Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 6835799" data-attributes="member: 6702445">Throughout the post below, I will use "Warlord" as shorthand for "character who inspires."I'm not talking about personality, although I did use that word in my query; I'm talking about inter-party relations.  I keep hearing that mundane inspiration can work no matter how the rest of the party relates to the Warlord.  So I took the Fellowship of the Ring as shorthand for a group of characters we all know who have a particular relationship to each other and asked how those who were not in obvious roles of leadership or reverence could inspire.  The important point about Boromir isn't so much his personality as his relationship to the rest of the group.  That said, and for what it's worth, I think classes come with certain baseline implications about personality, but there's still a spectrum of possibilities for each one.  Some people, as you probably know, delight in trying to find the most unlikely combination of class and personality.  More to the point, there should be almost infinite permutations for how any single example of one class relates to any single example of another.If you think there's no way Boromir could be a Warlord, why not?  If he had Warlord on his character sheet, what would his hypothetical player be doing wrong?Charming to whom, though?  The rogue or bard would have a better chance of charming a random NPC, but the rest of the party doesn't have to find the rogue/bard charming.  Maybe they can see through the facade to the desperate and rather pathetic need for approval underneath, so they're not fooled by things that would dazzle an NPC.And do we agree that at most tables, the rogue or bard would be discouraged from using the Persuasion expertise on another party member?As a person?  Maybe so.  One could argue that they are superior in a sort of cart-before-the-horse way--that the ones truly born to highest office somehow mysteriously do demonstrate the highest superiority in a neat hierarchical way.  I don't really want to believe that, but I can't think of a good counter-argument and would welcome one if you have it.This is where I see the bigger problem, actually.  I would venture to say that most players of D&D come from cultures that like to think of themselves as meritocracies.  We like to think that positions of authority are granted to those who display the greatest capability to lead--and if they are not, then an injustice is being done.  So when a player shows up with a character concept whose entire heart is "I have a marvelous capacity to lead, better than anyone else in the party, and it doesn't even come from magic but just from my own natural qualities," the obvious corollary is "Therefore, I deserve to be placed in a position of leadership, and if I'm not, then an injustice is being committed."I think I see what @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=31754" target="_blank">Lord Twig</a> was saying.  Filtering it through characters means that one player influences how another player plays his/her PC, which can be seen as manipulating the second player.But what do you say if I want to be able to decide for myself whether what another character says is something my PC would find inspiring?  I hope it's more than "Just decline the buff," because while that's a possible solution, it doesn't strike me as an ideal one.This statement interests me.  Are you saying that it would be somehow against the concept to play a Warlord like Nick Fury, or just that it doesn't fit your mental ideal of what a really heroic Warlord would be like?</blockquote>

Verification