Why bards (esp. Elan) can't be lawful

[Fnordius]

All quite simple, really, as music is itself a set of rules that need to be followed lest it be cacophony. Thus learning to be a bard means learning the rules, the laws of storytelling and of melody, harmonics, and so on.

BUT.

To be a good bard, to get to the first level, you need to learn how to bend those rules, to break them to make a better song, a better story. A bard that only sticks to the laws of how a song should be written, how music should be performed would just be another boring old busker. The thing about Elan now is that he is learning the deeper part of it, how storytelling conventions can be defied.

They are also the law that Tarquin follows so slavishly in his lawful evilness: he is repulsed whenever the holy conventions of storytelling are flouted, and though his goals are selfish he does not consider breaking the rules, merely exploit them. What makes Tarquin Lawful is not that he respects the laws of the Empire, as he is above them, but he sees the laws of storytelling as the natural Law that rules the world.

This also brings out the difference between father and son: Tarquin, by sticking to previous tropes, can only think in terms of those tropes. They define his life. Elan is learning that he does best when he breaks convention in a specific way. By extension, Nale was chaotic in that he railed against the conventions, tried too hard and too selfishly to prove that his old man was wrong.

Just a thought that hit me as a starting point for discussion. What say you?

[Kish]

I don't think "philosophically unable to make music creatively" is a quality of Roy--or Celia, Hinjo, O-Chul, or Lien, for that matter.

[Trillium]

Bard is not just a musician, just like a paladin is not just a cleric/fighter multiclass. It also involves somewhat of higher calling. Bard can't just sit in place and write music, like a normal composer. His soul compels him to wander the world, sing of what he sees, and try to affect the world through his music.

[Grey Watcher]

A bard that only sticks to the laws of how a song should be written, how music should be performed would just be another boring old busker.

Having been a busker, I'd say that's not quite the case. Yeah, I sang opera, so I was honoring tradition and all that, but I'd hardly say the crowds of viewers found me boring. And that's to say nothing of all my counterparts doing original work.

EDIT: Also not old. I was under 30.

On a broader note, as I see it creativity isn't inherently chaotic. One person might develop a new musical form by sort being the bohemian stereotype and waiting for some grand inspiration to strike him, but plenty of others do so by diligently exploring permutations and extrapolating from the existing forms until they find something amazing.

That said, I agree with the above that there's a definite difference between a Bard and a normal musician, just as there's a difference between an ordinary soldier and a Fighter or your local village herbalist who worships nature deities and a real Druid.

[ThePhantasm]

This also brings out the difference between father and son: Tarquin, by sticking to previous tropes, can only think in terms of those tropes. They define his life. Elan is learning that he does best when he breaks convention in a specific way. By extension, Nale was chaotic in that he railed against the conventions, tried too hard and too selfishly to prove that his old man was wrong.

I don't buy your argument that bards can't be lawful, but this observation about Tarquin's lawfulness in contrast to Elan's chaotic-ness is a good one.

[Keltest]

Because you can't stop the music maaaan

but seriously, bards do NOT take kindly to ANYONE trying to tell them to shut up. They sing what they want, and don't care about (political) consequences.

[Grey Watcher]

I don't buy your argument that bards can't be lawful, but this observation about Tarquin's lawfulness in contrast to Elan's chaotic-ness is a good one.

Yeah, I've never understood why Bards can't be Lawful. Above and beyond the whole "Bards are more than mere musicians" things, why make the class such that it accommodates the wandering minstrel but not the king's herald?

[AKA_Bait]

Yeah, I've never understood why Bards can't be Lawful. Above and beyond the whole "Bards are more than mere musicians" things, why make the class such that it accommodates the wandering minstrel but not the king's herald?

I've never quite understood this either (and have always houseruled it away). There's probably some sort of designer commentary as to what the folks at WotC had in mind at the time out there, but my google skills have failed me when looking for it just now.

[Asta Kask]

I've never quite understood this either (and have always houseruled it away). There's probably some sort of designer commentary as to what the folks at WotC had in mind at the time out there, but my google skills have failed me when looking for it just now.

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)

[AKA_Bait]

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)

Any idea what the design purpose of it at that point was, then?

[RossN]

It is really pretty ironic when you consider the original Gaelic/Welsh bards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard) were a professional, highly trained group of court poets whose social status was rigidly defined.

Where he a D&D character an ancient Irish bard would probably be restricted to a Lawful alignment! :smallbiggrin:

[oskeladden]

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)

From memory, bards in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions had to be neutral on any one axis, so lawful bards were possible, as long as they were lawful neutral. The idea that bards couldn't be lawful came in in the 3rd edition. At least, that's my recollection. Neither version of the rule makes much sense to me, possibly because I'm thinking of bards as Nordic skalds.

[Grey Watcher]

Any idea what the design purpose of it at that point was, then?

I seem to remember reading something that went like this: you basically could only become a Bard by starting as a Fighter for a few levels, dual-classing into Rogue for a few more, then dual-classing again into Druid for a while, and only then, once you had enough levels in all three, could you finally become a real boy Bard. So, at least with the musicianship part, the Bard seems to have had more in common with Snow White or Aurora than anything else. A weird idea to be sure, but there it was.

[RadagastTheBrow]

Mechanically, how to Bards excel? By providing massive bonuses to their teammates. They subtly, en masse, make other peoples' goals happen. Bardic support is inherently tied to things they don't control. It's about opportunity, influence without decision. It's about creating opportunity. The party of "do as thou wilt." They encourage excellence in disorder. From this, bards are fundamentally tied to chaos.

(Unrelatedly, a friend of mine did a homebrew campaign where all Bards shared Fey blood and are tied to the power there. I don't know how to back that up, but it may be relevant.)

If it were up to me, I'd improve Bards by giving them abilities that enable their party to make more Attacks of Opportunity per round, possibly with an ability around level 18 or so that can refresh party members' spell slots.

[Asta Kask]

From memory, bards in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions had to be neutral on any one axis, so lawful bards were possible, as long as they were lawful neutral. The idea that bards couldn't be lawful came in in the 3rd edition. At least, that's my recollection. Neither version of the rule makes much sense to me, possibly because I'm thinking of bards as Nordic skalds.

Now that you say it... yes, that's probably right. Since Gary Gygax pretty much demanded that people follow the rules without questioning, it's entirely possible that no one knows anymore.

[Morty]

The alignment restriction for bards is yet another part of a long list of arbitrary and pointless restrictions D&D is filled with. Same thing with barbarians, who can't be lawful either. At least they eased up on the rogues' alignment restrictions.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)
Yes, well, kind of - you had to start as a fighter, then, between fighter levels 5 and 8 IIRC, change class to thief (which is presumably where the non-lawful designation came in), then, between thief 5 and 8 IIRC, to druid (who were TN only in 1st), at which point you became a bard.

Only humans and half-elves could become bards. Only humans could change class in 1st edition.

Yes, there is an inconsistency in those two rules... :smallwink:

(All non-humans could multi-class to some extent - Dwarves weren't allowed to be Clerics until UA, but could be Fighters and Thieves (for some strange reason), whilst Elves could be anything except Ranger, Paladin and Monk).

I guess they were meant to be a long way above the plain wandering minstrel/kings herald types, same as a fighter is meant to be a long way above the average city watchman and a thief a long way above the average pickpocket or mugger.

As for alignment inconsistencies, well, wouldn't a military scout or an undercover police officer effectively be a lawful rogue?

And on a related note, if magic is something you can learn rather than something in the blood or DNA, why can't, for example, Dwarves become Mages? Even if they are just the stereotypical ale-quaffing miners, spells like wall of stone/force, rock to mud and stone to flesh (or flesh to stone to petrify trapped survivors until they can be dug out), telekenisis and related spells, the various hands, dig and so on would be massively valuable to help with cave-ins, light and continual light rather than open torches and lanterns when there might be explosive gases...

And if anyone's going to say balance, I'll just channel a bit of Laurin's anger and sarcasm, asking "and Elves are balanced?"

Presumably Gygax just followed Tolkien's examples.

[Sir_Leorik]

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)

No, it isn't. In 2E Bards had to be Neutral, at least partially. They could be Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, True Neutral, Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral, but Neutrality was a requirement for 2E Bards. As for 1E Bards, they had to be True Neutral, because of the insane requirements for the class (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html).

Bards may not be Lawful in 3.X because... the game designers felt they shouldn't be Lawful. I don't know if this bit of fluff-forced-into-the-crunch was ever explained.

In 4E, Bards may be of any Alignment: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil or Chaotic Evil.

[Asta Kask]

IIRC, the Complete [Class] Handbook series tried to solve the problem by giving kits that could vary from the standard alignments.

[Amphiox]

I sometimes wonder if it originated in an intent to strive of mechanics-balance. ie there are other classes that have alignment restrictions of the can't-be-chaotic type, so they just threw bards in with the can't-be-lawful to even it out.

Because I seriously can't think of any reasonable rational narrative reason that at least SOME bards can't be lawful.

[Sir_Leorik]

I sometimes wonder if it originated in an intent to strive of mechanics-balance. ie there are other classes that have alignment restrictions of the can't-be-chaotic type, so they just threw bards in with the can't-be-lawful to even it out.

Because I seriously can't think of any reasonable rational narrative reason that at least SOME bards can't be lawful.

Agreed. Just because some Bards are wandering tricksters, doesn't mean every Bard is a wandering trickster. It's just like Rogues: not every Rogue is a greedy thief; some could be Lawful Good detectives or Vampire hunters.

[Trillium]

Well, the restriction for barbarians is completely justified. I mean, a lawful berserker? Seriously?

D&D Next, it seems, parted with alignment restrictions even for Barbarians (silly) and Paladins (finally).

[Evandar]

I am still not sold on the idea that a barbarian can't be lawful. My group just ignores that restriction. There might be an argument saying that a lawful person is less likely to totally lose their cool, but that hardly means they can't.

[Grey Watcher]

Mechanically, how to Bards excel? By providing massive bonuses to their teammates. They subtly, en masse, make other peoples' goals happen. Bardic support is inherently tied to things they don't control. It's about opportunity, influence without decision. It's about creating opportunity. The party of "do as thou wilt." They encourage excellence in disorder. From this, bards are fundamentally tied to chaos.

You could use similar logic to say they're Lawful: submitting themselves to something greater than themselves (the party as a whole) and helping the existing skills and abilities his allies posses reach their fullest flower.

Of course, that's the nature of trying to apply any highly abstract philosophical structure onto a more concrete reality: you can twist the logic enough to make just about anything fit. :smalltongue:

The only alignment restrictions that ever made sense to me were Barbarians (because there are other precedents in the game for acting emotionally as being Chaotic, such as the Law domain getting Calm Emotions), Clerics (although I'd loosen those to "any alignment that doesn't oppose your deity's on either axis), and Paladins (although even then I like 4e's take better where they serve the Gods and thus have similar restrictions as Clerics).

[Trillium]

I am still not sold on the idea that a barbarian can't be lawful. My group just ignores that restriction. There might be an argument saying that a lawful person is less likely to totally lose their cool, but that hardly means they can't.

Being barbarian is not about "losing cool". Even a paladin can snap and shout. Being a barbarian is about giving in to your rage and primal instincts. Just like a monk can't be chaotic (his training discipline requires at least a measure of inner lawfulness), so a barbarian can't be lawful. Even if he behaves in a most civilized way while not in combat, he can still be only neutral. Otherwise he is jusy fighter without feats. And 2 bonus hp per level.

