PDA

View Full Version : Bards and Lawfulness???



Fiery Justice
2007-10-15, 09:20 PM
Could someone with a good understanding of the game-makers ideas of law and chaos explain why on earth Bards can't be lawful? I'm trying to build myself into true heterodoxy before I smash said heterodoxy to bits for campaign funness but this I just don't understand.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-15, 09:21 PM
Bards...free spirit...dirty...feet?

Yeah, I never liked it much myself.

RTGoodman
2007-10-15, 09:24 PM
I think the idea is that bards are wandering minstrels, guided only by luck and whim, and therefore don't necessarily have a set tradition (either internal or external) by which they live their lives. In a way, someone who lives like this is probably going to be non-lawful.

Of course, I can just as easily imagine a Dwarf Bard who lives as the very embodiment of dwarven tradition, and who inspires courage by chanting or reciting the tales of long-dead heroes of the clan.

Starsinger
2007-10-15, 09:28 PM
Because the Law-chaos axis is stupid and whoever decided to keep it in 3E should be shot.. preferably in a non-vital area so that he suffers...

But it's because Bards are supposed to be sneaky, conniving charmers who live off of their music, wandering from place to place, making tons of friends but never having any real interpersonal relationships that last too long because they must roam again.. But mostly because Law-Chaos is stupid.

The Neoclassic
2007-10-15, 09:31 PM
I fail to see how good-evil is much better, frankly.

To the original question, it's pretty much as rtg0922 puts it. Bards have to be somewhat free spirited and independent and unorthodox to keep their artistic magic. I'd just toss the restriction if I were you.

Fiery Justice
2007-10-15, 09:32 PM
So bards are enchanting, conniving conmen who wander from town to town playing music, enchanting women, and being generally dashing in order to make off with some money from magical effects? I can work with that, thats workable. Of course, a Good Bard would have to limit this slightly, but this idea, I understand this idea.

MrNexx
2007-10-15, 09:39 PM
Because the Law-chaos axis is stupid and whoever decided to keep it in 3E should be shot.. preferably in a non-vital area so that he suffers...

Actually, if you read some of the foundational fiction (Elric, Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions), Law and Chaos are pretty sensible. Both have their downsides and upsides (Law has a tendency to be overbearing and stultifying, even as it improves the lives of everyone equally; chaos tends to cause destruction and upheaval, even as it provides plenty of freedom and creativity), allowing you to have good and bad guys on both sides of the spectrum. Good and Evil, IMO, tends to be the more difficult one.

Starsinger
2007-10-15, 10:06 PM
Actually, if you read some of the foundational fiction (Elric, Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions), Law and Chaos are pretty sensible. Both have their downsides and upsides (Law has a tendency to be overbearing and stultifying, even as it improves the lives of everyone equally; chaos tends to cause destruction and upheaval, even as it provides plenty of freedom and creativity), allowing you to have good and bad guys on both sides of the spectrum. Good and Evil, IMO, tends to be the more difficult one.

I meant in D&D, not philosophically..

Armads
2007-10-15, 10:22 PM
It doesn't make sense. I can't imagine all pianists being chaotic, and it doesn't make sense that the bards who inspire the army must be chaotic when armies tend to have a lawful streak.

MrNexx
2007-10-15, 10:27 PM
I meant in D&D, not philosophically..

In D&D, there's only Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral.

In AD&D, there's the biaxial system. The simple fact that it's called 3rd edition, and not 4th or 5th edition puts it more that category.

Stormcrow
2007-10-15, 10:37 PM
Prepare your long knives for all I care but its this simple; The rules are guide lines. If you don't agree with something, discuss it amongst your group. If no one agree's ignore it.

I removed concrete alignments from my campaign setting. There are no effects based on alignment and the closest thing you have to an alignment is the way other people percieve your actions.

TheOOB
2007-10-15, 10:37 PM
Meh, since WotC can't seem to define law/chaos, I don't take law/chaos alignment prereqs very seriously. I allow lawful bards and barbarians, and chaotic monks. Last I checked, being a strict traditionalist doesn't make you unable to weave magic/sing songs or get really angry, and being free and open minded doesn't make you unable to seek personal perfection and fight unarmed.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-15, 10:40 PM
Every time a Bard casts a spell, an angel loses his wings.

