IMO sorcery should require willpower. if anything. but since BG doesnt have willpower there is no requirement. which I'm actually ok with. Afterall its an innate talent passed on through blood it doesnt matter what your personal skills are, all that matters is practice and experience.
3E and later editions really want Charisma to be force of personality, which sounds an awful lot like willpower to me. Under that definition, casting spells with Charisma makes an awful lot of sense. But if that's the definition they were going with, why doesn't Charisma add to Will saves?
Wisdom as "willpower" represents the robustness of your mind, the ability to resist outside powers. Charisma as "force of personality" represents your ability to assert your own will on others.
Sorcery is art. To be a great artist in our world...you might be quite unpleasant in social interaction (CHA) [snip]
On the contrary, Charisma is not a "likeableness" stat. You mention the 3e definition of Charisma later in the thread, so here's what the d20srd says about Charisma:
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
A person with high Charisma is not necessarily likeable or pleasant, indeed they might be highly unpleasant or unlikable, but they command the attention of others despite (or perhaps even because of) their lack of sociability. Think of the "Smartest Man in the Room" archetype who grates on everyone but still has command of the people around them, partially because they are usually right, but also because they are difficult to deny or ignore.
The root of the "force of personality" concept harkens back to Gygaxian days, per the 1st Ed DM Guide as follows:
"Charisma: Many persons have the sad misconception that charisma is merely physical attractiveness. This error is obvious to any person who considers the subject with perceptiveness. Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. True charisma becomes evident when one considers such historic examples of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonoparte, and Adolf Hitler. Obviously, these individuals did not have an 18 score on physical beauty, so it is quite possible to assume that scores over 18 are possible, for any one of the named historical personalities would have had a higher charisma score - there can be no question that these individuals were 18's - if they wouldhave had great attractiveness as well as commanding personal magnetism and superb persuasiveness."
In other words, Charisma is a measure of the individual's ability to influence the actions of others and this concept is maintained in all subsequent versions of D&D. It makes sense for Shamans. But I see no argument here as to why this applies in any way to Sorcery, given that a Sorceror "creates magic the way a poet creates poems."
I know of no real-life sorcerors, but there are many poets. Consider the talented poet and author Emily Bronte (Wuthering Heights, etc.). She was reclusive and had limited interaction with other people most of her adult life. To quote sister Charlotte about the matter, "My sister's disposition was not naturally gregarious; circumstances favoured and fostered her tendency to seclusion; except to go to church or take a walk on the hills, she rarely crossed the threshold of home. Though her feeling for the people round was benevolent, intercourse with them she never sought; nor, with very few exceptions, ever experienced." So here we have a simple and obvious example of a well known artist and poet for whom there is little evidence of "force of personality", unless of course you wish to argue that hermits rate as highly on the same personal magnetism scales as Napoleon?
She wrote some highly influential novels, didn't she? Influence is not limited to rousing speeches and political negotiations. It is also the ability to capture people's imagination through motion or story. A poet with Charisma has a certain energy and emotive power to their work that moves people. A poet with no Charisma might compose something technically impressive, but it leaves people cold, and is thus forgotten.
Then the argument is now that successful artistic expression is a defining element of Charisma? I am unaware of any acclaimed pieces of art from the likes of JFK.
Artistic expression is one of many elements that define Charisma. If Charisma is defined in part as physical attractiveness, and we have examples of unattractive figures with high Charisma, then there certainly room for high Charisma figures who have never successfully applied themselves to art.
We're dealing with an abstraction of a grouping of mental/physical traits that, depending on the edition, may be entirely innate or may be trained to such a degree that inborn talent is irrelevant. I think you're going to run into trouble if you insist that Charisma represent all linked qualities in precisely equal measures, in much the same way that people run into trouble trying to fit real people into alignment slots.
How is artistic expression tied to Charisma? I'm not following the logic on that one. Wisdom and Dexterity would make more sense for the intuitive genius of inspiration and the grace and precision to express it. Charisma would only be a factor for oration or singing.
I suppose there is some confusion caused by my imprecise "influence of others" term. Certainly I can influence the behavior of others without necessarily being charismatic. Anyone who has ever had a terrible boss or supervisor knows that. Perhaps a better way to say it is that a charismatic person has the ability to inspire and motivate others such that they willingly adopt certain behaviors and attitudes that otherwise they might not. In other words, a charismatic person can make what THEY want seem like something that YOU want.
Back to making magic as a poet makes poems, Emily Bronte's writings have done little to change my behaviors or attitudes, though I do respect and enjoy her genius. The writings of someone like John Locke, however, have proven quite inspirational to take action but posessed little artistic expression other than the usual mastery of language at that time, and are somewhat boring to read. So again, as Objulen points out, there really is no direct connection between charisma and artistic expression. When the Sorceror was introduced, the D&D authors found themselves without a representative ability characteristic, so they opted to use one of the least understood in the hopes that nobody would object. I think they missed the chance to add something new and meaningful, but of course it's always easier to just re-work what was already there before.