[Kish]

It's an old tradition dating back to 2nd edition, and possibly even further (did bards exist in 1st edition?)
Actually, in Second Edition, the bard alignment restriction was "must have the word Neutral in alignment," like 3.xed druids. There could be Lawful Neutral bards; there just couldn't be Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil bards.

[AKA_Bait]

I am still not sold on the idea that a barbarian can't be lawful. My group just ignores that restriction. There might be an argument saying that a lawful person is less likely to totally lose their cool, but that hardly means they can't.

Also, other than fluff reasons, there really isn't any particularly good reason that "raging" needs to be described as being a drooling berserker. It could alternatively be described as various other kinds of head space. David Weber's "War God" books provide an example when Bahzell willingly gives himself to the rage.

Edit:

Just like a monk can't be chaotic (his training discipline requires at least a measure of inner lawfulness), so a barbarian can't be lawful. Even if he behaves in a most civilized way while not in combat, he can still be only neutral. Otherwise he is jusy fighter without feats. And 2 bonus hp per level.

Some of us also don't agree that the Monk restriction makes sense either. Ever see the movie Drunken Master (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master)?

[Jay R]

The basis for the neutrality comes from their connections to Druids, and the fact that they are amateur thieves.

The Bard class was first published for original Dungeons and Dragons in an article by Doug Schwegman, in The Strategic Review Vol II, No. 1, February 1976. It begins, "A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic-user, as well as a good fighter." The section on alignment reads:


Bards are basically neutral in nature, though they may be lawful or chaotic. If a Bard decides to become lawful he will lose his thieving abilities. Bards and Druids are closely connected and since they both belong to the same sect each must aid the other if they are in need.

Edit: In original D&D, there were only three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, which were more-or-less the same as Good, Neutral, and Evil. Eventually, it was pointed out that Lawful doesn't mean Good, and Chaotic doesn't mean Evil. So they had to either change the terms, or make the rules more complicated. For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

[Morty]

Being barbarian is not about "losing cool". Even a paladin can snap and shout. Being a barbarian is about giving in to your rage and primal instincts. Just like a monk can't be chaotic (his training discipline requires at least a measure of inner lawfulness), so a barbarian can't be lawful. Even if he behaves in a most civilized way while not in combat, he can still be only neutral. Otherwise he is jusy fighter without feats. And 2 bonus hp per level.

Cultivating your inner fury until you can fly into a berserker rage at will can be described as a highly Lawful pursuit.

[Evandar]

Coincidentally, I don't hold with the monks must be lawful thing either, but I think there's more leeway there since ki is so mystical.

[Morty]

There's really nothing that stops a monk's martial abilities from being powered by her unbridled, random passion instead of concentration and discipline.

[Rougn]

I have always seen bards as they are devoted to their music and craft more then anything. To them nothing is more important then to record and create the greatest stories and ballads. For example a man is sentenced to be hanged tomorrow morning but he is a man of legend and his story isn't fully known and there are secrets that are buried in his mind that could create a song so powerful the bard will be remembered for all time.

But the man is sentenced to death and is no permitted to talk with the prisoner so what is he to do? Let the man die and with him the stories and adventures of a living legend? No he breaks into the prison to talk with him and find the truth. What is he to do if the man wants freedom for his story? Break him out! Why? Law is nothing when challenged with the immortality of music.

At least that's how I always played my bards.

[Evandar]

I think the whole Lawful Monk thing was just an attempt to enforce the idea that they are very zen. And no, I don't really know what being zen entails, but I hope that my meaning is still apparent. They were trying to get a vibe going of 'Barbarians must be bloodthirsty' and 'Monks must spend hours meditating and pruning miniature trees'.

[Grey Watcher]

Being barbarian is not about "losing cool". Even a paladin can snap and shout. Being a barbarian is about giving in to your rage and primal instincts. Just like a monk can't be chaotic (his training discipline requires at least a measure of inner lawfulness), so a barbarian can't be lawful. Even if he behaves in a most civilized way while not in combat, he can still be only neutral. Otherwise he is jusy fighter without feats. And 2 bonus hp per level.


Also, other than fluff reasons, there really isn't any particularly good reason that "raging" needs to be described as being a drooling berserker. It could alternatively be described as various other kinds of head space. David Weber's "War God" books provide an example when Bahzell willingly gives himself to the rage.

Edit:


Some of us also don't agree that the Monk restriction makes sense either. Ever see the movie Drunken Master (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master)?

Actually, I've been skeptical of the Monk restriction for a while, and I suppose, now that I think about it, it should apply to the Barbarian as well. To me, personally, in order to avoid becoming completely meaningless, Lawfulness has to imply a respect for and willingness to honor and participate in some external hierarchy. Whether you seek to rule that hierarchy or are content to serve, there's still the idea that what's most important is establishing and maintaining this external framework. Depending on the character, the hierarchy might be as expansive as a worldwide religion or as small as a single monastery, and even if the character in question is far from home (ie the Cleric who is the only member of his faith for miles in any direction), it still influences his outlook and his behavior, and he does his best to uphold what it means to be a member of that organization. Otherwise, you can claim to be Lawful because you do pushups every morning? (Yes, that's strawmanning it a bit, but indulge me.)

So I guess, to me, someone like Ryu, from the Street Fighter franchise, would, in fact, not be Lawful. Yes, he's relentlessly disciplined with himself about mastering his fighting style, but he just doesn't care about the tournament, status, or anything that the external world has to offer.

Anyway, on the subject of Tarquin and Elan specifically, Tarquin's definitely a control freak in general, obsession with storytelling conventions aside. I think it's less that he's a slave to tropes and more than he's a slave to his own ego. Once he's decided how a plot is going to play out, he has to suffer pretty badly before he'll change his mind (ie find himself dangling off an airship, abandoned by his allies, and at the mercy of his enemies). Not sure about how control-freakery Venn-diagrams with Lawfulness....

[Fnordius]

I don't buy your argument that bards can't be lawful, but this observation about Tarquin's lawfulness in contrast to Elan's chaotic-ness is a good one.

It wasn't so much my premise, but one that is oft repeated as part of the D&D rules for bards. So I tried to see how it could be explained.

[AKA_Bait]

Anyway, on the subject of Tarquin and Elan specifically, Tarquin's definitely a control freak in general, obsession with storytelling conventions aside. I think it's less that he's a slave to tropes and more than he's a slave to his own ego. Once he's decided how a plot is going to play out, he has to suffer pretty badly before he'll change his mind (ie find himself dangling off an airship, abandoned by his allies, and at the mercy of his enemies). Not sure about how control-freakery Venn-diagrams with Lawfulness....

As far as Tarquin goes, I was on the fence about him as well. This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) convinced me he was lawful. His speech here demonstrates to me that he has internalized the view that "trope" rules of story structure are both external to himself and worth fighting for. I actually think he'd meet your description of lawfulness, if viewed in that light.

[Grey Watcher]

As far as Tarquin goes, I was on the fence about him as well. This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) convinced me he was lawful. His speech here demonstrates to me that he has internalized the view that "trope" rules of story structure are both external to himself and worth fighting for. I actually think he'd meet your description of lawfulness, if viewed in that light.

I never had a problem with reading Tarquin as Lawful, I was just noting that "being a control freak" doesn't necessarily mean Lawful anymore than "being disciplined" or "being uncreative".

And yes, I'd say that Tarquin's slavish adherence to his idea of narrative constitutes Lawfulness. But so does imposing his own order upon the populace (vicious and arbitrary as it may be). So, yes, he's always read as quite Lawful to me.

Still, when you start getting into devotion to more abstract ideals, that's where the line starts to get fuzzy. Like I'm sure some would argue that under my definition of Lawfulness, Monks do count because "Self Perfection" is a form of universal order. Still, you gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Fnordius]

Having been a busker, I'd say that's not quite the case. Yeah, I sang opera, so I was honoring tradition and all that, but I'd hardly say the crowds of viewers found me boring. And that's to say nothing of all my counterparts doing original work.

EDIT: Also not old. I was under 30.

On a broader note, as I see it creativity isn't inherently chaotic. One person might develop a new musical form by sort being the bohemian stereotype and waiting for some grand inspiration to strike him, but plenty of others do so by diligently exploring permutations and extrapolating from the existing forms until they find something amazing.

That said, I agree with the above that there's a definite difference between a Bard and a normal musician, just as there's a difference between an ordinary soldier and a Fighter or your local village herbalist who worships nature deities and a real Druid.

Normally, I would fully agree with you, but I was searching for a good in-world* explanation for why Elan could not be considered Lawful although he strived to follow a certain law —it just happened to be the Law of Storytelling, not the local laws. That was when I remembered a quote from Leonard Bernstein about needing to know the rules before you could break them.

I also apologise for saying a busker, where a better example would have been a brilliant orchestra musician, but only in an orchestra. Or a courtly poet who never risked leaving the court. I guess you could say what I am driving at is that the idea of a bard being neutral but never fully lawful can be hand-waved away by his or her need to compose and improvise, to perform in a shifting and unpredictable situation must in theory give the bard an idea that there is something higher than merely following the rules.

*assuming bards cannot be lawful in the OotSverse, as this is not a real game campaign

[Snails]

There's really nothing that stops a monk's martial abilities from being powered by her unbridled, random passion instead of concentration and discipline.

In the Core, there are a few old time traditions:
* Bards & Barbarians are non-Lawful
* Monk are Lawful
* Paladins are Lawful Good
* Druids are Neutral(ish)
* Poison is Evil
* Undead and creating undead is Evil

Personally, I like all of the above. They help define the texture of the default campaign world.

But it takes only an iota of imagination to see why any or all of the above could be changed for any particular campaign.

[Fnordius]

Still, when you start getting into devotion to more abstract ideals, that's where the line starts to get fuzzy. Like I'm sure some would argue that under my definition of Lawfulness, Monks do count because "Self Perfection" is a form of universal order. Still, you gotta draw the line somewhere.

I think the crux is whether the ideals are codified. If a monk is following a codified set of rules for his order, then he is lawful; this applies most likely to 99% of the monks. But if the rules are more guidelines, and the monk's search for enlightenment allows him to ignore even the rules of his order, then he would be classified as neutral.

In music, a Lawful musician always follows the formula. A rock song must have an instrumental solo, the wishes of the composer are tantamount, songs always have to be played in key, and so on. That would be my reasoning as a DM.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well, the restriction for barbarians is completely justified. I mean, a lawful berserker? Seriously?

In 4E neither Barbarians or Berserkers (a subclass of Barbarian) are prohibited from being Lawful Good.


Some of us also don't agree that the Monk restriction makes sense either. Ever see the movie Drunken Master (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master)?

Likewise, 4E Monks can be of any Alignment.

Personally, I think Monks would work better if they were True Neutral (Unaligned in 4E). The concept of self-perfection, shunning the outside world, and ultimately becoming a perfect being, are not really Lawful concepts. They're all about perfecting the self, a Neutral concept. In "Planescape", the Transcendent Order Faction was presented as being very monastic, even though the Monk class had been removed from 2E and would not return until 1998. Even so, they were presented as pursuing martial arts and magical training, trying to perfect their bodies and minds so that they could act without thinking. They had no Alignment restrictions, but they tended to be at least partially Neutral, if not True Neutral.

