked when he tried to train his level 255 cleric.

[Liquor Box]

I think the same thing famously happened with the original Sid Meier's Civilisation for the Ghandi character's propensity to use nuclear weapons. Each character was set to a value for their likeiness to use them, and then certain modifiers were applied. This meant that Ghandi consistently went off the lower end of the scale for propensity to use nukes, and ended up almost certain to use them.

[Kish]

Yes, he had an Aggression of 0 and was programmed to switch to the Democracy civic once it was available. The Democracy civic gave any AI side which adopted it -1 to Aggression...

[Keltest]

Yes, he had an Aggression of 0 and was programmed to switch to the Democracy civic once it was available. The Democracy civic gave any AI side which adopted it -1 to Aggression...

That is, apparently, an urban legend actually.

[dancrilis]

That is, apparently, an urban legend actually.

I am unsure about that.

According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Gandhi) (which sides it it being a hoax) when asked the developers effectively stated 'I don't know it was a long time ago'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sadly, this is a very real thing with computers (er... that's technically a 8 bit wrap though). Gets even more amusing (and produces more bizzare results) when using signed integers too. Improper bounds/value checking is a common problem. Yeah, sorry, 28, sorry for the sloppy presentation. I was vaguely remembering Jarulf's guide and why CL was so wonky as the sprite count got to 225 or 256 ...

[super dark33]

Im glad the comment about "low CHA" people logicking themselves into claiming a "High CHA" stat started a conversation about integers :smalltongue:

which i guess also kinda fits, as Charisma/other skills and abilities with clear quantifiable Results (push boulder, know subject) can easily be portrayed in simulations, but social connections are much much harder to portray.


Roy is an excellent leader not only because he knows what his party can do and how best to utilize it, but because he is the focal point of Order cooperation and communication.
he earned the trust of every member and they know to count on him when a goal needs to be set.

All that even when the party was more strained in its connection before his death.

edit: rereading up until the end of the book from 881, this is a mighty demonstration of Roy as a leader.