Vuzzmop
2007-10-15, 11:37 PM
Every time a Bard casts a spell, an angel loses his wings.


And an eladrin earns its pointy ears.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-16, 04:57 AM
House rule that they can be. I've never in fact encountered a DM that has a problem with lawful bards, if given a half-decent backstory.

There are many, many different definitions on what law/chaos/good/evil mean (that's why people on these boards can never agree on any one of them), and by several of those definitions, restricting bard alignment doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

SoD
2007-10-16, 06:35 AM
This has confused me as well...especially as rogues can be any alignment, yet a bard cannot be lawful!

dr.cello
2007-10-16, 06:39 AM
Rogues aren't always even thieves, though. It's pretty easy to imagine a lawful detective or police officer taking rogue.

I'm all in favor of lawful bards, myself, but I think it's partly a flavor thing: the designers intended for bards to be wandering minstrels, the lot of them, which doesn't fit too well with a lawful idea. I can easily see bards of a more lawful bent, though--it'd break the stereotype and be pretty fun to do. (A lawful evil bard would be exceedingly fun.)

Dausuul
2007-10-16, 07:27 AM
Actually, if you read some of the foundational fiction (Elric, Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions), Law and Chaos are pretty sensible. Both have their downsides and upsides (Law has a tendency to be overbearing and stultifying, even as it improves the lives of everyone equally; chaos tends to cause destruction and upheaval, even as it provides plenty of freedom and creativity), allowing you to have good and bad guys on both sides of the spectrum. Good and Evil, IMO, tends to be the more difficult one.

The real problem is that Lawful and Chaotic are insufficiently well-defined as actual alignments for characters. They work fine as philosophical principles, but most people don't live their lives by philosophical principles.

Most players can agree on the general concepts of Good and Evil (though there are endless squabbles over where the exact boundaries lie), but everyone has a different definition of what it means to be Lawful or Chaotic. And "everyone" includes the game designers.

Of course, I generally detest the whole idea of alignment restrictions for a class. IMO, if a base class needs alignment restrictions, it's too narrowly defined to be a base class *cough*paladin*cough*. Even a prestige class shouldn't have them without a really good reason.

Riffington
2007-10-16, 07:38 AM
I can't imagine all pianists being chaotic,

There are many lawful pianists... but none of those are musicians.

/ducks

KIDS
2007-10-16, 10:03 AM
Because the Law-chaos axis is stupid and whoever decided to keep it in 3E should be shot.. preferably in a non-vital area so that he suffers...

Quoted for truth, definitely :)
The only way I know of to produce a Lawful Bard is to take Devoted Performer from Complete Adventurer, and even that's stretching it. I can imagine something like nonlawful for a warlock, but a bard I can easily agree that it makes no sense.

valadil
2007-10-16, 11:31 AM
My best answer here is that bard is a lifestyle rather than just a class. A bard is a wanderer who is going to go where the wind takes him and doesn't know whose bed he'll be sleeping in come nightfall. That kind of character isn't suited to a lawful alignment.

At least that's WotC's thinking. I can see the logic in it, but you should be able to create a character with bard mechanics without having to be lawful. This is why I'd like to see 4th ed use much simpler base classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) and have players pick up Bard, Paladin, or Monk as prestige classes later on.

Fhaolan
2007-10-16, 11:37 AM
Given that my bards tend towards the Neo-Celtic image of bards as oral historians and lawgivers, the idea of a bard that can't be lawful makes no real sense. But then, I also have bards as investigate reporters and the like, so I really have difficulty with the idea of bards being limited to any particular alignment.

SilverClawShift
2007-10-16, 02:37 PM
GBut then, I also have bards as investigate reporters and the like

We do the same thing! In our dustlands campaign setting we're working on, bards are recomended as being allowed to any alignment, with lawful bards usually serving as reporters for kingdoms (of course, a freelance reporter could be of any alignment anyway).

psychoticbarber
2007-10-16, 02:43 PM
I was all prepped to play a lawful evil bard once. Never got the chance to play him, but he was a very methodical and intelligent jack of all trades Nobleman. I thought the focus on charisma fit him better as a bard than a rogue.