Even though the Monk class is presented as requiring discipline and devotion, those aren't exclusively features of the Lawful Alignments. True Neutral characters could also seek to improve themselves through self-abnegation, and even a Chaotic Neutral character might decide that he wants the benefits of being a Monk enough to undergo the difficult training, all so that he can be awesome at martial arts.

[Steven]

I always thought the Monk restriction was based on the fact that their rules come from their order and follows those rules all the time, not just when they feel like it or when it's convenient.
I mean you can have a fighter or warblade or whatever that is dedicated to perfection and they can be true neutral but a monk's path to perfection is laid down by his order. He may not care in the least about the laws of men and gods but every morning at sun rise he will spend 15 minutes going through his meditation and then another 20 minutes making the perfect cup of tea because he belongs to the Jasmine Tea order of Monks.

I suspect the bard thing comes from the perception, not exactly an accurate one, that creative people are all about the inspiration etc.
Never mind that any decent muso has spent hours of disciplined practice to master their craft.

[Snails]

I suspect the bard thing comes from the perception, not exactly an accurate one, that creative people are all about the inspiration etc.
Never mind that any decent muso has spent hours of disciplined practice to master their craft.

There is also the "wandering minstrel" stereotype.

In the real historical world, such as person might actually be noble born, only lacking the means to be trained and outfitted as a proper knight. Having the "right" kind of birth and basic education, he could be welcomed to the highest tables without any of that face-losing mixing with the common folk (if he is sufficiently entertaining to overlook his hopeless poverty, that is).

But the key point is such a minstrel is always too poor to ever have an important position in the social hierarchy, thus he is "without honor" (where "honor" really means owning sufficient land to pay for the salaries of well-armed noble thugs/knights). It sort of makes senses to think of a "honorless" wanderer to be not Lawful.

[Metahuman1]

Ok, in one of the books it uses Melee (a wizard.) and Ember (A Monk). as examples of why there respective classes don't have an alignment restriction/are restricted to lawful.

But in these examples, they gave the same reason. Melee can be any alignment cause Wizard is about focusing on disciplined study of magic, and she in her case is neutral cause she doesn't care about much beyond that.

Ember is lawful, and monks are lawful, Ember and Monks are about focusing on disciplined study of Ki and Marital arts, and as such Ember and Monks as a whole don't care about much beyond that.

It's the same reason.

Ergo, I submit that the logic for Monks is bogus unless we start requiring all classes that require disciplined study of some kind be lawful.

[Snails]

Don't Gith have Monk as their racial favored class, in spite of usually being Chaotic in alignment? There has always been wiggle room...

[Harbinger]

Don't Gith have Monk as their racial favored class, in spite of usually being Chaotic in alignment? There has always been wiggle room...

There are two types of gith. Githyanki are usually Chaotic. Githzerai are usually Lawful, and their favored class is monk.

[RossN]

There is also the "wandering minstrel" stereotype.

In the real historical world, such as person might actually be noble born, only lacking the means to be trained and outfitted as a proper knight. Having the "right" kind of birth and basic education, he could be welcomed to the highest tables without any of that face-losing mixing with the common folk (if he is sufficiently entertaining to overlook his hopeless poverty, that is).

But the key point is such a minstrel is always too poor to ever have an important position in the social hierarchy, thus he is "without honor" (where "honor" really means owning sufficient land to pay for the salaries of well-armed noble thugs/knights). It sort of makes senses to think of a "honorless" wanderer to be not Lawful.

The weird thing is that title 'Bard' is perhaps the single least appropriate label to apply to such a character. Historically as I noted the term 'bard' belonged to a very specific class of court poet/chronicler/musician in ancient and medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Such people were highly trained professionals that were firmly part of the established hirearchy and Bardic poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardic_poetry) was heavily formalised.

[Fish]

Fflewddur Fflam.

Fflewddur was a bard in the Chronicles of Prydain, published in the 1960s. He was a cantrev lord who didn't care for the dull reality of ruling, so instead wandered around doing as he pleased. He was also a bit of a coward and a chronic liar who often embellished his stories (causing the magic strings of his harp to twang and break). I would wager that was a pretty influential role model in the creation of the archetype.

I would also speculate that the bards' traditional role as satirist and taunter may have been considered. Just a hunch.

[RossN]

I would also speculate that the bards' traditional role as satirist and taunter may have been considered. Just a hunch.

While that's true even the role of satirist was an rigidly established position in the Gaelic hirearchy rather than a freelance n'er do well. In the Táin Bó Cualnge Queen Medb of Connacht sent her court satirist to taunt Cuchulainn (with predictable results.)

[malloyd]

The Bard class was first published for original Dungeons and Dragons in an article by Doug Schwegman, in The Strategic Review Vol II, No. 1, February 1976. It begins, "A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic-user, as well as a good fighter."


Moreover the origin of the 3.x bard (the charming illusionist core class) is undoubtedly the variant class in The Dragon #56, where the alignment restriction is given as:

The alignment of a bard may be either lawful
good, lawful neutral, (pure) neutral, neutral good, or (rarely)
chaotic neutral or chaotic good. Bards tend to be lawful, since
they depend on custom and culture to make their living.

None of the early forms of the Bard class encouraged Chaotic alignment, so it's a rather strange addition to the 3.0 rules.

[Trillium]

In 4E neither Barbarians or Berserkers (a subclass of Barbarian) are prohibited from being Lawful Good.

Likewise, 4E Monks can be of any Alignment.



That's some of the reasons why 4ED looks like pen-and-paper MMO, rather than pen-and-paper RPG. All cheesy and "epic", no logic and style whatsoever.

[Morty]

In the Core, there are a few old time traditions:
* Bards & Barbarians are non-Lawful
* Monk are Lawful
* Paladins are Lawful Good
* Druids are Neutral(ish)
* Poison is Evil
* Undead and creating undead is Evil

Personally, I like all of the above. They help define the texture of the default campaign world.

But it takes only an iota of imagination to see why any or all of the above could be changed for any particular campaign.

It takes an even smaller amount of imagination to see that even in a "default campaign world", they do nothing but pointlessly restrict character concepts.


There is also the "wandering minstrel" stereotype.

In the real historical world, such as person might actually be noble born, only lacking the means to be trained and outfitted as a proper knight. Having the "right" kind of birth and basic education, he could be welcomed to the highest tables without any of that face-losing mixing with the common folk (if he is sufficiently entertaining to overlook his hopeless poverty, that is).

But the key point is such a minstrel is always too poor to ever have an important position in the social hierarchy, thus he is "without honor" (where "honor" really means owning sufficient land to pay for the salaries of well-armed noble thugs/knights). It sort of makes senses to think of a "honorless" wanderer to be not Lawful.

It might make sense if most D&D settings had more than superficial similarity to actual middle ages. Of course, even then, as RossN noted, it's not really where the term "bard" comes from.

[Snails]

It takes an even smaller amount of imagination to see that even in a "default campaign world", they do nothing but pointlessly restrict character concepts.

Sounds like an argument for not using a class-based system at all.

They are a useful teaching tool that brings a somewhat coherent texture to the world. All details "pointlessly restrict character concepts" in somebody's eyes, but to remove all details would be horrifically bland. A balance has to be struck in some fashion, especially in any class based system like D&D.

[Reddish Mage]

Ok, in one of the books it uses Melee (a wizard.) and Ember (A Monk). as examples of why there respective classes don't have an alignment restriction/are restricted to lawful.

It's Mialee the wizard. She's dedicated to her art while Ember is dedicated to her discipline. Those terms are synonyms being used to describe dedication to a physical and mental discipline (whether the monk's martial arts imply some sort of rigid lifestyle is not discussed but is probably what is meant).


In the Core, there are a few old time traditions:
* Bards & Barbarians are non-Lawful
* Monk are Lawful
* Paladins are Lawful Good
* Druids are Neutral(ish)
* Poison is Evil
* Undead and creating undead is Evil

Personally, I like all of the above. They help define the texture of the default campaign world.

These sorts of restrictions highlight that D&D is defining morality arbitrarily and capriciously using it to limit character options. This is the very sort of "straight jacket" that they warn DMs from using alignment as.

[Morty]

Sounds like an argument for not using a class-based system at all.

They are a useful teaching tool that brings a somewhat coherent texture to the world. All details "pointlessly restrict character concepts" in somebody's eyes, but to remove all details would be horrifically bland. A balance has to be struck in some fashion, especially in any class based system like D&D.

Well, I do prefer class-less systems, that's true. Precisely because if you have classes, sooner or later you'll get hit with meaningless restrictions.

[Keltest]

Well, I do prefer class-less systems, that's true. Precisely because if you have classes, sooner or later you'll get hit with meaningless restrictions.

In order for a class system to work there have to be tradeoffs. If there weren't any disadvantages to being a paladin rather than a fighter except the experience table, nobody would be just a fighter.

The restrictions may seem meaningless to you, but without them suddenly theres no reason to play the simpler classes.

[Reddish Mage]

In order for a class system to work there have to be tradeoffs. If there weren't any disadvantages to being a paladin rather than a fighter except the experience table, nobody would be just a fighter.

The restrictions may seem meaningless to you, but without them suddenly theres no reason to play the simpler classes.

In 2e paladins were fighters with lots of extra superpowers. In 3e fighter's bonus feats more than make up for the extra abilities.

[Jay R]

The weird thing is that title 'Bard' is perhaps the single least appropriate label to apply to such a character. Historically as I noted the term 'bard' belonged to a very specific class of court poet/chronicler/musician in ancient and medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Such people were highly trained professionals that were firmly part of the established hirearchy and Bardic poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardic_poetry) was heavily formalised.

Historically, that's certainly the first meaning of the word. But "bard" meant any traveling singer by the mid-1400, and meant pretty much any lyric poet by the early 1600s. (Shakespeare used it that way.)

Despite its original usage, the most appropriate English word for a generic class of medieval singers and poets is "bard".

[Morty]

In order for a class system to work there have to be tradeoffs. If there weren't any disadvantages to being a paladin rather than a fighter except the experience table, nobody would be just a fighter.

The restrictions may seem meaningless to you, but without them suddenly theres no reason to play the simpler classes.

I guess the fighter could have abilities the paladin doesn't... nah, that's crazy talk. Alignment restrictions are the way to go.

[Snails]

These sorts of restrictions highlight that D&D is defining morality arbitrarily and capriciously using it to limit character options. This is the very sort of "straight jacket" that they warn DMs from using alignment as.

Any and all "flavor" solidified into mechanics is open to the charge of being an "arbitrary and capricious" restriction. It is all just of matter of opinion. There is no right answer on what is the right portion of meaningless fluff (flavor not tied to mechanics) to meaningful fluff (flavor tied to mechanics) to have in a system.

FWIW, it is perfectly logical that classes that are not the Base Core classes have additional "meaningful fluff". It would be utterly bizarre to do otherwise.

In a sense, these arguments boil down to whether you can make do with the Basic 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric), or the system needs to be purified down to 2 (Mundane base class, Spellcaster base class), or even stripped down to just 1 (The One Class).

