Charisma

[m7600]

In D&D, Pathfinder, and some other games, a sorcerer's magic is related to Charisma, unlike Wizards and Clerics, in which their magics are related to Intelligence and Wisdom, respectively. I can understand the latter (to a certain degree), but the former seems like an absolutely mystery.

Explain the relation between Charisma and magic as if you were speaking to a dimwit, since I can't even grasp what the basic concept is here, to say nothing of how it's supposed to work.

 

[Nimran]

Magic directly connected to your sense of self/personality. Like how charisma saving throws are tied to your identity, rather than your willpower (wisdom saves), or intelligence (mental strength).

Or something like that, idfk.

 

[BelgarathMTH]

Charisma represents force of personality and ability to lead, which is why it's also important for paladins and impacts their abilities from 3rd edition onward. (2nd edition just used a flat minimum charisma score for the class).

For sorcerers and bards from 3rd edition onward, I think the idea is that their magic is coming from their confidence in their own abilities, and their flair for flashiness and style, combined with a certain disdain for following rules or studying books. Qara in Neverwinter Nights 2 is a pretty good representation of the type, imo. They are casting spells from raw talent alone, with no study or discipline needed, which sets up story and character possibilities of tension between chaotic, free-spirited sorcerers and studious, disciplined wizards.

 

[Black Elk]

So Charis Χάρις in Ancient Greek is the personification of divine grace, and the Charities (Graces) are a kind of triple-goddess figure. They attended the Olympians, and are typically associated with Hephaestus and Aphrodite. Their cult was centered in the Cyclades (the islands between the mainland and Crete) and especially around Delos.

In the Iliad pretty much all the heroes have this epithet, but because Aphrodite backed the Trojans, in that one we also tend to get it heavier with like Hector and Andromache. I think to make the finale there more impactful, who knows, Homer I guess. But the presentation is similar to other triple goddess archetypes like we see coming out of Phoenicia at the time, and in that form which eventually morphed into the Capitoline Trinity after like a thousand years. Anyhow it's one of those trinitarian riffs, so there's room to work multiple angles, but essentially it's the favor shown to mortals by the gods.

I guess you can say that if the Wizards are all wisen'ed with knowledge and ideas, and Clerics are the clerks who keep tabs on the divine scrolls, then I guess Sorcerers and Witches take their cues directly from upstairs. In Ancient Greece the most famous witch of all was probably Helen, who had control of all the pharmakon magic, the stuff the heals and also poisons, and she could put people to bed with power word sleep. Also some Charm there, cause she was the one who actually inherited Sparta. Like that's whole reason all the Argives had to swear those oaths to uphold the marriage, cause the throne passed from Tyndareus to Menelaus only through her, and when she dips to Troy with Paris it basically means that the throne is contested.

Also much later, we get Charite as a character in the first Greek novel, the Golden Ass, she's the one who gets tolds the story of Cupid and Psyche, during that interlude when he's captured by the bandits, right after getting turned into a Donkey by the Witch Photis. The takeaway for me, is that no amount of study or insight can really overcome the divine will when it's trying to work to do the dirty work hehe. Like in that one dude spends the whole mission on a quest to find that rose, but keeps on striking out cause he keeps missing the signs there. He only gets saved at the end when the goddess takes pity on him. Rejoice! lol It's a trip though.

Mages were introduced from Ancient Persia around this same time, then exported abroad during the Hellenistic period probably along the trade routes, but the witches were already on the move! I like this one too, all the good stuff cooks in the cauldron at etymonline hehe

c. 1300, sorcerie, "witchcraft, magic, enchantment; act or instance of sorcery; supernatural state of affairs; seemingly magical works," from Old French sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer, wizard," from Medieval Latin sortiarius "teller of fortunes by lot; sorcerer," literally "one who influences fate or fortune," from Latin sors (genitive sortis) "lot, fate, fortune"

 

[Black Elk]

ps. Also, because Homer was so bardcore, that helps to explain the association there too. Since those poems were sung aloud, and so the magic contained therein has that sort of resonance to it. The element having to do with personal magnatism or by extension beauty as a form of charm, is because the pleasing physique was highly prized and seen as a similar sort of power. Like Sorcrates was dismissed outright for appearance sake, but apparently Plato was super jacked and knew how to make that work. I think the association with secret cult knowledge, like for the apothecaries or medicinal magic, the idea that one could be charmed or hexed via things like spells written on lead lamella, or dolls, or potions that do mind control type stuff, even the polymorph. It's easy for me to see what the Paladin is in relation to charismatos contrasted with the Witch or the Sorcereress. In the opening lines of the poems by Homer the goddess is invoked, (Thea in the Iliad, Musa in the Odyssey). For a long time now, peeps have pondered how the latter should be received, like whether it is a response, or bookending of the former, stressing other themes. The Odyssey was the more challenging read for me, because the basic story is so much more familiar from like movies and popular lore. So I go in expecting one thing or a certain sequence of events, but the story actually opens with Telemachus sailing from Ithica to sandy Pylos after linking up wiht Athena and hearing from the bard - then on to Sparta where he learns about what happened at Troy and meets Helen (returned somehow from Egypt), who mixes up a wild brew for the crew!