Well, a charismatic (enchanting even) sorceress or sorcerer is a trope since a very long time ago (not exactly sure how long, but romans and greeks at least), so making a class where you'd have to have a high charisma to excel at it would be logical.
The mechanics behind that are of lesser importance than the classic image they wish to portray.
Back to making magic as a poet makes poems, Emily Bronte's writings have done little to change my behaviors or attitudes, though I do respect and enjoy her genius. The writings of someone like John Locke, however, have proven quite inspirational to take action but posessed little artistic expression other than the usual mastery of language at that time, and are somewhat boring to read.
Considering the subjective nature of many things that Charisma attempts to represent, this is not surprising. Charisma is supposed to represent physical attractiveness, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and different cultures and different individuals have their own standards and preferences. Even the personal magnetism and persuasiveness aspects are subjective. Hitler is given as an example of a high Charisma individual, but he failed to garner enough support to pull off the Beer Hall Putsch, and in his run for President of Germany in 1932 lost by double-digit percentages, indicating that his supposed Charisma was not persuasive to many. For another example, Abraham Lincoln is now considered to be a charismatic politician and skilled orator, but when he first gave the Gettysburg Address it was widely panned, and it was not uncommon for him to have difficulty convincing his own cabinet that his decisions were the right ones. What is considered to be persuasive also varies from culture to culture, which puts Charisma at odds with attributes like Strength or Intelligence which can at least claim to represent some objective standard.
Of course, the issue at play from a game design perspective is that things like artistic creation or physical appearance are important enough to require some quantification for the purposes of comparison, but not nearly important enough to have their own attributes. There have been proposed house rules or revisions to create an "Appearance" attribute, but they never got any traction because you only need to know which of two characters is more attractive in small corner cases, and so the Appearance would be pointless for 99% of the game. Likewise, D&D is not a game about creative expression or producing great works of art, so there's no need for an "Artistry" attribute, but you do need to know on occasion who is better at singing or dancing or telling a story, so the Perform skill goes off of Charisma instead.
Comments
"Charisma: Many persons have the sad misconception that charisma is merely physical attractiveness. This error is obvious to any person who considers the subject with perceptiveness. Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. True charisma becomes evident when one considers such historic examples of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonoparte, and Adolf Hitler. Obviously, these individuals did not have an 18 score on physical beauty, so it is quite possible to assume that scores over 18 are possible, for any one of the named historical personalities would have had a higher charisma score - there can be no question that these individuals were 18's - if they wouldhave had great attractiveness as well as commanding personal magnetism and superb persuasiveness."
In other words, Charisma is a measure of the individual's ability to influence the actions of others and this concept is maintained in all subsequent versions of D&D. It makes sense for Shamans. But I see no argument here as to why this applies in any way to Sorcery, given that a Sorceror "creates magic the way a poet creates poems."
I know of no real-life sorcerors, but there are many poets. Consider the talented poet and author Emily Bronte (Wuthering Heights, etc.). She was reclusive and had limited interaction with other people most of her adult life. To quote sister Charlotte about the matter, "My sister's disposition was not naturally gregarious; circumstances favoured and fostered her tendency to seclusion; except to go to church or take a walk on the hills, she rarely crossed the threshold of home. Though her feeling for the people round was benevolent, intercourse with them she never sought; nor, with very few exceptions, ever experienced." So here we have a simple and obvious example of a well known artist and poet for whom there is little evidence of "force of personality", unless of course you wish to argue that hermits rate as highly on the same personal magnetism scales as Napoleon?
We're dealing with an abstraction of a grouping of mental/physical traits that, depending on the edition, may be entirely innate or may be trained to such a degree that inborn talent is irrelevant. I think you're going to run into trouble if you insist that Charisma represent all linked qualities in precisely equal measures, in much the same way that people run into trouble trying to fit real people into alignment slots.
Back to making magic as a poet makes poems, Emily Bronte's writings have done little to change my behaviors or attitudes, though I do respect and enjoy her genius. The writings of someone like John Locke, however, have proven quite inspirational to take action but posessed little artistic expression other than the usual mastery of language at that time, and are somewhat boring to read. So again, as Objulen points out, there really is no direct connection between charisma and artistic expression. When the Sorceror was introduced, the D&D authors found themselves without a representative ability characteristic, so they opted to use one of the least understood in the hopes that nobody would object. I think they missed the chance to add something new and meaningful, but of course it's always easier to just re-work what was already there before.
The mechanics behind that are of lesser importance than the classic image they wish to portray.
Of course, the issue at play from a game design perspective is that things like artistic creation or physical appearance are important enough to require some quantification for the purposes of comparison, but not nearly important enough to have their own attributes. There have been proposed house rules or revisions to create an "Appearance" attribute, but they never got any traction because you only need to know which of two characters is more attractive in small corner cases, and so the Appearance would be pointless for 99% of the game. Likewise, D&D is not a game about creative expression or producing great works of art, so there's no need for an "Artistry" attribute, but you do need to know on occasion who is better at singing or dancing or telling a story, so the Perform skill goes off of Charisma instead.