If you are going to include the 11 Core classes, I would argue you are implicitly asking for some amount of "meaningful fluff" to be included in your game. Change what you dislike, of course, but the designers did not do it "wrong" just because you might disagree.

For me, I am satified with the 11 Core plus a few additional Non-Core base classes, and I am not a great fan of how PrCs are implemented (even though I rather like the concept).

[Scow2]

Well, the restriction for barbarians is completely justified. I mean, a lawful berserker? Seriously?Watch Commander and Duke of Ankh-Morpork Samuel Vimes would like to have a word or two with you.

[RossN]

Historically, that's certainly the first meaning of the word. But "bard" meant any traveling singer by the mid-1400, and meant pretty much any lyric poet by the early 1600s. (Shakespeare used it that way.)

Despite its original usage, the most appropriate English word for a generic class of medieval singers and poets is "bard".

The historical usage was still in play until the mid-17th century IRC, at least in Ireland, long enough to be considered post-medieval I'd say, even if it acquired a looser and not particularly common meaning in England. Heck the Contention of the bards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_of_the_bards) mostly took place after Shakespeare's death!

[Bulldog Psion]

The Russians and Ukrainians still call their folk singers "bards" and refer to their style as "bardic music."

[Trillium]

Watch Commander and Duke of Ankh-Morpork Samuel Vimes would like to have a word or two with you.

Achievment of lawful means through chaotic methods equal Neutral.


The Russians and Ukrainians still call their folk singers "bards" and refer to their style as "bardic music."

Clarification - "folk singers" here doesn't mean folk rock or folk music performers. It means simple folk, who misguidedly think they can sing and do so around campfires to exceedingly primitive guitar music.

[Morty]

Achievment of lawful means through chaotic methods equal Neutral.


There's absolutely nothing chaotic about bottling up your fury and unleashing it on people who deserve it, at the right moment.

[Wardog]

All quite simple, really, as music is itself a set of rules that need to be followed lest it be cacophony. Thus learning to be a bard means learning the rules, the laws of storytelling and of melody, harmonics, and so on.

BUT.

To be a good bard, to get to the first level, you need to learn how to bend those rules, to break them to make a better song, a better story. A bard that only sticks to the laws of how a song should be written, how music should be performed would just be another boring old busker. The thing about Elan now is that he is learning the deeper part of it, how storytelling conventions can be defied.
Exactly the same thing could be said for monks.

Learning the basics means rigidly studying and adhering to the principles of the techniques, following your Master, etc.

But to become a True Master yourself, you need to understand the techniques and principles well enough to bend them and break them and recreate them.


Edited to add:

Oh, and I've just remembered:

Didn't an older version of the Barbarian have the alignment restriction "Not Chaotic, except for CG, because CG is the only way they can be chaotic and still have a code of honour"?

[Grey Watcher]

Any and all "flavor" solidified into mechanics is open to the charge of being an "arbitrary and capricious" restriction. It is all just of matter of opinion. There is no right answer on what is the right portion of meaningless fluff (flavor not tied to mechanics) to meaningful fluff (flavor tied to mechanics) to have in a system.

FWIW, it is perfectly logical that classes that are not the Base Core classes have additional "meaningful fluff". It would be utterly bizarre to do otherwise.

In a sense, these arguments boil down to whether you can make do with the Basic 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric), or the system needs to be purified down to 2 (Mundane base class, Spellcaster base class), or even stripped down to just 1 (The One Class).

If you are going to include the 11 Core classes, I would argue you are implicitly asking for some amount of "meaningful fluff" to be included in your game. Change what you dislike, of course, but the designers did not do it "wrong" just because you might disagree.

For me, I am satified with the 11 Core plus a few additional Non-Core base classes, and I am not a great fan of how PrCs are implemented (even though I rather like the concept).

I guess it's a question of Return on Investment. Giving the Paladin a suite of powers that is distinct from a Fighter/Cleric or making Druid a different thing than a Cleric with nature-themed Domains produces something interesting mechanical effects, which can be fun. The Paladin loses some options (feats, higher level spells) in exchange for some unique stuff (Smite and Detect Evil, Divine Grace, etc.) while the Druid gives up things like Spontaneous Healing and Turn Undead for unadulterated awesome Spontaneous Summoning and Wildshape.

I think most of us that say that alignment restrictions for Bards or Barbarians are "arbitrary and limiting" look at it and see that those restrictions don't add value. Because there are relatively few effects that rely on alignment (and even those are replicated for every side), it really doesn't seem to make much difference where you are on the grid. Thus, being told that no, your Bard can't be the stalwart and loyal herald to your girlfriend's noble Paladin or that your Monk can't be an intuitive, free-spirited lone guru starts to rankle in no small part because you don't get anything in return. (That and the justifications tend to be really thin or nonexistent.)

[Keltest]

There's absolutely nothing chaotic about bottling up your fury and unleashing it on people who deserve it, at the right moment.

The whole point is that the barbarian is out of control. They aren't stopping to think "maybe I shouldn't smash those pillars." Its even a running gag in the comic that when Thog rages he turns green and his pants turn purple (no matter what color they were before) like the Hulk does. It doesn't work like The Hunter in the Legend of Drizzt series.

[Jay R]

The historical usage was still in play until the mid-17th century IRC, at least in Ireland, ...

Of course it was. It's still in play now, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it hasn't been the most common meaning for hundreds of years.


... long enough to be considered post-medieval I'd say, even if it acquired a looser and not particularly common meaning in England.

"Not particularly common"? Do you really believe that when Shakespeare is called the Bard of Avon, they are claiming he holds a Celtic legal and religious position? For the last several hundred years, the most common use of the word bard has been to describe poets and wandering singers.

The word also acquired a looser and common meaning in Lowland Scotland by the 1400s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Meanwhile, the most appropriate word in modern English for a general class of wandering singers and poets is "bard".

[3WhiteFox3]

The whole point is that the barbarian is out of control. They aren't stopping to think "maybe I shouldn't smash those pillars." Its even a running gag in the comic that when Thog rages he turns green and his pants turn purple (no matter what color they were before) like the Hulk does. It doesn't work like The Hunter in the Legend of Drizzt series.

Except the Barbarian can choose when he rages. It's a free action that you can choose at any time, and you can end it as another free action. Sure it can be fluffed as it's only when your rage bottles over, but the mechanics don't support that.

But even trying to divorce the mechanics from the fluff a bit more, according to this view the only response to a situation that causes a Barbarian to feel angry is to explode in rage right then and there regardless of whether or not it's even possible to do anything about that rage. In fact, that could be argued to preventing a good alignment. Why? Because good is about not always doing what you want, it's about doing what's right when what you want to do is wrong. By this interpretation if you're insulted, your only choice is to throw a fit as you drool around in a rage; because you are out of control and have no choice about when you rage, regardless of whether or not it's the right or appropriate thing to do.

Besides, the Barbarian isn't a good representation of the Hulk (I don't know The Hunter, so I can't say either way) because we have already have something that represents that fine; the Frenzied Berserker, a prestige class that takes the Barbarians rage and takes it up a notch, making the character uncontrollable when he rages. There is nothing that states that the Barbarian's ragehas to be uncontrollable and that Barbarians can never, ever be in control of their actions.

[Trillium]

There's absolutely nothing chaotic about bottling up your fury and unleashing it on people who deserve it, at the right moment.

The fury itself is as chaotic, as rigid disciplined techniques of a sober monk are lawul.
Drunken Master is more a of brawler, in my opinion. It's not a true monk.

[whitelaughter]

- if music was chaotic, Monks wouldn't have it as a class skill.
- barbarians being non-lawful is also a bit of a joke, given how hidebound and resistant to change tribal societies are.

Law vs chaos is a hangover from basic that needs some thought. Good vs Evil in D&D is little more that your response to "raise an army of undead and take over the world": pro=evil, agin=good, meh=neutral.

[Trillium]

- if music was chaotic, Monks wouldn't have it as a class skill.
- barbarians being non-lawful is also a bit of a joke, given how hidebound and resistant to change tribal societies are.

Law vs chaos is a hangover from basic that needs some thought. Good vs Evil in D&D is little more that your response to "raise an army of undead and take over the world": pro=evil, agin=good, meh=neutral.

Sure it can be argued that barbarians can be lawful, and it can be argued that barbarians should be chaotic and chaotic only. Since both points are uncertain, it is better to restrict the barbarian from lawful, than allow a questionable concept, in my opinion at least. You can't go wrong with forbidding something.

[Rodin]

While I'm not against lawful barbarians, I find Vimes to be a terrible example to use of a lawful berserker because he is explicitly repressing the urge to go berserk because he is so very, very lawful. Whenever he goes berserk, it's considered a failure on his part.

Vimes is more a poster-boy for "Good people know how to fight dirty too".

[Morty]

The whole point is that the barbarian is out of control. They aren't stopping to think "maybe I shouldn't smash those pillars." Its even a running gag in the comic that when Thog rages he turns green and his pants turn purple (no matter what color they were before) like the Hulk does. It doesn't work like The Hunter in the Legend of Drizzt series.

Yes, it actually does pretty much work this way. The barbarian, by the mechanics, can choose the exact time and place she flies into her berserker rage. What you're doing is invent things to support an unsupported restriction.


The fury itself is as chaotic, as rigid disciplined techniques of a sober monk are lawul.


The fury itself is a state in which the barbarian gets stronger and more aggressive for a period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is, like I said, a post-fact justification of the restriction.

Conversely, the monk's techniques allow him to punch people in the face more effectively... well, in theory anyway. We all know that in practice monks are all sorts of terrible. But one way or the other, there's nothing inherently lawful about them.


Sure it can be argued that barbarians can be lawful, and it can be argued that barbarians should be chaotic and chaotic only. Since both points are uncertain, it is better to restrict the barbarian from lawful, than allow a questionable concept, in my opinion at least. You can't go wrong with forbidding something.

Yes, you can. In fact, when you start slapping restrictions on everything remotely ambiguous, you've probably already gone wrong. If you forbid barbarians (or bards) from being lawful, you lock away some characters that might otherwise be viable. If you don't, then those barbarian and bard concepts that do fit the neutral or chaotic alignments lose... precisely nothing.

[Kish]

You can't go wrong with forbidding something?

Seriously?

[rockdeworld]

You can't go wrong with forbidding something?

Seriously?
As long as it's dealistraits how some aspect of the rules interacts with the law/chaos axis and is completely divorced from good and evil. No one ever mistakes you for being too serious or starts a flame war that way.

[RossN]

Of course it was. It's still in play now, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it hasn't been the most common meaning for hundreds of years.



"Not particularly common"? Do you really believe that when Shakespeare is called the Bard of Avon, they are claiming he holds a Celtic legal and religious position? For the last several hundred years, the most common use of the word bard has been to describe poets and wandering singers.

The word also acquired a looser and common meaning in Lowland Scotland by the 1400s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Meanwhile, the most appropriate word in modern English for a general class of wandering singers and poets is "bard".

"Most common?" Outside of Shakespeare and Walter Scott the only place I've seen the word used much is in modern fantasy fiction - and even then I see it more frequently employed by historians.

As you note the term was used by Lowland Scots - as a derogatory term, because it refered to a position in Highland Scottish culture. Even that usage seems to have been relatively uninfluential though - Shakespeare is the 'Bard of Avon' because he is revered, with the label 'bard' being used in a referential context.