In the poem Helen is also a divine twin figure, cause she's the daughter of Zeus/Deus and Leda (whereas Clytemnestra is the mortal daughter of Tyndareus and Leda the Aetolian princess) so she has that lineage coming direct from the Sky, like via the swan song stuff there. I can't remember but I think in Delos they crowned their helmets with plumes. We tend to think of the Horse hair version, but this is during that time when the centaurs were only newly arrived. I think Zdeus was like an honorific title, where whoever that was, they all rode chargers and worshipped thunder, by then the age of the horse was fully in the offing. Like back when Poseidon was still more the Earth-Shaker than the god of the sea, and at least on the islands there was still some tension going on there and some factional friction. For the Bards of that time, before things were really written down, the voice had to carry, so they probably bring in the harmony of the spheres to help ice it, with like musical accompaniment and the lyre. All the strings well apportioned. I don't know I'm just trying to get some Bard in there too right! hehe

 

[m7600]

Arguably, politicians in D&D and Pathfinder have high Charisma. Why aren't they casting spells based on that attribute then? Why isn't a politician a charismatic magic caster comparable to a sorcerer? Why does a bard have access to charismatic magic but a painter or a sculptor doesn't? Sorcerers also have the bloodline thing going on, the paradigmatic example being the Dragon Disciples. They have a draconic bloodline. So what's the concept here, exactly? That they have charismatic magic in their blood? But then why aren't they aristocrats, like nobles and kings? And why aren't nobles and kings charismatic casters like sorcerers?

As soon as you start to consider the logical consequences of the basic premisses on charismatic magic, nothing makes sense, counter-examples are a dime a dozen, and the entire system of concepts associated with it falls apart.

 

[m7600]

I'd be interested in tracking down the actual explanation from the developers of that time, but that was way back in the day. Maybe they published their explanations like in a magazine, or something? I've no idea. It was around the time of 3d edition, I think? The original Baldur's Gate games already had 3rd edition stuff. (On a side note, maybe this is a pattern, like what happened with Pool of Radiance way back in the late 80's?)

Here's what I think happened. The developers of 3rd edition (or whatever the case may be), were under the impression that the first three ability scores (str, dex, con) are physical, and that the last three (int, wis, cha) are mental. They saw that there were only two kinds of magic users: arcanists (i.e., mages) and diviners (i.e., clerics). The former relied on Intelligence, the latter on Wisdom. The developers saw that something was missing from the picture: there's no magic users that rely on Charisma. So, -this was their reasoning-, "Let's just make something up. Is the word "enchanter" being used already in earlier editions? Yes? No? Ah, who cares, this is a new edition anyways, right? Well anyways, let's agree to use the word "enchanter", and it will encompass classes that already exist, like the bard and the sorcerer. They'll use Charisma for their magic. That's the main thing. We'll figure out the number thing and how to explain this to people later."

And this is why, still to this day, no one can explain what the fuck Charisma has to do with magic-users.

 

[Skatan]

In my humble opinion, it doesn't make any sense and feels more like a utilitarian option based on what they had to choose from rather than a 'logical' choice if they had started carte blanche. In my humble opinion, Con might have been the better choice, ie you are born with some kind of "magical constitution" that enables your power like kineticists.

The idea that Sorcerers cast without any formal education yet they can cast the same exact spells that was created by wizards is just so idiotic it cannot be defended (Warlock is a better implementation of a potential difference between someone with "given" powers vs someone with trained powers, ie raw blasts of arcane rather than casting a perfectly created Aganazzar's scocher that require perfectly vocalized semantic components etc).

So I just roll with it, try not to think about it and accept the limitations of the stat line in DnD/PF (same as with Alignments).

 

[m7600]

(same as with Alignments).

I was agreeing with you 100% until you decided to mention alignment. I love alignment, it's the best thing about D&D (to me personally, at least. I've found out that this sentiment is not universal. In fact it's somewhat rare, compared to, say, power gaming or theater of the mind).

So let's agree to agree on 99% percent on this issue.

 

[WarChiefZeke]

Arguably, politicians in D&D and Pathfinder have high Charisma. Why aren't they casting spells based on that attribute then? Why isn't a politician a charismatic magic caster comparable to a sorcerer? Why does a bard have access to charismatic magic but a painter or a sculptor doesn't? Sorcerers also have the bloodline thing going on, the paradigmatic example being the Dragon Disciples. They have a draconic bloodline. So what's the concept here, exactly? That they have charismatic magic in their blood? But then why aren't they aristocrats, like nobles and kings? And why aren't nobles and kings charismatic casters like sorcerers?