In my games, as mentioned above, I treat alignment restrictions as "usually"s rather than "always"es (haha, torturous language ftw), and will accept any character concept that isn't horribly at odds with common sense.

Telonius
2007-10-16, 02:59 PM
There are many lawful pianists... but none of those are musicians.

/ducks

::throws his Big Book of Bach, just missing::

Tequila Sunrise
2007-10-16, 03:06 PM
Like most alignment restrictions, there is no real rationale for bards being non-lawful. It's just game tradition--I myself ignore the restriction just like barbarians being non-lawful, monks being lawful, paladins being LG and druids being neutral.

PlatinumJester
2007-10-16, 03:09 PM
Rogues should be non lawful but bards shouldn't be.

Still my friend once wanted to play a Lawful barbarian. That is over stepping the line in my opinion.

SilverClawShift
2007-10-16, 03:20 PM
Rogues should be non lawful but bards shouldn't be.

There's no reason you couldn't be a lawful rogue. Picture this.

I'm currently hired as a low level servant on a kings staff. I use the combination of anonimty versus authorized presence to eavesdrop on the kings military and econimcal plans, and us that information to help ruin his plans before they get off the ground, shattering every course of action he undertakes. Very chaotic, right?

Now what if I'm only doing it because I'm a trusted spy to a rival kingdom, and was specifically ordered by MY lawful lord to destabilize our enemy from the inside before they could have a chance to overpower us? Suddenly I'm lawful, in at least one interpretation. James Bond plays by his own rules and kills a few dozen people every movie, but he'd probably fairly be called lawful, because he's doing it for his country.

The real problem is that alignment in D&D is poorly implemented and not the best benchmark in the first place.

0oo0
2007-10-16, 03:23 PM
Rogues aren't always even thieves, though. It's pretty easy to imagine a lawful detective or police officer taking rogue.

I'm all in favor of lawful bards, myself, but I think it's partly a flavor thing: the designers intended for bards to be wandering minstrels, the lot of them, which doesn't fit too well with a lawful idea. I can easily see bards of a more lawful bent, though--it'd break the stereotype and be pretty fun to do. (A lawful evil bard would be exceedingly fun.)

I'm glad they were able to make the step to 'not all rogues are thieves' and hope they can expand this for more classes. As everyone has said here, alignments tend to stereotype and pigeonhole characters. It's perfectly fine to play a charming conman who wander from town to town, I personally have had great fun with characters like this, but the base rules should not dictate that is the only way to play a bard. A section describing a typical bard should suffice. Allowing people freedom of alignment allows for more thought out characters in my opinion. The same would be true without alignments at all, but they do serve as a hand rough guide to start from.

Riffington
2007-10-16, 03:54 PM
James Bond plays by his own rules and kills a few dozen people every movie, but he'd probably fairly be called lawful, because he's doing it for his country.


Up to this point your explanation was correct. Make it John Steed, and you're cool.
James Bond, however, is chaotic good. Too many of his "own rules", too much seat-of-the-pants flying, too much interest in personal glory, too many broken hearts, and too much sheer awesomeness to be lawful or even neutral.

RTGoodman
2007-10-16, 05:37 PM
James Bond, however, is chaotic good. Too many of his "own rules", too much seat-of-the-pants flying, too much interest in personal glory, too many broken hearts, and too much sheer awesomeness to be lawful or even neutral.

(Emphasis mine.) It's funny that you mention that, and it really shows a break-down of the alignment system (for interpreting non-D&D characters, at the very least), since James Bond is listed in Complete Scoundrel, an official Wizards source, as being Lawful Neutral.

I guess sometimes characters are just too complex (or awesome) to put them in one single box out of a total of nine possibilities...

boomwolf
2007-10-16, 06:08 PM
thats why most people turn into into a 27 option cube (adding another axis)

anyway, bards can't be lawful as a person that wonders around, caring for nothing but his songs. is NOT lawful. EVER.
you could have many non-chaotic musicians, but they wont be bards. they will be one of many other classes, but not bards.

bards, by definition of what is a bard (and i am not talking only in DnD terms here) is NOT a settle, go-by-the-rules person.
lets put it in another way, a settle, go-by-the-rules person will not choose to become a bard. it does not fit his personality.