Besides which Shakespeare doesn't remotely fit the idea of a itinerant player with a lute - he was a settled poet and playwright under retainer to a particular nobleman. In some ways he probably is much closer to the original bard than there medieval intinerants you keep mentioning, or the D&D class based on them.

[Jay R]

"Most common?" Outside of Shakespeare and Walter Scott the only place I've seen the word used much is in modern fantasy fiction - and even then I see it more frequently employed by historians.

Also Alexander Pope, by the way. And Chaucer. And the annual Bard of Bath competition. But still...

... You're saying it's inappropriate for use in D&D because it's commonly used in modern fantasy?

OK, to be fair, you probably mean despite the fact that it's commonly used in modern fantasy.

Either way, I find that line of argument to be ... unconvincing.

It's clear that you and I disagree, and I think we've both explained our positions. Each reader of the thread has formed his or her own opinion by now, so I think we're done. Thanks for the discussion.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

With regards to the discussion about alignment restrictions, I think that if enough separates one class from another without said restrictions, or no very convincing reason for the restrictions can be given, then I see no reason for the restrictions.

[RossN]

It's clear that you and I disagree, and I think we've both explained our positions. Each reader of the thread has formed his or her own opinion by now, so I think we're done. Thanks for the discussion.

Thank you as well. I think we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Muenster Man]

The fury itself is a state in which the barbarian gets stronger and more aggressive for a period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is, like I said, a post-fact justification of the restriction.

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm)

While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.
That tells me that a raging barbarian is more than just a stronger version of him/herself with heightened aggression; they lose control to the point being unable to exhibit patience, communicate effectively (save for intimidate checks), or do anything requiring subtlety. Their rage requires them to lose themselves in the moment with limited control. Yes, they choose when to activate it and aren't likely to direct it against their allies, but they are more or less lost in it until the rage runs out.

The barbarian alignment restriction was one of the few from 3.x that made sense to me. Restrictions for classes like the bard or the monk seemed more like the designers had an idea for what these classes should be like and then imposed artificial alignment restrictions to increase the variety of different alignments in any given party. I don't really like it for the most part, but it's easy enough for a DM to change.

[Morty]

That's super, but it does not disprove anything I said. Being able to enter a state of single-minded rage that prevents doing anything complex for the duration is not chaotic. Certainly not chaotic enough to bar the entire class entry into the Lawful alignment forever. You might as well say that fighters shouldn't be allowed to be Chaotic because focusing on a single weapon is inherently Lawful.

[The Oni]

I always felt that the Lawful restriction for monks made perfect sense, they live their lives according to a rigid discipline. Even if that discipline is opposed to the local government, it's still an internal, rigid set of laws.

As for Bards being non-lawful, I think it has to do with the most popular music in the decade prior to D&D being invented being rock and folk, both of which were heavily involved in the counterculture movement, and it probably colored the perception of the inventors. If you imagine the typical Bard with shades of Bob Dylan, non-lawful makes perfect sense. Just a theory. which I guess doesn't hold any weight if the original ver. bards didn't have the restriction.

I don't see any reason a Barbarian can't be Lawful, really, except perhaps to prevent people from multiclassing it with Paladin.

[Liliet]

All quite simple, really, as music is itself a set of rules that need to be followed lest it be cacophony. Thus learning to be a bard means learning the rules, the laws of storytelling and of melody, harmonics, and so on.

BUT.

To be a good bard, to get to the first level, you need to learn how to bend those rules, to break them to make a better song, a better story. A bard that only sticks to the laws of how a song should be written, how music should be performed would just be another boring old busker. The thing about Elan now is that he is learning the deeper part of it, how storytelling conventions can be defied.

They are also the law that Tarquin follows so slavishly in his lawful evilness: he is repulsed whenever the holy conventions of storytelling are flouted, and though his goals are selfish he does not consider breaking the rules, merely exploit them. What makes Tarquin Lawful is not that he respects the laws of the Empire, as he is above them, but he sees the laws of storytelling as the natural Law that rules the world.

This also brings out the difference between father and son: Tarquin, by sticking to previous tropes, can only think in terms of those tropes. They define his life. Elan is learning that he does best when he breaks convention in a specific way. By extension, Nale was chaotic in that he railed against the conventions, tried too hard and too selfishly to prove that his old man was wrong.

Just a thought that hit me as a starting point for discussion. What say you?I say you are awesome and I wish my sig was long enough for this.

One of the reasons is probably that in can be summed up as "Tarquin wasn't good enough at narrative to be a bard", but the primary one is that I agree with that and it's tvtropes-existence-level-awesome.


First of all, I'd like to note that I'm generally against alignment restrictions. Except with paladins (people trust and respect paladins because of the harsh requirements, and if they don't, you are doing it wrong). And with druids, because being neutral is what the class is all about. So basically, I don't like it except when I like it. Um.



Mechanically, how to Bards excel? By providing massive bonuses to their teammates. They subtly, en masse, make other peoples' goals happen. Bardic support is inherently tied to things they don't control. It's about opportunity, influence without decision. It's about creating opportunity. The party of "do as thou wilt." They encourage excellence in disorder. From this, bards are fundamentally tied to chaos.

(Unrelatedly, a friend of mine did a homebrew campaign where all Bards shared Fey blood and are tied to the power there. I don't know how to back that up, but it may be relevant.)

If it were up to me, I'd improve Bards by giving them abilities that enable their party to make more Attacks of Opportunity per round, possibly with an ability around level 18 or so that can refresh party members' spell slots.
This is just as made of win as the OP.



Coincidentally, I don't hold with the monks must be lawful thing either, but I think there's more leeway there since ki is so mystical.
And channeling magic through music isn't?

Maybe there are lots of Lawful performers all over the map in DnD settings, they just can't access bardic spellcasting abilities :\ for about the same reason that creating undead is invariably Evil.



In the Core, there are a few old time traditions:
* Bards & Barbarians are non-Lawful
* Monk are Lawful
* Paladins are Lawful Good
* Druids are Neutral(ish)
* Poison is Evil
* Undead and creating undead is Evil

Personally, I like all of the above. They help define the texture of the default campaign world.

But it takes only an iota of imagination to see why any or all of the above could be changed for any particular campaign.
I hate the rule about poison being Evil, it's stupid, arbitrary and doesn't make sense in any way other than "because we said so".



There is also the "wandering minstrel" stereotype.

In the real historical world, such as person might actually be noble born, only lacking the means to be trained and outfitted as a proper knight. Having the "right" kind of birth and basic education, he could be welcomed to the highest tables without any of that face-losing mixing with the common folk (if he is sufficiently entertaining to overlook his hopeless poverty, that is).

But the key point is such a minstrel is always too poor to ever have an important position in the social hierarchy, thus he is "without honor" (where "honor" really means owning sufficient land to pay for the salaries of well-armed noble thugs/knights). It sort of makes senses to think of a "honorless" wanderer to be not Lawful.
The third made of win post. I like this thread.



The weird thing is that title 'Bard' is perhaps the single least appropriate label to apply to such a character. Historically as I noted the term 'bard' belonged to a very specific class of court poet/chronicler/musician in ancient and medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Such people were highly trained professionals that were firmly part of the established hirearchy and Bardic poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardic_poetry) was heavily formalised.
Yeah, except the meaning has changed since then. Meanings of words sometimes change. Russian and Ukrainian, for example, share a common origin and the word "беспечный" (bespechnyy), except that in Russian it means "careless" and in Ukrainian it means "safe". "Bard" has changed less than that. Let the languages flow naturally.



Achievment of lawful means through chaotic methods equal Neutral.

The Russians and Ukrainians still call their folk singers "bards" and refer to their style as "bardic music."Clarification - "folk singers" here doesn't mean folk rock or folk music performers. It means simple folk, who misguidedly think they can sing and do so around campfires to exceedingly primitive guitar music.
Yeah, the actual folk rock performers are called minstrels, and there's at least one person among them who has classical musical education and keeps repeating that it's the wrong term that makes no sense because historical minstrels were absolutely different, and anyway he/she shouldn't be lumped together with them. Except that every* person who listens to this sort of music puts them in the same catalogue named "minstrels" :smallbiggrin:

* slight exaggeration here
Also, bard music is awesome. Not all of it, but good performers are better than top-charts pop... which is, admittedly, not saying much, but anyway don't you dare defecate on my fondest childhood memories (and the still-persisting tradition of hiking and singing these songs around the campfire every year)

[Sir_Leorik]

That's some of the reasons why 4ED looks like pen-and-paper MMO, rather than pen-and-paper RPG. All cheesy and "epic", no logic and style whatsoever.

Trillium, the reason why Barbarians have to be non-Lawful in 3.X, is because they had to be non-Lawful in 1E. They had to be non-Lawful in 1E, because Conan of Cimmeria, whom the entire class was based on, was a Chaotic brigand. That's the reason. Everything else is a lame attempt to justify excluding Lawful Barbarians.

Unlike Paladin, who are meant to be exemplars of the Lawful Good Alignment, and therefore could not be of any other Alignment, or Clerics, whose Alignments should sync up with the deity they worship, why shouldn't Barbarians be allowed to be Lawful Good? Why shouldn't Monks be allowed to be any non-Chaotic Alignment?

Prior to 3.0, Rangers couldn't be of non-Good Alignment, Dwarves couldn't become Wizards, Psionicists had to be Lawful, Elves couldn't even use Psionics (except in "Dark Sun"), Halflings couldn't become Rangers or Druids, and all non-Humans were saddled with ridiculous level restrictions. Should those also make a comeback?

[Ridureyu]

I like 4th Edition. I also like previous editions. It's nice to know that I now have no logic or style whatsoever, and I am roleplaying "wrong.'

[Sir_Leorik]

I like 4th Edition. I also like previous editions. It's nice to know that I now have no logic or style whatsoever, and I am roleplaying "wrong.'

Don't forget that 4E fans like you and I are no longer capable of roleplaying. :smallsigh:

EDIT:

On a more serious note, it would be nice if the anti-4E brigade would acknowledge that a lot of the rules in older editions were influenced by the personal tastes of the authors (whether EGG, Zeb Cook, Monte Cooke, or Skip Williams). Unearthed Arcana Barbarians are based on Conan. Conan was a brigand who hated sorcery. So Barbarians hated Wizards, and couldn't be Lawful. (Never mind that Conan later became king of Aquilonia.) Elves couldn't become Psionicists in 2E because the brains weren't wired properly. (Or something.) Elves also couldn't be brought back to life with a Raise Dead spell, because they apparently lacked souls.

A lot of these rules seem arbitrary when stripped of the original rationale, and even when we know the original rationale, a good counter argument can be made against them.

[Keltest]

I like 4th Edition. I also like previous editions. It's nice to know that I now have no logic or style whatsoever, and I am roleplaying "wrong.'

Its comforting to know im not alone. and on the bright side we can roleplay wrong better than those other people can.

[Liliet]

One big reason I didn't like 4th edition was Bards using wands instead of musical instruments. That's, well, that's all.

(I mean, how hard is it to houserule alignment back in?)

[Ridureyu]

Bards can use conductor batons all they want.

[Fnordius]

I say you are awesome and I wish my sig was long enough for this.

One of the reasons is probably that in can be summed up as "Tarquin wasn't good enough at narrative to be a bard", but the primary one is that I agree with that and it's tvtropes-existence-level-awesome.