As soon as you start to consider the logical consequences of the basic premisses on charismatic magic, nothing makes sense, counter-examples are a dime a dozen, and the entire system of concepts associated with it falls apart.

It's typically combined with a supernatural bloodline or other highly magical explanation. They are accessing a power that comes from force of personality, but only because they have the special ability to do so.

In the outer planes, where all belief is power, it's arguable that everyone innately possesses this ability to some extent.

 

[Black Elk]

I think it's still easier for me to get my head around Charisma than Constitution hehe. I guess because the etymology on CON is more recent. It has that enduring sense of hardiness, but now also 'concentration' which throws me a bit. Like where the physical and mental fortitude are blended into a single Stat. It's expedient I guess because the magic users really need to eek out as much mileage as they can from HP, and so pushing that stat while still dumping the flashier STR or DEX makes a certain sense I guess, like just from a practical implementation. I still think it's the weirdest of the 3 physical stats, since so much of it would seemingly be covered by STR, though I think the key aspect there is 'over time' so like health and hardiness over the long haul rather than in the dead lift or the sprint.

I've often thought about trying to mirror the 3 physical and 3 mental Attributes with Triangles so that they'd have like certain concordant or complimentary associations from the geometry. Like using the 2 triangles in a series to form a pyramid across different planes, similar to how the alignment chart had it's tick-tack-toe organization. I just like it to have some sort of symmetry that way, but with DEX on the right, cause that makes sense.

The internal logic for stuff that's supposed to explain how magic works is of course a bit absurdist, but I still like it to have a kind of coherence like logic of poetry at least. I think the main thing for Charisma based magic is that it's enigmatic. Like where the source is somehow mysterious even when known, like the mechanism somehow still has a fuzziness to it that makes it obscure. Dragons. Just like a one word explanation to hand wave everything I suppose heheh.

Another fun etymn connect

enigma (n.)
1530s, "statement which conceals a hidden meaning or known thing under obscure words or forms," earlier enigmate (mid-15c.), from Latin aenigma "riddle," from Greek ainigma (plural ainigmata) "a dark saying, riddle," from ainissesthai "speak obscurely, speak in riddles," from ainos "tale, story; saying, proverb;" according to Liddell & Scott, a poetic and Ionic word, of unknown origin. General sense in English of "anything inexplicable to an observer" is from c. 1600.

and then right beneath that with the "related" embed

Aeneas
hero of the "Aeneid," son of Anchises and Aphrodite, Latin, from Greek Aineias, a name of unknown origin, perhaps literally "praise-worthy," from ainos "tale, story, saying, praise" (related to enigma); or perhaps related to ainos "horrible, terrible." The epic poem title Aeneid (late 15c. in English) is literally "of or pertaining to Aeneas," from French Enéide, Latin Æneida; see -id.

I think it's amusing that it has both the "spun a yarn" aspect, and the "oh no! horrible, terrible" built right in. As if eternal fame was for sure a double sided sword, or that immortal beauty more a curse than a gift. The Greeks had some pretty interesting takes on the gift giving virtue, but that's only if we're trying to keep it Classic I guess. Who knows what the new news will be all about in editions beyond the immediate horizon. It's all hazy and dark out there hehe

 

[m7600]

Ok, so hear me out here. The way I see it, the problem here is that Charisma is not really a mental stat. It's a purely social one. This is why it makes no sense to compare it to Int and Wis. Those are mental stats, Cha isn't. The game that implemented this correctly is Vampire: The Masquerade. In V:tM, you have three kinds of ability scores: physical (strength, dexterity, stamina), mental (intelligence, perception, wits), and social (charisma, manipulation, appearance).

Is it a perfect system? No, not by a long shot. For example, appearance is arguably physical, not social. But at least it gets Charisma right.

 

[Nimran]

Arguably, politicians in D&D and Pathfinder have high Charisma. Why aren't they casting spells based on that attribute then? Why isn't a politician a charismatic magic caster comparable to a sorcerer? Why does a bard have access to charismatic magic but a painter or a sculptor doesn't? Sorcerers also have the bloodline thing going on, the paradigmatic example being the Dragon Disciples. They have a draconic bloodline. So what's the concept here, exactly? That they have charismatic magic in their blood? But then why aren't they aristocrats, like nobles and kings? And why aren't nobles and kings charismatic casters like sorcerers?

As soon as you start to consider the logical consequences of the basic premisses on charismatic magic, nothing makes sense, counter-examples are a dime a dozen, and the entire system of concepts associated with it falls apart.