Drider
2007-10-16, 06:13 PM
since James Bond is listed in Complete Scoundrel, an official Wizards source, as being Lawful Neutral.

NOOOOOOOOOO~
*face melted off*

Orzel
2007-10-16, 06:20 PM
A large part of being a bard is going around learning stuff about people and applying bits and pieces to himself. That's the main point of bardic lore. Bards go around learning random junk and use it.

Lawful people don't do that. It's not easy for lawful people to learn new and unusual things and they sure wont apply the knowledge to themselves or the situations unless they really need/have to.

RTGoodman
2007-10-16, 06:28 PM
thats why most people turn into into a 27 option cube (adding another axis)

I've seen a couple of those before, but I don't think it's enough to say that "most people" use a three-axis system.

I think the big problem is that they've used, in the case of the Bard, the fluff to justify the crunch - if you say that all bards are wandering, free-spirited folks, then yes, they're going to be chaotic - but they've basically eliminated any other type of fluff.

But really, the only thing in the mechanics of the Bard class that lends directly to supporting the "free spirit" interpretation (and thus, chaotic nature) of the class is the prevalence of Illusion-type spells. But, if you wanted to, it's completely possible to make a bard's spells known list without including any obvious Illusions, but instead to focus on party buff/heal spells.

To use my previous example again, a Dwarf Bard who casts spells via his powerful orations about the dwarven heroes of old and who focuses his time on making everyone in the party better seems like a pretty Lawful guy to me.

KIDS
2007-10-16, 06:33 PM
bards, by definition of what is a bard (and i am not talking only in DnD terms here) is NOT a settle, go-by-the-rules person.
lets put it in another way, a settle, go-by-the-rules person will not choose to become a bard. it does not fit his personality.

Thus you do imply that you know every single personality of bilions and bilions of personalities, and that a go-by-the rules person cannot wander, gather songs or produce enchanting musical effects. Thank you for sharing this knowledge of bilions of personalities with us.


Lawful people don't do that. It's not easy for lawful people to learn new and unusual things and they sure wont apply the knowledge to themselves or the situations unless they really need/have to.

The most compelling argument I have so far seen in defense of PHB requirement is that Lawful means you're a jerk and a bard can't be a jerk.
Which is of course totally not true, thank you.

Just to say so, I don't have a problem with following alignment rules even if they are sometimes silly - you can interpret most things to make sense and be happy. But people going gestapo on others (like: your character is lawful, he wouldn't do that) is what makes me pull the trigger and start screaming.

p.s. James Bond LN? Well, actually I think it makes sense. He could be of some other alignment of course, but LN is a good fit. If you think that lying for your country's goals conflicts with Lawful we again return to the "Lawful = Jerk" conundrum.

Riffington
2007-10-16, 07:09 PM
The Complete Scoundrel is flawed in a whole host of ways:
from the completely bizarre reworking of alignments, to the skill tricks. For skill tricks: half of them make sense, a third should be permitted without any special trick, and a sixth are overpowered.
For alignments:
James Bond's sexual adventures alone prevent him from being Lawful. Anyone with so much sheer joy in life, who takes so little time to consider the consequences of his escapades on the psyches of his women, and whose attitude nevertheless lets them end up the better for it... must be chaotic. This ignores his willingness to bend rules and his love of glory.
Batman is not lawful either. Nobody Lawful ignores the rules of his own company in order to handpick a few people to catapult to positions of power. Nobody lawful believes you can save a city by selectively solving those crimes that happen to catch your eye or involve your old arch-nemeses.
And if they think the Grey Guard are Good... they might be smoking something stronger than marijuana.

Orzel
2007-10-16, 07:24 PM
Just to say so, I don't have a problem with following alignment rules even if they are sometimes silly - you can interpret most things to make sense and be happy. But people going gestapo on others (like: your character is lawful, he wouldn't do that) is what makes me pull the trigger and start screaming.