First of all, I'd like to note that I'm generally against alignment restrictions. Except with paladins (people trust and respect paladins because of the harsh requirements, and if they don't, you are doing it wrong). And with druids, because being neutral is what the class is all about. So basically, I don't like it except when I like it. Um.

This is why I am such a gaming heretic and prefer to use GURPS' system of mental disadvantages (Code of Honor, Duty, Sense of Duty, and so on) to reflect what (A)D&D reflected with the alignment table. But I think we have a good in-world reasoning behind Elan now, as to why he can thrive as a bard.

(And if it was my game world, I would argue that bards cannot be Chaotic for the same reason. A good bard is both classical musician and punk rocker.)

[Morty]

Fourth edition isn't really my thing, but its designers knew what the hell they were doing, and what they wanted to do. This is more than can be said about the third edition.

[littlebum2002]

I always thought it was because Lawful characters "know" that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible. Since non-lawful characters don't have such knowledge, they can do the impossible.


Kinda like how characters in the Discworld routinely ignore things that are supposed to be impossible.

[Kish]

Straw-Vulcans aside, I'm reasonably sure stubbornly maintaining that observable events don't actually take place shows a Wisdom penalty, not an alignment.

[Keltest]

Straw-Vulcans aside, I'm reasonably sure stubbornly maintaining that observable events don't actually take place shows a Wisdom penalty, not an alignment.

It might just be indicative of terrible spot modifiers.

[Taelas]

Restrictions are extremely important. What those restrictions are is mostly arbitrary, but without them, we are without direction, without guidance.

Pablo Picasso said, "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist." When you have mastered the rules -- the restrictions -- you can see where they interfere with your play, and you can remove them when necessary.

But senselessly removing restrictions just breaks everything down.

When I want to join a game and have no idea for a character, I go through the Race and Class sections of the PHB. Why? To have something to reflect upon. I may not go with any of those races or classes, but they are a base I can use.

Without restrictions, with everything open for everyone, it's ridiculously easy to drown in the options.

[Sir_Leorik]

One big reason I didn't like 4th edition was Bards using wands instead of musical instruments. That's, well, that's all.

(I mean, how hard is it to houserule alignment back in?)

4E Bards could use Magical Musical Instruments as Implements. These include the classic Bard focused Magical Instruments from 1E, such as the Cli Lyre. There were also magic weapons that functioned as Bard Implements, allowing Valorous Bards, Skalds, Prescient Bards and Cunning Bards who liked to mix it up to mix melee and ranged spells.

The real problem is that a Cli Lyre, the lowest level Bardic Instrument, is a 5th level Uncommon Magic Item, which prevents Bards from just going to a market and buying one in the post-Essentials rules revision, unless the DM hand waves it.

[Sir_Leorik]

I always thought it was because Lawful characters "know" that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible. Since non-lawful characters don't have such knowledge, they can do the impossible.

Your entire thesis is defied by the existence of the Fraternity of Order, in the "Planescape" campaign setting. The "Guvners" are a group devoted to the study of laws. Not just legal systems (which they studied so well that they ran Sigil's legal system before the Faction War), but esoteric Laws of the Cosmos. Guvners were able to find "loopholes" in the Laws of the Multiverse that allowed them to use Spell-like Abilities, like casting Feather Fall if they used "Wile. E. Coyote's Axiom of Gravity" (if you don't realize you're not on solid ground you don't fall) or Alter Self by using the law of "If You Keep Making That Face..."

The downside of being a Guvner is that they have to obey all Laws that they are aware of. That includes Laws mandating slavery (they can't free slaves except by buying their freedom), depraved punishments, and Murphy's Law. The only way for a Guvner to not obey a Law is to find a loophole. And they are very good at finding loopholes. :smalltongue:

[Snails]

My personal opinion is that the Core alignment restrictions are useful "pedestrian descriptions" of how philosophic outlook would be likely to impact one's career choices. Is alignment so superficial that such a mechanic is obviously wrong?

That said, I see some potential for a Lawful Barbarian or Chaotic Monk, if it is more serious than a coat of paint or a cheesy end run to get your favorite 5 PrC stack of silliness.

[Sir_Leorik]

My personal opinion is that the Core alignment restrictions are useful "pedestrian descriptions" of how philosophic outlook would be likely to impact one's career choices. Is alignment so superficial that such a mechanic is obviously wrong?

That said, I see some potential for a Lawful Barbarian or Chaotic Monk, if it is more serious than a coat of paint or a cheesy end run to get your favorite 5 PrC stack of silliness.

For an example of a Lawful Barbarian, what about Hogun the Grim (one of the Warriors Three) from the "Thor" comics and movie? Unlike Volstagg the Enormous (who's probably Chaotic Good) and Fandral the Dashing (who may be True Neutral or Neutral Good), Hogun is closer to Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. But he's otherwise closer to a Barbarian than he is to a Fighter. When Hogun fights, he fights with a grim, steely determination, until his enemies are dead or otherwise defeated. Volstagg is closer to a Fighter; despite his girth, Volstagg is an excellent swordsman. Fandral is also more of a Fighter, though he's a bit of a rake, and could be considered a Fighter/Rogue in D&D.

As for a Chaotic Monk, what about The Creeper (from DC Comics), or Mike Stackpole's The Revenant (making the occasional guest appearance in Aaron Williams' "PS238")?

[Liliet]

I always thought it was because Lawful characters "know" that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible. Since non-lawful characters don't have such knowledge, they can do the impossible.


Kinda like how characters in the Discworld routinely ignore things that are supposed to be impossible.
Um. I don't think that knowing or not knowing something has any relevance to the alignment. Sure, it's a running gag in Discworld, one that's actually pretty funny, but... yeah, as Kish said, it's Wisdom penalty for Lawful characters and possible Intelligence penalty for non-Lawful characters if they don't know something that should be true.


I'd say that the bard magic requires not only the melody/act/speech/whatever else you can have Perform ranks in to manifest (or else anyone with Perform ranks would be a bard), but also the innate magical quality, the "free spirit" that prevents a character from being Lawful, or goes away as soon as they become Lawful. The primal power of Chaos is what lets bard's will manifest as magic, and it's incompatible with Lawful alignment because Chaos doesn't like Law, and that's all there is to it.

One of the reasons I dislike alignment restrictions on this class is that they prevent bard/paladin multiclass from existing. And that would be awesome.

[Jay R]

I always thought it was because Lawful characters "know" that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible. Since non-lawful characters don't have such knowledge, they can do the impossible.

It therefore follows that Scots aren't lawful, since they routinely have pipers playing in battle, for exactly that reason.

(Also, the same people who know that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible, also know that people can't make flame appear out of nowhere, so presumably lawful characters can't be wizards or clerics either.)

[Rodin]

Kinda like how characters in the Discworld routinely ignore things that are supposed to be impossible.

I thought it was usually the opposite? "This shouldn't work, and we all know it shouldn't work, but don't think about it too much and we should be able to make it work before reality catches on."

I can't actually remember a case of the characters ignoring a magical effect because it was impossible, whereas there's at least a few instances of the reverse (like the characters traveling rapidly by carrying a lamp which they are also inside, or half the stuff Hex gets up to).

[Trillium]

It therefore follows that Scots aren't lawful, since they routinely have pipers playing in battle, for exactly that reason.

(Also, the same people who know that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible, also know that people can't make flame appear out of nowhere, so presumably lawful characters can't be wizards or clerics either.)

Well, judging from the amount of their Middle-Ages insurrections and banditry, as well as modern-day vote to split from UK... they are totally non-lawful, as a nation.

[hamishspence]

I'd say that the bard magic requires not only the melody/act/speech/whatever else you can have Perform ranks in to manifest (or else anyone with Perform ranks would be a bard), but also the innate magical quality, the "free spirit" that prevents a character from being Lawful, or goes away as soon as they become Lawful. The primal power of Chaos is what lets bard's will manifest as magic, and it's incompatible with Lawful alignment because Chaos doesn't like Law, and that's all there is to it.

One of the reasons I dislike alignment restrictions on this class is that they prevent bard/paladin multiclass from existing. And that would be awesome.

As written in PHB, a bard retains their Bardic Music, and spells, if they become Lawful- they just can't keep levelling in Bard.

Complete Adventurer has a feat (designed for bard/paladins) that allows them to keep taking levels in Bard despite having become Lawful. It also allows Bard and Paladin levels to stack for various purposes.

[Liliet]

I thought it was usually the opposite? "This shouldn't work, and we all know it shouldn't work, but don't think about it too much and we should be able to make it work before reality catches on."

I can't actually remember a case of the characters ignoring a magical effect because it was impossible, whereas there's at least a few instances of the reverse (like the characters traveling rapidly by carrying a lamp which they are also inside, or half the stuff Hex gets up to).
I can name two right off the bat: when Rincewind encountered talking mushrooms (or was that rocks? or both?) and decided to ignore them because it's impossible, and when Gaspode can talk directly to subconscious because consciously people are absolutely confident there's no such thing as a talking dog.



As written in PHB, a bard retains their Bardic Music, and spells, if they become Lawful- they just can't keep levelling in Bard.

Complete Adventurer has a feat (designed for bard/paladins) that allows them to keep taking levels in Bard despite having become Lawful. It also allows Bard and Paladin levels to stack for various purposes.
Ooh. Awesome. So you can make a multiclass Bard/Paladin, they just need to have taken those bard levels before switching alignment and switching to paladin.

My explanation "because Chaos doesn't like Law" still works: so you can do what you already can do, but you can't be granted new abilities. The same :smallbiggrin: it IS Chaos, after all

[AstralFire]

It's kind of interesting to watch people contort logic to explain alignment restriction mechanics ex post facto.

But what I find more interesting is the Bard's past as a class. The fact that the "non-lawful" restriction came about in 3E was something I didn't realize before. How exactly was the Bard characterized in earlier editions? What archetype matches both a person somewhat in-tune with nature and a thief? I know Fflewddur Fflam was mentioned earlier (and I can definitely buy this) but I don't remember him being much of a thief.

[Asta Kask]

Bards can use conductor batons all they want.

And this one day, at band-camp...

[Keltest]

It's kind of interesting to watch people contort logic to explain alignment restriction mechanics ex post facto.

But what I find more interesting is the Bard's past as a class. The fact that the "non-lawful" restriction came about in 3E was something I didn't realize before. How exactly was the Bard characterized in earlier editions? What archetype matches both a person somewhat in-tune with nature and a thief? I know Fflewddur Fflam was mentioned earlier (and I can definitely buy this) but I don't remember him being much of a thief.

it goes waaay back to before 2nd edition, where bards were a combination of multiclassing a fighter, then a thief, then a druid. THEN they got their first level of bard. After all, why NOT have one of the cooler classes only be available in the endgame *grumble grumble*

anyway, they were literally part thief, regardless if they actually used the skills or not (I guess the logic is many a traveling bard would not be above theft if they couldn't earn money and food from singing.

[AstralFire]

it goes waaay back to before 2nd edition, where bards were a combination of multiclassing a fighter, then a thief, then a druid. THEN they got their first level of bard. After all, why NOT have one of the cooler classes only be available in the endgame *grumble grumble*

anyway, they were literally part thief, regardless if they actually used the skills or not (I guess the logic is many a traveling bard would not be above theft if they couldn't earn money and food from singing.

