Paladins and Charisma

Permidion_Stark

Why do Paladins need to have such high charisma? Is it because they don't have much money so need to get discounts when they go shopping?

Bercon

Yes, they can't steal the money so they'll have to use their charm.

Doom972

Paladins need to be confident and have the ability to lead. In 3rd Edition they get bonuses to certain abilities by having high charisma, but I'm not sure about 2nd Edition.

pablo200783

High charisma give lower price on shop, described the beauty of character.

ScarsUnseen

If I recall correctly, in AD&D the paladin was supposed to be a "rare" class, and since the recommended method of generating attributes at the time was a straight 3d6 with no modifications, rerolls or rearrangement, the 17 charisma requirement was TSR's way of keeping the class rare. It makes as much mechanical sense as racial class restrictions and racial level limitations did.

Permidion_Stark

The weird thing about paladins is that they have to have a high CHA score but if Ajantis and Keldorn are anything to go by they aren't actually very charismatic.

Sallparadise

I think it also plays into that whole Knight in shinning armor bit from lore.
Nobody remembers a Paladin thats shy.

bikertiax

Because ADD says so.

IchigoRXC

because... magic

LadyRhian

Because Paladins are supposed to reflect both sides of the medieval view of Knighthood- Kickass fighting from the male view, "gentil parfait" courtly lover from the female side. Remember, guys, Charisma is more than just being pretty- it's being able to get people to follow you and persuade people to do things your way. And remember that they are Lawful Good. Given the way that most/many people play their characters, that is a significant as well. You can't steal or run around murdering people as you please. If you are Lawful Good, there is no way the DM would let you send a thief in to steal from people. The thief could do it on the sly, but if your character found out about it, you'd turn them in.

Dannen6272

As the traditional knight and party leader, they need to be very strong leaders, and have an exceptional force of personality. It also makes them much more rare and hard to roll into when making a character which no doubt serves to balance their numbers in the world. Very few people would have what it takes to really be a true paladin.

ScarsUnseen

@LadyRhian Be that as it may, there is no mechanical or in-game reason that paladins would require a 17 charisma to function when a mage only needed(though would be only barely functional with) a 9 intelligence. The only reason to require such a high attribute score in a game designed around purely randomized attributes is to enforce rarity.

Humanoid_Taifun

@ScarsUnseen You don't think being trained for a decade or longer in the arts of leadership and being a rolemodel, while being taught about honesty etcetera won't have any influence on one's charisma?
They are supposed to be champions, grand examples for others to follow, not just fighters.

ScarsUnseen

@Humanoid_Taifun no more so than being trained for a decade or longer in the arts of wizadry would have an influence on one's intelligence, or being trained in the fighting arts would have an effect on one's strength.

The attribute requirement for paladins is disproportionate to its importance to the class in comparison to the primary attribute for other classes. Keep in mind that it is only in Baldur's Gate that you are given the required attribute automatically. In PnP AD&D, if you don't roll an 18 on an unmodified 3d6, you don't get to be a paladin.

Humanoid_Taifun

Okay, good point, though I would reason that the strength, dexterity, constitution requirements are simply too low for fighters.
A fighter who can neither trust his muscle (Str:9) nor his agility (Dex:3) has no place on the battlefield. If I was DM, I wouldn't allow a fighter with neither of those 2 at least at 17, unless the player had a really good roleplaying reason.
My opinion on wizards and intelligence isn't much different.

e3r4t5yn

charisma affects prices at stores:

1. sell and purchase items through the party member with highest charisma;
2. some clocks rise charisma;
3. "friend" spell also rises charisma.

Schneidend

Permidion_Stark said:

The weird thing about paladins is that they have to have a high CHA score but if Ajantis and Keldorn are anything to go by they aren't actually very charismatic.

What makes you say that? They probably just rolled low on their Diplomacy checks with you.

beerflavour

Some dialog options will have different results depending on the speaker's charisma score. The first example that comes to mind is the errand in the tutorial where you have to buy some crossbow bolts and when you return the drunkard's sword.

The problem may be that too many different aspects are compiled into charisma (beauty and force of personality). While both aspects may have similar affects on others the first is granted "genetically" and the latter is rather obtained by training and confidence.

Actually being a role model (like paladins should be) requires lots of non-combat training as well. Religion, history and lore to some extent, how to talk among nobles, poetry, laws, etc. Most players would focus on physical attributes for warrior types. To train these non-combat abilities a paladin would actually require some minimum intelligence score or get some free skill points which are then allocated to these non-combat proficiencies. Instead they introduced the charisma requirement which affects encounters with others. I can imagine that this will keep things easier for the DM. Otherwise you'd need to always consider which non-weapon proficiencies will help when and how. And what if your player forgot to train some non-weapon proficiency which actually should be within the paladin's knowledge (due to past training)?

