NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 6793311" data-attributes="member: 6702445">Not sure what that would look like--do you just refluff the extra actions from "You're so inspired by the Warlord that you're able to do more" to "You're so worried about the Warlord that you're able to do more"?  If so, the Warlord still has the ability to say that the party focuses on him/her, which is a sort of control.That's what I mean by "unless the players agree to it."  If a player doesn't want his/her PC to be under the authority of the local noble family, all he/she has to do is make a character who doesn't come from the noble's jurisdiction. This is especially true if the campaign leaves the area that the noble's family rules.  If the player makes a PC who is from the noble's territory, then the player is agreeing to the noble PC's authority, to whatever level that means in their campaign.I don't think that typically bothers people who are bothered by the Warlord (though I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees).  I'm trying to figure out a possible reason for that phenomenon.And again, I think people who are bothered by the Warlord are typically not bothered by authority gained during play.I would say the ability to inspire the party to extra-heroic deeds (or however you fluff it) does constitute innate authority; in fact, I'd say that's exactly what "innate authority" is, in the sense that it comes from within the Warlord's being and not from something outside, like a social or military structure.  The question is how that interacts with rank, or whether it should.  Also whether "authority from within" creates a feeling of rank within the group, and whether that's avoidable.</blockquote>

Verification