I got that much. I'm wondering where the inspiration for "dabbler in fighting and nature magic also is good at stealing things" came from, given that I understand "stealing things" was the majority of the Thief class' raison d'etre before its replacement by the Rogue.

[Keltest]

I got that much. I'm wondering where the inspiration for "dabbler in fighting and nature magic also is good at stealing things" came from, given that I understand "stealing things" was the majority of the Thief class' raison d'etre before its replacement by the Rogue.

Because at the time, D&D lacked a "Jack of all trades" class other than the bard. Rogue classes couldn't melee particularly well (though they got nice backstabs), Wizards could be very limited offensively or supportively depending on available spells, clerics were clerics, and fighters were able to hit things and that's about it.

[Kish]

I got that much. I'm wondering where the inspiration for "dabbler in fighting and nature magic also is good at stealing things" came from, given that I understand "stealing things" was the majority of the Thief class' raison d'etre before its replacement by the Rogue.
No, the thief class was thematically just the same as the rogue class; the rename was nothing more than a rename. Thieves dealt with locks and traps, scouted, and climbed walls. They could put their "Thieves' Skills" points in Pick Pockets at the expense of Hear Noises and Find Traps, just as 3.5ed rogues can put their skill points in Sleight of Hand at the expense of Listen and Search, but adventuring thieves generally didn't, just as adventuring rogues generally don't.

Bards had (a substantially smaller number of) Thieves' Skills points to distribute each level as well, but could only choose from a much shorter list, ostensibly because they only studied the abilities of the thief class that involved interacting with people--which was mainly Pick Pockets.

[Liliet]

It's kind of interesting to watch people contort logic to explain alignment restriction mechanics ex post facto.
If it's so interesting to watch, imagine how interesting it must be to do this! :smallcool:

[Jay R]

I got that much. I'm wondering where the inspiration for "dabbler in fighting and nature magic also is good at stealing things" came from, given that I understand "stealing things" was the majority of the Thief class' raison d'etre before its replacement by the Rogue.

First, the inspiration for the Thief class was the Grey Mouser and Bilbo Baggins, and possibly The Thief of Baghdad and Aladdin.

Second, the most common thief actions were detecting and disabling traps, picking locks after their owners had been slain, climbing, sneaking around, backstabbing, and any other DEX-based idea the players came up with. Picking pockets and stealing from living people were actually pretty rare. (Picking pockets usually was a high-risk, low-gain venture, since the risk was capture or death, and the reward usually not more than a few gp.)

Since there was no skill system, and most DMs would just pick the most relevant Characteristic and roll against that, it was very useful to have somebody in the party whose highest stat was DEX, to do all sorts of generic handwork.


Because at the time, D&D lacked a "Jack of all trades" class other than the bard.

In fact, the Thief was introduced before the Bard. Thieves were introduced in the first supplement, Greyhawk, in mid-1975. Bards were introduced in an article in The Strategic Review, Vol II, no. 1, February 1976. the Bard was described assuming the Thief class was already known. "A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter."


Rogue classes couldn't melee particularly well (though they got nice backstabs), Wizards could be very limited offensively or supportively depending on available spells, clerics were clerics, and fighters were able to hit things and that's about it.

Except that without a skill system, anyone could try anything. Fighters, for instance, could search, negotiate, hide things, or do anything skills cover today (except the defined Thief skills.) The limit to what your character could do was your imagination, not the character sheet.

Also, how good Thieves were in combat depended on how much the DM let you abuse the backstabbing rules. Hide, wait, stab, hide, wait, stab...

There were two crucial aspects of a Bard in original D&D, that swamped all other considerations:
1. They got followers ridiculously early - two of them at 2nd level. Combined with early leveling, a Bard character with 1,000 xps might be playing a 2nd level Bard, a 1st level fighter, and a 1st level wizard while the party's Fighter and Wizard were both still first level themselves.
2. They had a 10% chance per level to know what a magic item was. This was a huge curse-avoiding ability.

[AstralFire]

...That all still sounds like they were focused on stealing to me. I didn't necessarily mean picking pockets. Thieves even gained XP based on the amount of GP they recovered, I remember hearing once - no? :smallconfused:

So my question of "why did thieving get conceptually tied to the other two things a Bard has" remains. I just don't get how Fighter + Druid + Thief = Bard.

[Kish]

...That all still sounds like they were focused on stealing to me. I didn't necessarily mean picking pockets. Thieves even gained XP based on the amount of GP they recovered, I remember hearing once - no? :smallconfused:

Every adventurer got the bulk of their XP from treasure, at a rate of one XP per gold piece value gained, generally gained by slaughter. So you could say thieves were focused on stealing, but you'd have to also say that wizards--excuse me, mages--were focused on stealing using magic, and fighters were focused on armed robbery, and so on.

Do you think of rogues as focused on stealing?

If not, why not? 'Cause the concept is exactly the same. Only the name and the mechanics of the underlying game are different (in 2ed if you're not a thief you climb like a fish and hear like a snake and that's all there is to it; in 3.xed everyone can potentially put ranks in the Climb and Listen skills).

[Keltest]

...That all still sounds like they were focused on stealing to me. I didn't necessarily mean picking pockets. Thieves even gained XP based on the amount of GP they recovered, I remember hearing once - no? :smallconfused:

So my question of "why did thieving get conceptually tied to the other two things a Bard has" remains. I just don't get how Fighter + Druid + Thief = Bard.

Because Bards are jacks of all trades, and fighters and thieves were two of the four "core" classes in the game. Druids were a nice mix between offense and support caster, which were the other two core classes (cleric and Magic User)

[AstralFire]

Every adventurer got the bulk of their XP from treasure, at a rate of one XP per gold piece value gained, generally gained by slaughter. So you could say thieves were focused on stealing, but you'd have to also say that wizards were focused on stealing using magic, and fighters were focused on armed robbery, and so on.

Do you think of rogues as focused on stealing?

If not, why not? 'Cause the concept is exactly the same. Only the name is different.

That's a fair point given the emphasis on ruin crawling in classic D&D (especially given 1 GP = 1 XP for everyone.) I do consider advancement based on primarily killing people and taking their things to be either stealing or looting, yes, and don't particularly run campaigns oriented on those notions.

[SowZ]

Agreed. Just because some Bards are wandering tricksters, doesn't mean every Bard is a wandering trickster. It's just like Rogues: not every Rogue is a greedy thief; some could be Lawful Good detectives or Vampire hunters.

Not that great at Vampire Hunting, though, since Sneak Attack doesn't work.

[AstralFire]

Not that great at Vampire Hunting, though, since Sneak Attack doesn't work.

There are ways to void that issue, plus PF and 4E don't give undead that benefit. Would be surprised if 5E wavered. Things with clear structural points have weaknesses so that was a good change.

[Keltest]

There are ways to void that issue, plus PF and 4E don't give undead that benefit. Would be surprised if 5E wavered. Things with clear structural points have weaknesses so that was a good change.

I think the idea behind immunity is that the monster, for whatever reason, lacked an area that was more vulnerable than others. Undead are animated by magic, so sticking them in the foot wouldn't be much more damaging to the animating force (their HP) than stabbing them in the face would be.

[Sir_Leorik]

Not that great at Vampire Hunting, though, since Sneak Attack doesn't work.

Who said anything about a Thief fighting a Vampire? You sneak into the Vampire's lair during broad daylight, when the Vampire is sleeping in his coffin, disarm the traps on the crypt, sneak up to the coffin, and hammer a meter long wooden stake through his heart.

And what is this Sneak Attack you speak of? :smallconfused:

Protip: AD&D Thieves didn't get Sneak Attack; they got Backstabs.

[Jay R]

...That all still sounds like they were focused on stealing to me. I didn't necessarily mean picking pockets. Thieves even gained XP based on the amount of GP they recovered, I remember hearing once - no? :smallconfused:

Yup - just like paladins. (And everyone else.)


So my question of "why did thieving get conceptually tied to the other two things a Bard has" remains. I just don't get how Fighter + Druid + Thief = Bard.

First of all, that's the second version of bards (AD&D 1E - 1977), not the first one (original D&D, Feb 1976). The first one was Thief + Fighter + Magic-User. They were allied to Druids, but they had no druidic powers.

Secondly, the answer is that Doug Schwegman wrote an article in which he introduced bards as basically thieves, with some fighter and magic-user mixed in. You'd have to ask him why.

A lot of things introduced at that time (beholders, nine-way alignment, etc.) had no basis in fantasy literature.

[warrl]

It is really pretty ironic when you consider the original Gaelic/Welsh bards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard) were a professional, highly trained group of court poets whose social status was rigidly defined.

And frequently involved both *conveying* the law, as messengers, and *applying* the law, as judges (being recognized and respected authorities with, often, no stake in local disputes and no meaningful connections to either side).

Of course, we must be careful about combining D&D alignments with the real world. The original (real-world) Paladins routinely treated common peasants in a manner we would not hesitate to brand as Evil, and didn't qualify as Lawful by any modern standard either.


From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm)

That tells me that a raging barbarian is more than just a stronger version of him/herself with heightened aggression; they lose control to the point being unable to exhibit patience, communicate effectively (save for intimidate checks), or do anything requiring subtlety. Their rage requires them to lose themselves in the moment with limited control. Yes, they choose when to activate it and aren't likely to direct it against their allies, but they are more or less lost in it until the rage runs out.

Which is one of the reasons why a Cleric with a couple spells has better Rages than a Barbarian. Aside from the little detail of taking two standard actions for a Cleric to enter his Rage.


The barbarian alignment restriction was one of the few from 3.x that made sense to me.

I figured the prototypical Barbarian should have been an actual barbarian - a primitive tribesman tightly bound by tribal law, custom, and the orders of his chief. Sure he seems chaotic to a city-dweller, but that's because he doesn't know or follow the city's laws; but the city-dweller doesn't know or follow the barbarian's tribal laws and customs, so is clearly similarly chaotic.


One big reason I didn't like 4th edition was Bards using wands instead of musical instruments. That's, well, that's all.

And what musical instruments a Bard *can* use as an implement, are not very good in combat. (Several are useful during resting periods.)


It therefore follows that Scots aren't lawful, since they routinely have pipers playing in battle, for exactly that reason.

And neither are the English lawful, because they saw fit to class the Great Pipe as a form of weapon, and ban it, for quite a few years.

[Jay R]

I suspect that it's an inconsistent blend of incomplete knowledge of real bards, generic traveling poets (the second meaning of "bard"), the bad reputation of traveling actors, and "oh, this sounds like fun".

[Storm_Of_Snow]

...That all still sounds like they were focused on stealing to me. I didn't necessarily mean picking pockets. Thieves even gained XP based on the amount of GP they recovered, I remember hearing once - no? :smallconfused:

Yep, whilst everyone got experience for finding money, in first edition the DMG actually says that a thief should lose XPs if they don't pocket small treasures when no one's looking and so on.

Basically, the class equivalent of a player behaving like a d***, pointing to the alignment section of their character sheet, and saying "look, it says Chaotic Evil here."

[Liliet]

Yep, whilst everyone got experience for finding money, in first edition the DMG actually says that a thief should lose XPs if they don't pocket small treasures when no one's looking and so on.

