I resolve PC on PC action by mutual agreement or by leaving it to the recipient of the action.
In essence, you don't have to be inspired, charmed, cured, blessed, or whatever, if you don't want to be.
Never comes up, though. Most people want to be healed or buffed.
The whole "what if I don't find the warlord inspiring?" argument is contrarian.
in virtually every situation where another PC is giving them a mechanical benefit at the cost of having to agree their character was inspired by a particular character that the player will automatically choose a fluff that allows them to get the buff as opposed to a fluff that does not. The only exception is if it's something really important regarding their character concept.
Why does this work in actual play so often? Because no one maps out traits about their characters like or dislike of music or like or dislike of halflings or like or dislike of whatever. And even then if they generally dislike any of those things they can also say that your particular song or halfling or whatever is an exception to the characters general dislike.
The point is that there is always fluff they can use to establish why their character was inspired by something and once the sensible fluff bridge is cross what real reason does the player have to not choose such fluffs in these situations unless it's for something he feels is going to be really important regarding his character.
So yes, i can understand your concerns on a philosophical level. Can you understand why your concerns aren't actually a problem in actual play?
I agree with both these posts. I think they are consistent with what I've said in some posts above (and on another thread in this subforum) - at most tables there is just not this degree of drilling down into the fiction, and if there is then the players will just author the fiction they need to make it work.
the target of the spell doesn't have to love you for casting it, even if they accept the effect.
the most obvious explanation for what was happening in the fiction was that my character was revering the warlord and obediently following her lead.
I do dislike having to picture my character as worshiping the warlord's wonderfulness every time she handed out bonuses. And that's in spite of the fact that I have no personal beef with the player of the character.
Well--it probably doesn't help that people keep holding up Aragorn and/or Gandalf as examples. I mean, practically every good-aligned character in the books holds them in almost holy reverence
I think this is a misreading of LotR. Frodo, Faramir, Boromir, Legolas et al do not hold Gandalf or Aragorn in holy reverence. That would be sacrilege; and for Gandalf or Aragorn to accept such reverence would be to commit the sin of pride of which Sauron is guilty (and arguably the Ringwraiths also, in their lust for domination which led them to take the rings from Sauron).
Gandalf and Aragorn aren't
worshipped. They are loved, admired and respected.
Which leads me to my main point: I am extremely puzzled by your "most obvious" explanation.
[MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] has already mentioned upthread, mulitple times, that one person might inspire another through the words they use, and the strength of their personality, without the inspired person loving or admiring them.
I would add that it is not uncommon for one person to come to respect another person
because that other person is inspiring to them; that is, respect is an effect and not a cause of inspiration. I also think that it is possible to be inspired or motivated by someone you don't particularly care for, at least in certain circumstances.
But even if we put all these cases to one side, and treat admiration, love or respect as the paradigm - I don't see the problem. D&D is based around party play. In the typical D&D campaign the PCs spend nearly all their time together, having one another's backs in life and death situations. They regularly take risks on one another's behalf, contribute large sums of money to raising one another from the dead, etc.
To me, it is natural that such people should feel admiration, respect and/or love for one another. Which means that this narrative of the warlord doesn't raise any problems - the reason the warlord is able to inspire my PC is because s/he is someone whom my PC respects and admires.
A typical D&D party is not comprised of hierarchical command structures designed to enforce and illicit subordination.
This raises the same issue. Why would anyone suppose that
subordination is a necessary condition of
inspiration? Legolas, for instance, isn't
subordinate to Aragorn - Aragorn is his friend and companion, not his master.
The only explanation for the above statement is that you clearly do not understand what "agency" means.
<snip>
The real question is, who's the bigger jerk? Bill and Jim for invalidating their friend's choice of character by exercising their agency? Or Mike for putting them in that position in the first place by making a character designed to rob them of said agency?
It's a warlord issue because what you want in a warlord necessarily creates this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont situation.
It's only "damned if you do or damned if you don't" if there is some sort of cost to playing my PC as respecting or admiring your PC. But why is that a cost? How is that inconsistent with the way that most D&D party play unfolds?
In other posts on the warlord I have conjectured that the real source of the warlord divide is differing conceptions of protagonists, as either self-sufficient atoms, or as related to and even dependent on others. It seems to me that only if you have the former conception would it be some sort of
burden on your agency, as a player, to play your PC as admiring and respecting a fellow PC.