The bard lifestyle contains so many nonlawful actions that it would be hard for a lawful person to be a bard for very long. Lawful people typically wont do the things bards do. Just like a nonlawful person typically wouldn't be able to follow the monk life for very long.

Felius
2007-10-16, 07:51 PM
The Complete Scoundrel is flawed in a whole host of ways:
from the completely bizarre reworking of alignments, to the skill tricks. For skill tricks: half of them make sense, a third should be permitted without any special trick, and a sixth are overpowered.
For alignments:
James Bond's sexual adventures alone prevent him from being Lawful. Anyone with so much sheer joy in life, who takes so little time to consider the consequences of his escapades on the psyches of his women, and whose attitude nevertheless lets them end up the better for it... must be chaotic. This ignores his willingness to bend rules and his love of glory.
Batman is not lawful either. Nobody Lawful ignores the rules of his own company in order to handpick a few people to catapult to positions of power. Nobody lawful believes you can save a city by selectively solving those crimes that happen to catch your eye or involve your old arch-nemeses.
And if they think the Grey Guard are Good... they might be smoking something stronger than marijuana.

Please, say that you are being ironic about alignments of characters. Please just say it.

dr.cello
2007-10-16, 08:14 PM
Here's a Lawful bard for you all. Note how he doesn't wander from town to town? (Also note how most adventurers wander from town to town. Maybe we should just restrict adventurers from being Lawful?)

A scholarly human from the city with a gift for music. Music, you will note, is very mathematical in nature--he has developed a particular passion for it, seeking to create the perfect song/symphony/whatever. And he's good at it, too--his music can produce entirely unearthly effects. He is very orderly and lives a regimented life, and generally believes that the law is what's best for everyone, and he is passionate about his music and has musical abilities.

Lawful bard.

You can add in evil, if you want--make him wealthy or powerful, or at least give him grand schemes, who seeks to make the most beautiful possible symphony even if he has to squeeze the funding from the peasants (CAKE reference). Or, his study of music has made him realize how powerful an effect it can have over others--a lawful evil bard would make an absolutely ideal eminence gris. Can't you just see it? The real power behind the throne is the seemingly unassuming, quiet, scholarly court minstrel, favored of the Crown?

Riffington
2007-10-17, 12:16 AM
Please, say that you are being ironic about alignments of characters. Please just say it.

No, thanks.

TheOOB
2007-10-17, 12:23 AM
James Bond is chaotic, when is the last time he followed an order without subverting it in some way, stuck to a well thought out plan, or showed any respect for tradition?

Rogues don't have alignment restrictions because there is no reason anyone couldn't learn rogue skills. Bards have magic, so there is some slight justification as to why they cant be lawful, maybe the god of bards who grants all bardic magic doesn't like lawful people.

0oo0
2007-10-17, 01:34 AM
I think threads like this one show why alignment restrictions are a bad thing. No one can agree on exactly what each alignment means, much less whether or not a class fits alignment restrictions.

Each individual already has to figure out exactly what lawful/chaotic means for their game (or ditch it entirely). Yes, the PHB spells out guide lines, but if you've been on these boards for more than 5 minutes, you know that there is plenty of room for interpretation and disagreement. If there is a lack of a definite universal alignment guide everyone, then the alignment restrictions don't work universally. So people end up house ruling, ignoring, or setting a definition for their own group. Leaving out the restrictions in the first place wouldn't change this. all that is needed is generic fluff article that explains a typical member or two of the class.

Also, what would be broken by removing alignment restrictions (at least on base classes, PrCs are more focused and narrowly defined, so alignment restrictions could fit in) ? You could now have bard pallies and monkish barbarians. Aside from the restrictions on multiclassing the lawful ones already have, a character with a mix like that would take a good back story or explanation for, which a DM should be able to rule out if bad anyways, and I don't see anything really broken about the new combinations available. Sure a Warlock/Paladin might not make sense to everyone, but given the right back story and flavor, it could be a perfectly viable PC.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-17, 01:41 AM
This is an issue that I've had with 3.x since it first came out, so pardon me if I start to pontificate. This thread cropped up while I was at work, and so there's a fair amount that I'd like to reply too. I'll try to do it more or less in order, though in a few places I've grouped by poster or by topic.