Basically, the class equivalent of a player behaving like a d***, pointing to the alignment section of their character sheet, and saying "look, it says Chaotic Evil here."
I'd add "and Wis 7 Int 7 here", because being richard with your party is not evil, it's stupid.

[Snails]

I'd add "and Wis 7 Int 7 here", because being richard with your party is not evil, it's stupid.

In the G-series there are a few peculiar "traps" that are useful for hosing a Thief who gets greedy and tries to grab some goodies while scouting, but would be a complete non-issue to the party working together.

So the idea that Thief richardness needs to be actively managed by the DM is there fairly early on.

[Liliet]

In the G-series there are a few peculiar "traps" that are useful for hosing a Thief who gets greedy and tries to grab some goodies while scouting, but would be a complete non-issue to the party working together.

So the idea that Thief richardness needs to be actively managed by the DM is there fairly early on.
Well no one ever said official DnD materials made a lot of sense when it came to roleplaying on a level a little higher than the MMO"RP"Gs, did they?

[sr123]

And frequently involved both *conveying* the law, as messengers, and *applying* the law, as judges (being recognized and respected authorities with, often, no stake in local disputes and no meaningful connections to either side).

Interesting to ponder: if a judge has no stake in local disputes and no meaningful connections (and provided they are not reading directly from a book of standards/laws/precedents), are you better off with a judge who is neutral/chaotic rather than lawful?
(e.g., a lawful judge may pigeonhole established biases or inflexible conventions into an ambiguous or ludicrous situation; c.f. the "uncommonly silly" Lawrence v. Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Thomas.27s_dissent))


And what musical instruments a Bard *can* use as an implement, are not very good in combat. (Several are useful during resting periods.)

I still love the Bards in Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard) who play keyboards (subs for Diplomacy and Intimidate) in combat. Treatmonk's guide (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab) said this was often his instrument of choice, using the cantrip Summon Instrument (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-instrument) to start his Bard Song on a glockenspiel.

[Wardog]

I'd add "and Wis 7 Int 7 here", because being richard with your party is not evil, it's stupid.

You know, the first think that sprung to mind when reading that was Richard from the LFG comic...

[Liliet]

You know, the first think that sprung to mind when reading that was Richard from the LFG comic...
What's LFG? :smallredface:

(I have my own Richard associations, and one of them is so the opposite of the meaning I used, and the other one just so defines the meaning I used, and the first one is what I know about Richard III, and the second one is from a Russian book. Point is, even if I know that Richard, he's so substantially overshadowed by these two other Richards that I don't remember him)

[Kish]

What's LFG? :smallredface:
Allegedly, it's a webcomic. I say "allegedly" because having read a little of it convinced me that it's actually a "PEOPLE WHO I DISAGREE WITH ARE SO DUMB" screed in webcomic form.

[Liliet]

Allegedly, it's a webcomic. I say "allegedly" because having read a little of it convinced me that it's actually a "PEOPLE WHO I DISAGREE WITH ARE SO DUMB" screed in webcomic form.
Hmm. Is LFG a full name?

[Kish]

Hmm. Is LFG a full name?
Looking For Group is the full name.

[Liliet]

Looking For Group is the full name.
Ooh. Thanks. That's what I was asking for.

I heard about it... thanks for the warning. Still, I'll try reading it.

Um... what were we talking about on-topic, again?

UPDATE: I got to the moment when Richard introduced himself and parted with this comic forever. It's too goofy and exaggerated for me. I kinda suspect that this Richard was named after the meaning I meant...

[Sir_Leorik]

Allegedly, it's a webcomic. I say "allegedly" because having read a little of it convinced me that it's actually a "PEOPLE WHO I DISAGREE WITH ARE SO DUMB" screed in webcomic form.

Kish, you just described something like 79% of all webcomics! :smalltongue:

[littlebum2002]

It therefore follows that Scots aren't lawful, since they routinely have pipers playing in battle, for exactly that reason.

(Also, the same people who know that singing to someone to make them fight harder is impossible, also know that people can't make flame appear out of nowhere, so presumably lawful characters can't be wizards or clerics either.)



Scots march with bagpipes to make them march faster. See, no one wants to march fast when you're going into battle, because you're basically marching to your death. But when you have to listen to bagpipes, you march as fast as you can, so you can finally enjoy the sweet embrace of death and not have to listen to that awful, awful music any more.

[Sir_Leorik]

Scots march with bagpipes to make them march faster. See, no one wants to march fast when you're going into battle, because you're basically marching to your death. But when you have to listen to bagpipes, you march as fast as you can, so you can finally enjoy the sweet embrace of death and not have to listen to that awful, awful music any more.

I thought that Scots played the bagpipes while marching into battle to demoralize their enemies with awful music. :smalltongue:

[Jay R]

Scots march with bagpipes to make them march faster. See, no one wants to march fast when you're going into battle, because you're basically marching to your death. But when you have to listen to bagpipes, you march as fast as you can, so you can finally enjoy the sweet embrace of death and not have to listen to that awful, awful music any more.
I thought that Scots played the bagpipes while marching into battle to demoralize their enemies with awful music. :smalltongue:

Either way, they are actually doing what bards do - playing an instrument to help their side in battle.

[Snails]

I thought that Scots played the bagpipes while marching into battle to demoralize their enemies with awful music. :smalltongue:

What happens when a Scottish army fights another Scottish army, both employing bagpipes? :smalleek:

[Keltest]

What happens when a Scottish army fights another Scottish army, both employing bagpipes? :smalleek:

Nothing. Scots didn't have armies when they didn't like each other. But id imagine the world would blow up.

[Ridureyu]

It would devolve into a free-for-all.

[Sir_Leorik]

What happens when a Scottish army fights another Scottish army, both employing bagpipes? :smalleek:


Nothing. Scots didn't have armies when they didn't like each other. But id imagine the world would blow up.


It would devolve into a free-for-all.

If I live to 120, I do not think I will understand half the things that go on in the British Isles. :smalltongue:

[Mith]

Well the Romans used bagpipes to scare their enemies, since they had never heard anything like it. Then the Scots only really started using them in place of trumpets, although the Gaels may have had similar instruments before then. Also, why hate Bagpipes? My DM allows me to have a Deafening effect on all creatures in the room with me when I start to play!:smallsmile: Not Really


I would consider Berserkers as Chaotic, as most origins I have heard of berserkr and berserkrgang (Going Berserk) they were not sane fighters. They were seen as unnatural, since they would not stop fighting, killing, and pillaging, and would not always attack the enemy. Since they were fundamentally uncontrollable, this lends weight to their Chaotic alignment. Also, most of these berserkers, from my understanding, although were valued warriors, were not honoured members of society, but more like hermits and near outcasts.

The Monk however, based on their Oriental origins, were tied into Confucius, who was big on tradition and everything having it's place, which is very Lawful. It's now turned into a more Buddhist-like over time.

As for the Bards, I agree it doesn't make sense for them being nonLawful.

[sr123]

The chaotic requirement of Barbarians and Berserkers bothers me because it's based on battle behavior alone.

An example of where philosophies of fighting differ: in sword sports especially, you have to be 100% calm and in control -- a visible sigh or relaxed abdomen is an easy opening; but in boxing, while the sport is extremely technical and disciplined, an actual fight (as is my understanding) requires personal anger, a "killer instinct" (this concept is not limited to fighting sports -- one hears it in racing and even baseball).

Off the court, however, is there any doubt that their effective alignments are as varied as anyone else's?



I think the idea behind immunity is that the monster, for whatever reason, lacked an area that was more vulnerable than others. Undead are animated by magic, so sticking them in the foot wouldn't be much more damaging ... than stabbing them in the face would be.

But cutting off their leg might be (though for a skeleton to walk and fight without muscles or ligaments, it is probably being held upright by something other than their leg bones as well).

[Jay R]

What happens when a Scottish army fights another Scottish army, both employing bagpipes? :smalleek:

Not much, until they also start employing swords or guns.

[Keltest]

But cutting off their leg might be (though for a skeleton to walk and fight without muscles or ligaments, it is probably being held upright by something other than their leg bones as well).

well, yeah. but sneak attacks don't dismember on their own. Especially if youre using a blunt weapon or bow.

[Sir_Leorik]

well, yeah. but sneak attacks don't dismember on their own. Especially if youre using a blunt weapon or bow.

Bah! A pox on overly unnecessary virisimilitude in 3.5! :smallfurious:

Why couldn't the Rules Revision have included ways for Rogues to automatically trip, disarm or otherwise inconvenience Undead, Constructs or other creatures immune to Sneak Attacks, depending on their level? :smallfurious:

[Jay R]

Why couldn't the Rules Revision have included ways for Rogues to automatically trip, disarm or otherwise inconvenience Undead, Constructs or other creatures immune to Sneak Attacks, depending on their level? :smallfurious:

Because the point of immunity to a Rogue's major attacks is to make the monster immune to a Rogue's major attacks.

[bladequeen420]

In pathfinder bards can be lawful

[Sir_Leorik]

Because the point of immunity to a Rogue's major attacks is to make the monster immune to a Rogue's major attacks.

I don't think that's the reason why. I think that it is an attempt at verisimilitude by the game designers. Sneak Attacks are supposed to target the major organs of the Rogue's target, and since Undead, Constructs and Plants don't have major organs, the game designers of 3.5 made these monster types immune to Sneak Attacks.

In Pathfinder, the neither Undead or Constructs are inherently immune to Sneak Attacks. Considering that in many ways Pathfinder aims for a higher level of verisimilitude than 3.5 did, it seems clear that the game designers realized that the rule was unnecessarily hampering Rogues, while not really adding anything to the verisimilitude of the game.


In pathfinder bards can be lawful

Yup. I also like a lot of the changes Paizo made to the 3.5 Bard. They took the Bard in a similar direction to the 4E Bard, focusing on a class that improves the abilities of allies, but in a way that is definitely distinct from the 4E Bard. Both versions seems really fun to play, though I've only had a chance to play the 4E version.

[Snails]

In Pathfinder, the neither Undead or Constructs are inherently immune to Sneak Attacks. Considering that in many ways Pathfinder aims for a higher level of verisimilitude than 3.5 did, it seems clear that the game designers realized that the rule was unnecessarily hampering Rogues, while not really adding anything to the verisimilitude of the game.

The immunity is redundant. A Rogue can already be hampered by Concealment or Fortification or high AC (because Rogues do not usually have the best "to hit" stacks). It is plenty easy to annoy Rogues, without simply making them useless.

That said, there is nothing wrong with making specific Undead or Constructs immune to Sneak Attack, but it is lame to give them all this immunity.

[Keltest]

The immunity is redundant. A Rogue can already be hampered by Concealment or Fortification or high AC (because Rogues do not usually have the best "to hit" stacks). It is plenty easy to annoy Rogues, without simply making them useless.

That said, there is nothing wrong with making specific Undead or Constructs immune to Sneak Attack, but it is lame to give them all this immunity.

I don't know about you guys, but ive always understood the sneak attack/backstab idea to be based off of taking advantage of an inability to properly defend a strike (so that getting stabbed in the back is actually getting STABBED instead of just grazed or whatever) so it will do significantly more damage. Thus undead and (some) constructs should in theory take more damage.

Undead at least it may be designed to make up for their special weaknesses to clerics/paladins/anyone with healing magic.