So, by this logic, all intellectuals are wizards, then? Or all wise people are clerics/druids? I’m getting the feeling that you’re just making a bad-faith argument, here.

 

[m7600]

I’m getting the feeling that you’re just making a bad-faith argument, here.

Ok so, the fact that I philosophize doesn't mean that I can't make fallacies. You never made a mistake? Exactly.

I'm listening, though. I don't really see how it would be a bath-faith argument. Could you elaborate?

 

[Nimran]

Ok so, the fact that I philosophize doesn't mean that I can't make fallacies. You never made a mistake? Exactly.

I'm listening, though. I don't really see how it would be a bath-faith argument. Could you elaborate?

I guess it depends on you, right? Like, what was the point of you wanting an explanation in the first place? Was it genuine? Did you actually wish to know? Or were you just looking for something to attack?

This is a genuine question, I don’t mean this as a personal attack against you. My apologies if it comes across as such.

 

[m7600]

what was the point of you wanting an explanation in the first place?

I genuinely don't get the lore behind the relation between Charisma and magic. I don't think there is any. I've been thinking about this problem for years. I've discussed it dozens of times. I've read other people's discussions about it. None of it makes sense to me. I played tabletop Pathfinder yesterday, I asked some people that are intelligent, wise and charismatic IRL to explain it to me. They couldn't.

Was it genuine?

It was and it still is.

Did you actually wish to know?

Yes, and I still do.

Or were you just looking for something to attack?

What do you mean? Seriously, what do you mean by that?

This is a genuine question, I don’t mean this as a personal attack against you. My apologies if it comes across as such.

No need for such formalities, deputy. Roll 1d20 for personal attacks as much as you want, you couldn't hit me even with advantage.

 

[Nimran]

In that case, I apologize for the implication.

 

[m7600]

Relax. It takes a lot more than that to offend me.

 

[Zaxares]

For me, I see Charisma as "force of personality and self-will". It differs from Intelligence (which is your ability to learn, problem-solve and remember) and Wisdom (which is your ability to sense and interpret and be insightful) in that while the other two mental stats are more passive or reactive, Charisma is the only one that comes solely from within you and marks your determination to see things done. This differs a bit from the official ruling, because for me, a low Charisma person is someone who would be overall quite passive, hesitant or apathetic. Heroes, especially adventuring ones, should have mid to high Charisma if they're to have the determination to keep going through their trials and tribulations of their adventures, of which there will be many. Years of players using Charisma as a dump stat has meant that most people think determination is divorced from Charisma though, which I feel shouldn't be the case.

As such, while Wizards cast spells by understanding the underlying rules of how magic works and then simply applying those rules in the way they want, and Clerics cast spells by allowing themselves to be conduits for their deity's power, Sorcerers and Warlocks are more about casting spells through bending an external source of power (which could come from their bloodline, a warlock's patron, or in 5E, a paladin's oath) to their will and literally willing what they want to happen.

I fully admit it's a rather clunky system though, especially with the many crossover spells between different class spell lists (if I had my way, every spellcasting class would have its own unique spell list).

 

[JustKneller]

Here's what I think happened. The developers of 3rd edition (or whatever the case may be), were under the impression that the first three ability scores (str, dex, con) are physical, and that the last three (int, wis, cha) are mental. They saw that there were only two kinds of magic users: arcanists (i.e., mages) and diviners (i.e., clerics). The former relied on Intelligence, the latter on Wisdom. The developers saw that something was missing from the picture: there's no magic users that rely on Charisma.

In my opinion, I don't think you're far off. Especially with WotC D&D being seemingly more combat-oriented, they had to do something to keep Charisma from being a dump stat.

This isn't Inherently bad design. In fact, making sure all mechanics have value is good design in my book. However, in WotC typical fashion, they only did half the job. But before I get to that...

The rationale is that arcane magic is managed through command of magical formulae (intelligence) and divine magic is managed through insight (wisdom). You could also have a type of magic where magical energies are refined/shaped by force of will (charisma).

I think where WotC failed is that they just regurgitated the spell list from TSR's editions, gave the sorcerer the exact same spell list as the wizard and then gave the bard a limited spell list from both lists despite the fact they channel magic the same way. From what I've read, it gets worse in fifth edition with their millions of classes of spellcasters. I think if spell lists were tailored to the class (and method of magic), it would have come off much better.

Back to the original topic, though. You could come up with a rationale to tie magic to any kind of attribute. Magic comes from an interdimensional chaotic void with extremely high gravity (Strength). Magic is taxing to the physical form and requires great endurance to weather the energy (Constitution). Magic requires extremely complicated and precise gestures (Dexterity). And so on.

So, yeah, I'm sure it was a move to keep charisma from being a total dump stat. But, they did have some kind of rationale for it.