The charisma restriction is one of the rather minor restrictions. There are several methods of how to roll characters (6 times 3d6, 6 times 4d6 keep highest, each stat has a minimum of 8 then roll 7d6 and distribute the rolls, point buy, etc.). You could also do it just like BG does it (minimum requirements are alyways met).

The real restrictions are:
1) the alignment (Lawful Good)
2) the tenets of the chivalric order
3) penalties for doing chaotic or evil acts
4) restrictions on how many magical items a paladin is allowed to possess
5) wealth restrictions including donating most of his/her income to charitable institutions

bigdogchris

"Charisma measures a character’s persuasiveness, personal magnetism and ability to lead. This ability is important to the druid, bard and paladin." - From the BG2 Manual.

Bubbleboy

Don't they get a bonus to Lay on hands ability with higher charisma? I think they do but i can't remember which edition it was.

Sallparadise

Regardless, can't we all just agree that Paladins are silly and have no sense of humor.

fighter_mage_thief

Permidion_Stark said:

The weird thing about paladins is that they have to have a high CHA score but if Ajantis and Keldorn are anything to go by they aren't actually very charismatic.

I don't think charisma and fine leadership are easy to capture in a game. I'd say the same for theatre or cinema, since we're comparing an idealized image with reality, i.e. voice actors, actors, etc. For example, a charismatic person could say the same things as an uncharismatic person (they could literally have the same text in a game, or say the same things on stage), but the charismatic person will attract an audience (like an actor's great moment of bringing some written piece to life that captures the audience, contrasted with bad acting that can even bring us to disgust), will get the attention of others easier, and so on (and at the same time, not necessarily desiring that spotlight, which is easy to contrast with attention seekers, glory hogs, and so on, who I would say, by contrast, have a less charismatic personality), while the uncharismatic person will not. Also, it's different than merely being interesting. Mass murderers can be 'interesting.' Same with Hollywood celebs. But these people aren't going to necessarily have the magnetic personality that draws people towards them that a natural born leader would (Hollywood celebs are probably so popular to many people because they can portray this image on stage, albeit with a memorized and rehearsed script, but outside of that environment, they're usually very unexciting people, unless we count the excess or extravagance--perhaps even decadence--that comes with extreme wealth). Further, a great leader isn't likely to even seem like a leader under many circumstances (at least I would think), or even lead you to believe that you're being led. That or there is some important quality recognized in the leader, such as competence that the led doesn't possess in some area, or the ability to do important things that the led can't. By contrast, someone who tries to publicly or overtly assume a leadership role is often received with suspicion by many (take politicians for example), because it invites others to think of what ideal leadership qualities this person lacks, not to mention that many wannabe leaders are seen as such because they overreach their own limits, which is sometimes very easy to spot.

Also, in these games, Imoen, Coran, Eldoth, Haer'Dalis, and even Xan (for crying out loud lol) all have a Cha score of 16. Safana has 17. I don't know what to think about that. I also think that a level 10 fighter with 10 charisma is definitely better suited to be party leader than a level 1 paladin with 18 charisma, but also depending on the situation. For diplomatic matters, the paladin might be better. For leading a war party, I'd choose the experienced fighter.

Just some thoughts, although I have mixed feelings like you. Personally, I've always found the charisma stat a bit strange.

ScarsUnseen

Humanoid_Taifun said:

Okay, good point, though I would reason that the strength, dexterity, constitution requirements are simply too low for fighters.
A fighter who can neither trust his muscle (Str:9) nor his agility (Dex:3) has no place on the battlefield. If I was DM, I wouldn't allow a fighter with neither of those 2 at least at 17, unless the player had a really good roleplaying reason.
My opinion on wizards and intelligence isn't much different.

Different strokes and all that, but I find that stance to be absurd, and usually a product WotC era D&D. Two attributes with a 17 minimum? I've played games where no one rolled a single attribute above 14. It works fine. As for role playing... well not everyone wants to play Conan. By definition, a 13 attribute is above average. A 17 is near human peak(which is 18 in AD&D). That guy who got second place in a bodybuilding competition? He has a 17 strength. Westley from The Princess Bride? Maybe a 14 at most(but he has a high Con). And he's hardly disadvantaged.

People thinking a character to be crippled without an attribute over 15 is the sort of thing that makes me loathe point buy systems.

Humanoid_Taifun

ScarsUnseen said:

Two attributes with a 17 minimum?

That's not what I said. I said I want at least one of them to be near human peak or a very good explanation why you would train for so long, still come out as not impressive at all and decide to take on hordes of undead anyway armed with nothing but a cheap blade and good intentions.
Str. 13, dex 13, "above average" attributes and no training at all (level 1) translates to redshirt for me. Sure it's possible to survive, but that won't be on account of your abilities, it'll be because of dumb luck.
You would also have to explain why none of the training ever sticked to your body. "Above average" is pretty weak after all those work-outs. Are you possibly a little sickly? I'm currently having the vision of Steve Rogers, only without any super-soldier serum.

