On a slightly more serious note, this was kind of my point, there's like this amusing superficial similarity, but the idea that a dude who inspires people and whose main deal is casting spells is "like James Bond" is pretty wack.
Bond's actual main deal I note is luck - it's literally expressed in the first film, I forget the exact line, but it's alluded to almost immediately that he's very lucky. And then throughout pretty much all the pre-Craig films we see that over and over, Bond often just blunders his way into things, rarely does any actual spycraft, gets into these incredibly dangerous situations and again often gets out of them by luck rather than judgement or skill, and constantly bumps into women who find him attractive and are willing to do unreasonable things to help him, or to delay killing him (even though, very often, objectively, he's not that hot). It's also why most of the casino games he prefers are games of chance, not skill (pre-Craig, again).
I dunno if he even has a high CHA when it comes down to it - he's rarely able to convince anyone of anything outside of romance, doesn't seem like a natural leader, and so on (I mean, I'd definitely say it's above-average though).
He's kind of one of those characters that actually only works properly in an RPG where the PCs have some narrative control, because of the luck factor often involving third parties appearing conveniently. Sorry been listening to a podcast about Bond recently, so had a lot of thoughts!
www.dndbeyond.com
