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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3225000" data-attributes="member: 2011">This is a logical flaw. Because they are Charismatic, they are Intimidating.These lawyers are rainmakers because they are charismatic, not because they are intimidating. If they get their position due to their charisma, it is a logical fallacy to assume that their charisma (which is a positive force that attracts clients) is used negatively to intimidate coworkers and others.Charisma might get them their power base, but it is their power base which intimidates others.Power intimidates. Charisma does not equate to power. It can be used to acquire power, but it does not equate to it. That is the logical fallacy of the Intimidate skill as defined in the rules. According to the Intimidate rules, the effeminate Bard who takes no ranks in Intimidate is more intimidating than the massive Barbarian who takes no ranks in Intimidate, even though the Barbarian exudes power. That's backwards. And it is especially backwards for the Demoralize Opponent aspect of Intimidate.Several members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not overly charismatic (e.g. Ginsburg), but they wield a huge amount of power and are intimidating to anyone who enters their court or even meets them in a social setting.You are equating Charisma to Power due to the fact that Charisma can lead to Power. But, this is not a logical progression and the two are not the same.In fact, you appear to be espousing that Power leads to Charisma and that definitely is not the case.</blockquote>

Verification