People thinking a character to be crippled without an attribute over 15 is the sort of thing that makes me loathe point buy systems.

To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of DnD in general. I like the Dark Eye better, which in my opinion gives you a much more realistic starting point (besides other, more realistic things).

ScarsUnseen

@Humanoid_Typhoon Class ability is determined by level in AD&D, not by attribute. The thing that separates the trained fighter from the common castle guard is the fact that he's a level 1 fighter instead of a hireling soldier. His training puts him ahead, not his rock hard abs.

The reason that 9 is the minimum primary attribute requirement for the fighter(as well as the mage, cleric and thief) is because 9 is the beginning of what is considered "average" in AD&D. It was determined by the development team that average would be the minimum a character would need to be competent in their trade, and so they set it as the minimum. And it works.

I stand by my stance that your insistence that a character needs to be near peak in a physical/mental attribute is absurd. I mean, play it the way you like, but number inflation is what screws up the game's balance, such as it is. In my experience, sticking to Method I (straight 3d6, take what you get) works best in the long run for 2nd edition.

sandmanCCL

The worst part about it is how utterly, utterly worthless Charisma is in the BG series. There are virtually no penalties for having minimum charisma (shops don't get more expensive simply because you're ugly), you can artificially raise it to 18 with an easy-to-obtain cloak, and there is virtually no reason to not have Imoen in your group who can handle any Charisma check you might need in order to recruit an NPC.

The way attributes work in BG, I always simply considered Paladins to only have 5 stat categories. Every Paladin I ever rolled was dumb as a brick because it's their only dump stat, and I often had to settle for 16 strength, boosting it through the various means that come up in the franchise.

Aliteri

sandmanCCL said:

there is virtually no reason to not have Imoen in your group who can handle any Charisma check you might need in order to recruit an NPC.

That's unavoidable in a party-based system. Each member of the party complements the other's talents and/or lack of ability.

The problem is that charname doesn't have dialogue choices/limitations that reflect low charisma, wisdom and intelligence.

Silence

I don't think paladin's "require" any sort of Charisma in BG. They are given a 17 or higher automatically by the game engine.

Charisma also reflects the favour the character has with the divine, if I'm not mistaken. Paladins are beloved champions of 'God's children', not just God-sanctioned murderers. The people love them, the Gods trust them, blah blah blah.

Realistically, the minimum stat requirements for any adventurer, in any stat, should be at least 6. It's hard to imagine a functioning individual with an Int/Wis/Cha of 6....and the wizard of Str/Dex/Con 6 would likely be unable to even lift his own magic wand or walk without tripping. But it's a game, so I just ignore this and move on.

LadyRhian

In 1e AD&D you were excluded from certain professions by your minimum stats as well. Under a 5 Charisma? You can only be an assassin. Under a 5 Wisdom? Only a thief. Under a 5 Strength? Only a Magic User. And so on. (Under 5 Dex? Cleric. Under 5 Int? Fighter.)

Cuan

Charisma also affects your characters ability to lead. In BG (not sure about BG2 but I persume it is the same), a character in the leader spot with a low charisma will cause your party members to enter moral failure very easily.

High charisma as been said here already, is not just looking pretty and having a colgate smile, but also about leading. Paladins are strong leaders according to lore, the stat minimum of 17 in charisma is merely reflecting the lore and does make sense.

I do think 2nd ed. rules messed up with casters and low ability scores. I prefer the 3rd ed. way of dealing with casters and low prime ability scores. Example a wizard with 13 int would only be able to cast up to level 3 spells ever. Unless they managed to raise their stat.

Humanoid_Taifun

ScarsUnseen said:

@Humanoid_Typhoon Class ability is determined by level in AD&D, not by attribute. The thing that separates the trained fighter from the common castle guard is the fact that he's a level 1 fighter instead of a hireling soldier. His training puts him ahead, not his rock hard abs.

Please don't assume I don't know how a game works that I have played for over 10 years.
I am not speaking about feeling insecure when leading a BG character with subpar attributes through the game.
I am speaking about realism.
Do you know how much the average medieval fighter trained so he would be able to move around properly in his armor and swing his sword in a meaningful way?
To go back to your example: There were different types of hired soldiers, and I imagine often it was just a poor brat forced into the uniform. But if the place was supposed to be actually defended (and not by use of hasty conscriptions), then there were professional soldiers standing guard. And in this case your fighter PC would of course not be different from him because of his rock hard abs, but that's only because the other guy has them too.
If 18 is the limit you can reach through a tremendous training regimen, then there is no excuse for stopping at 13 and praying to God that when you're heading into a direct contest with other fighters (and monsters) that you won't regret not having gone through that training regimen.
If 13 is the limit that you can reach through a tremendous training regimen because of bad genes or whatever, then you should think really carefully on your career choice.

(it is no coincidence that the sportmen at the olympic games all are at peak physical condition by the way - pure technique can only get you so far)