Like most alignment restrictions, there is no real rationale for bards being non-lawful. It's just game tradition



anyway, bards can't be lawful as a person that wonders around, caring for nothing but his songs. is NOT lawful. EVER.
you could have many non-chaotic musicians, but they wont be bards. they will be one of many other classes, but not bards.

bards, by definition of what is a bard (and i am not talking only in D&D terms here) is NOT a settle, go-by-the-rules person.
lets put it in another way, a settle, go-by-the-rules person will not choose to become a bard. it does not fit his personality.


A large part of being a bard is going around learning stuff about people and applying bits and pieces to himself. That's the main point of bardic lore. Bards go around learning random junk and use it.

Lawful people don't do that. It's not easy for lawful people to learn new and unusual things and they sure wont apply the knowledge to themselves or the situations unless they really need/have to.


The bard lifestyle contains so many nonlawful actions that it would be hard for a lawful person to be a bard for very long. Lawful people typically wont do the things bards do. Just like a nonlawful person typically wouldn't be able to follow the monk life for very long.


*Hauls out the 2nd edition player's handbook (revised) to start my reply to these bits*



The bard is an optional character class that can be used if your DM allows. He makes his way in life by his charm, talent, and wit. A good bard should be glib of tongue, lgiht of heart, and fleet of foot (When all else fails).

In precise historical terms, the title "bard" applies only to certaingroups of Celtic poets who sang the history of their tribes in long, recitative poems. These bards, found mainly in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, filled many important roles in their society. They were storehouses of tribal history, reporters of news, messengers, and even ambassadors to other tribes. However, in the AD&D game the bard is a more generalized character. Historical and legendary examples of the type include Alan--Dale, Will Scarlet, Amergin, and even Homer. Indeed every culture has it's storyteller or poet, whether he is called bard, skald, fili, jongelur, or something else.


And I'll skip a bit, to alignment.



A bard can be lawful, neutral, or chaotic, good or evil, but must always be partially neutral. Only by retaining some amount of detachment can be successfully fulfill his role as a bard.


First of all, it's clear that in D&D's own history, Bards were allowed to be lawful, so it's hardly gaming tradition that caused them to be chaotic in 3.x.

It seems to me that the Celtic poets described by AD&D second edition it's self are some very lawful clan paragons. These are the ones that have the most legitimate claim on the title. They recited the clan's history by rote to pass on history and tradition to the clan (lawful). They were dignitaries who could negotiate on behalf of their tribe as a whole (lawful), they also served as messengers for their tribal leaders... these functions are startilingly similar to the jobs performed by another group, known as heralds, another type of character who would be wonderfully portrayed by the bard class... especially as a background for a lawful bard.

Now, Alan-a-Dale, and Will Scarlet are obviously better examples of a chaotic, perhaps good bard. So I'm encouraged by the fact that one could now play them as chaotic good... but removing the ability to play as a Lawful bard has never sit right with me.

True, the wandering minstrel is wonderfully portrayed by the bard class... but so are many other roles... many of which (town cryer, herald, tribal knowledge keeper) are best portrayed, alignmnet wise, as lawful.



I think the big problem is that they've used, in the case of the Bard, the fluff to justify the crunch - if you say that all bards are wandering, free-spirited folks, then yes, they're going to be chaotic - but they've basically eliminated any other type of fluff.

But really, the only thing in the mechanics of the Bard class that lends directly to supporting the "free spirit" interpretation (and thus, chaotic nature) of the class is the prevalence of Illusion-type spells. But, if you wanted to, it's completely possible to make a bard's spells known list without including any obvious Illusions, but instead to focus on party buff/heal spells.

Actually, Illusions can very easily be used to instruct, entertain, or to help diffuse a situation in a non-violent manner. For example, if you watch the intro to Pocahontas, you'll see the shaman using an illusion spell on the fire to help him tell a story to the children. As for the non-violent resolution of problems... http://dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2007-09-19 and of course, for entertainment... well, just take a look over at your TV. Pure illusion.


