Zaq
2009-04-16, 04:24 AM
Major, major kudos to anyone who gets the reference without Google and/or Wikipedia. If you don't get the reference, don't worry, it's not crucial to the concept.
Anyway, so I'm envisioning a character like so. He was raised on the stories of great heroes, spending countless hours poring over the great books of tales, listening to every bard he could convince to spin a yarn, greedily devouring it all. The kicker? He's absolutely married to the conventions. He wants nothing so badly as to be just like the heroes from his beloved tales, and he feels he knows exactly what it means to be a legendary hero. All quests must start in the tavern. The vizier/chancellor/adviser will, and indeed MUST, betray the appropriate monarch. There is no form of "legitimate authority" higher than the rightful heir to the deposed king. In short, he's a walking cliche, but he genuinely believes the cliches are right.
For example, if the BBEG were to deliver only a brief or otherwise unsatisfactory bit of banter before the confrontation, he would gladly interrupt and explain that there really needs to be more maniacal laughter and offer some tips about a proper villainous monologue, even doing it himself if he needed to. If he has no love interest to tearfully beg him not to risk his life on the daring and heroic quest, he'll hire someone (perhaps a prostitute) to play the role, loudly and in public. Similarly, if no one actually cares about him enough to serve as a cocky rival, he'll likewise hire someone to act the part, because ALL the great heroes have cocky rivals. You see where I'm going with this? Not only is he essentially a cliche made flesh, but he will actively go out of his way to enforce these cliches because he seriously believes that it's the right thing to do, that it's the ONLY thing to do.
Now, here's the question, which is funnier, if he's a bard, or if he's anything but a bard? I think that this is a humorous (and artistically interesting from a post-modern perspective, if you're comfortable slinging around terms like "post-modern" to discuss D&D. I won't blame you if you're not; I feel kind of silly saying this myself.) character concept as it is, but it changes dramatically depending on whether he's a bard or not. A bard could devote his life to the conventions of the genre, to be sure, and try to enforce them in his own life, but he'd certainly be aware that they are in fact conventions (rather than, say, immutable laws of nature), and on some level he would know what he was doing. He would be actively trying to turn the world into the world of his tales. On the other hand, a non-bard acting like this would be doing so perhaps because he simply doesn't get that the world doesn't work this way. He's not necessarily stupid, gullible, or slow-witted, but he simply doesn't get that the stories are stories and not reality (or that not all of the stories have to fit the cliches perfectly). In some ways the bard is more interesting, and in some ways the non-bard is more interesting. Given the personality I've outlined, which is funnier, more interesting, more intellectually and artistically engaging, more fun to play with? A bard or a non-bard? Why?
I should remind you that though this is a humorous character concept, I wouldn't play it as a silly character. It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one. I hold that it would be entirely possible (and indeed a lot of fun, both for me and for the rest of the table) to play this character without being an out-and-out clown about it. Anyway, bearing that in mind, what do you think? Bard or non-bard?
Anyway, so I'm envisioning a character like so. He was raised on the stories of great heroes, spending countless hours poring over the great books of tales, listening to every bard he could convince to spin a yarn, greedily devouring it all. The kicker? He's absolutely married to the conventions. He wants nothing so badly as to be just like the heroes from his beloved tales, and he feels he knows exactly what it means to be a legendary hero. All quests must start in the tavern. The vizier/chancellor/adviser will, and indeed MUST, betray the appropriate monarch. There is no form of "legitimate authority" higher than the rightful heir to the deposed king. In short, he's a walking cliche, but he genuinely believes the cliches are right.
For example, if the BBEG were to deliver only a brief or otherwise unsatisfactory bit of banter before the confrontation, he would gladly interrupt and explain that there really needs to be more maniacal laughter and offer some tips about a proper villainous monologue, even doing it himself if he needed to. If he has no love interest to tearfully beg him not to risk his life on the daring and heroic quest, he'll hire someone (perhaps a prostitute) to play the role, loudly and in public. Similarly, if no one actually cares about him enough to serve as a cocky rival, he'll likewise hire someone to act the part, because ALL the great heroes have cocky rivals. You see where I'm going with this? Not only is he essentially a cliche made flesh, but he will actively go out of his way to enforce these cliches because he seriously believes that it's the right thing to do, that it's the ONLY thing to do.
Now, here's the question, which is funnier, if he's a bard, or if he's anything but a bard? I think that this is a humorous (and artistically interesting from a post-modern perspective, if you're comfortable slinging around terms like "post-modern" to discuss D&D. I won't blame you if you're not; I feel kind of silly saying this myself.) character concept as it is, but it changes dramatically depending on whether he's a bard or not. A bard could devote his life to the conventions of the genre, to be sure, and try to enforce them in his own life, but he'd certainly be aware that they are in fact conventions (rather than, say, immutable laws of nature), and on some level he would know what he was doing. He would be actively trying to turn the world into the world of his tales. On the other hand, a non-bard acting like this would be doing so perhaps because he simply doesn't get that the world doesn't work this way. He's not necessarily stupid, gullible, or slow-witted, but he simply doesn't get that the stories are stories and not reality (or that not all of the stories have to fit the cliches perfectly). In some ways the bard is more interesting, and in some ways the non-bard is more interesting. Given the personality I've outlined, which is funnier, more interesting, more intellectually and artistically engaging, more fun to play with? A bard or a non-bard? Why?
I should remind you that though this is a humorous character concept, I wouldn't play it as a silly character. It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one. I hold that it would be entirely possible (and indeed a lot of fun, both for me and for the rest of the table) to play this character without being an out-and-out clown about it. Anyway, bearing that in mind, what do you think? Bard or non-bard?