Bards have magic, so there is some slight justification as to why they cant be lawful, maybe the god of bards who grants all bardic magic doesn't like lawful people.

Well, that theory might work if it wasn't for the fact that they're arcane casters, and thus do not draw their power from a deity.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-10-17, 01:50 AM
I still fail to see where in the bardic abilities how one is obligated to be random and seat of the pants about life. What's so vile to you lot who think that's a traveling musician can't be reserved individual who DOESN'T act out of instinct but rationale? As someone who has killed alignment restrictions when I DM, I have yet to have had an issue with a lawful bard player not being "bardy" enough.

kamikasei
2007-10-17, 01:53 AM
Leaving out the restrictions in the first place wouldn't change this. all that is needed is generic fluff article that explains a typical member or two of the class.

I think this is part of the problem: people want freedom to decide what their character's personality is and work that into their class choices, not have some single example or idea in the head of a WotC designer keep them from making a character who would work perfectly with the mechanics of the class but has a restricted alignment. The vast pool of players out there has more total creativity than the designers, so the designers shouldn't insert restrictions based solely on how they can envision a class. Someone else can probably envision it differently, and there's no reason to have to houserule to achieve that.


It seems to me that the Celtic poets described by AD&D second edition it's self are some very lawful clan paragons. These are the ones that have the most legitimate claim on the title. They recited the clan's history by rote to pass on history and tradition to the clan (lawful). They were dignitaries who could negotiate on behalf of their tribe as a whole (lawful), they also served as messengers for their tribal leaders... these functions are startilingly similar to the jobs performed by another group, known as heralds, another type of character who would be wonderfully portrayed by the bard class... especially as a background for a lawful bard.

Hmmm... I'm a little torn here, because while it's true that bards filled a "lawful" role in society, part of their job was to compose satires and ridicule those in power, helping motivate people against their rulers (in a laugh-them-out-of-office, not overthrow, way). That seems quite chaotic to me, though probably not enough to justify a restriction either way.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-17, 01:56 AM
Hmmm... I'm a little torn here, because while it's true that bards filled a "lawful" role in society, part of their job was to compose satires and ridicule those in power, helping motivate people against their rulers (in a laugh-them-out-of-office, not overthrow, way). That seems quite chaotic to me, though probably not enough to justify a restriction either way.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the minstrel again.

Oh, and what about the court fool/jester? He was the only one who could point out the lord's follies with impunity, because it was his job too do so in a way that would let the lord save face, and also pull back from the brink of an error. Rather lawful that, mmm?

kamikasei
2007-10-17, 02:04 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the minstrel again.

Oh, and what about the court fool/jester? He was the only one who could point out the lord's follies with impunity, because it was his job too do so in a way that would let the lord save face, and also pull back from the brink of an error. Rather lawful that, mmm?

Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard#Irish_bards), though I was a little off, working from half-remembered history classes from my teens. I'm talking about pre-feudal bards, not minstrels or fools in castles, but it seems the satires were usually aimed at enemies of the clan's chieftain, not the chieftain himself. As you say, this is arguably lawful as well.

0oo0
2007-10-17, 02:10 AM
I think your debate furthers the argument for no alignment restrictions. if you got rid of them, Bard could be the catch all term for epic poets to minstrels to fools, just as Rogue now encompasses thieves, trapsmiths, spies or anyone else generally skilled.

All the concepts bard are generally related in that they use are performers, who in a fantasy setting all should have similar magical and supernatural abilities. The Bard class could easily be used to make anyone of those idea plus many more, all of varying alignment. So get rid of the alignment restrictions and open the class to the wide verity of possibilities.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-17, 02:33 AM
I think your debate furthers the argument for no alignment restrictions. if you got rid of them, Bard could be the catch all term for epic poets to minstrels to fools, just as Rogue now encompasses thieves, trapsmiths, spies or anyone else generally skilled.

All the concepts bard are generally related in that they use are performers, who in a fantasy setting all should have similar magical and supernatural abilities. The Bard class could easily be used to make anyone of those idea plus many more, all of varying alignment. So get rid of the alignment restrictions and open the class to the wide verity of possibilities.

That is, indeed, essentially what I am arguing for. Not that they must be lawful, or that we have a neutral requirement... but to just remove the requirement there.

I am also in favor of renaming the monk class "martial artist", removing the alignment restriction, and altering the lawful strike to be one that allows you to strike as if your fists were aligned as per any one of your alignment aspects (good, evil, lawful, or chaotic).

I'm hoping alignment will be a bit more reasonable in 4th edition, if they keep it.

Riffington
2007-10-17, 07:38 AM
Personally, I am in favor of getting rid of that alignment restriction, for a lot of the reasons already named.

There are two reasonable arguments I can see for forbidding lawful bards.
1: you want to pigeonhole your bards, and say that the stereotype is the only kind of bard. I reject this.

2: you want to say that a bard is more than a musician with some powers, he is an artist with Greatness. Elvis or Mozart, nothing lesser.
See the movie Amadeus. nonspoiler synopsis: it's about a lawful evil musician (Salieri). He worked hard and became the best musician in the world. He then meets a chaotic neutral Mozart - a man who for whatever reason has true musical Greatness. Salieri's brilliance and skill only makes him more keenly able to recognize the difference between Mozart and himself, and it drives him mad.
If your campaign has plenty of wandering rogues/experts with Perform, but only a couple Bards... and if Lawful dulls creativity even the slightest bit... then a Bard could not be Lawful.
This argument I cannot reject, but I don't think it works for all (or most) campaigns.

Pokemaster
2007-10-17, 08:01 AM
The Bard class assumes that there's no difference between the character and the character sheet. All Bards must be nonlawful because the designers allowed the fluff provided in the book to dictate what the Bard should do, but if you take a look at the class' abilities, you can easily fit them into a Lawful role.

For example, Kingdom A is Lawful Evil and like all Lawful Evil kingdoms, it has a secret police to make sure nobody tries to overthrow the king. The Bard class is, by far, the best class for members of this secret police. Bardic Knowledge and the different Knowledge skills allows them to memorize the history and traditions of the Kingdom and the rest of their skills (and the generous amount of skill points they get), combined with their spells, essentially make them the perfect spies to infiltrate rebel groups or just stay on the look out for trouble. Bardic Music probably wouldn't see much use, but they could still use it to buff allies during raids on rebel hideouts.

Jarlax
2007-10-17, 08:27 AM
Could someone with a good understanding of the game-makers ideas of law and chaos explain why on earth Bards can't be lawful? I'm trying to build myself into true heterodoxy before I smash said heterodoxy to bits for campaign funness but this I just don't understand.

i think it has less to do with a bard being non-lawful as lawful people not being bards. bards a rumor spreaders, performers. which is pretty low in the careers pool in a medieval setting, look at jesters and town fools. (better yet, look at the money got get out of a perform check for a day). and who get themselves into trouble as easily as they get out of it.

if someone leans too far into lawful, bards begins to seem like they are not exactly a promising career. a lawful person would likely take a more sensible job as a fighter or a ranger or paladin. to a lawful person music is a hobby. not a profession.

the same for a bard who becomes lawful, he is likely to "come to his senses" and select a new profession. rather than waste any more time on such a fruitless profession.

Techonce
2007-10-17, 08:33 AM
Personally I keep in the alignment restrictions, but if my players can come up with a good reason I will drop the restriction.

As for Bards not being lawful. I see it this way:

A lawful charcter can be a musician. Music has a very mathamtical base, and a very lawful person can create very good music, just like a midi player. Every time it is played it is the same, the tempo is set, never varying.

The chaotic musician, is more like the jazz musician. Never playes the song the same way twice. Full of emotion, it can hit chords in a person's soul that are almost magical.

That's the difference to me. While both may be amazing musicians, the chaotic one can add in the emotion that the lawful one just can't. The lawful one may want to, but their personality just won't let them break that barrier.

In another way, I look at character generation a little different. Your alignment and environment dictate what classes would be available to a character, not the other way around. Yes alignments can be a bit stifiling if stressed too much, but on the other hand, I don't want to fill out a Meyer's Briggs test for every character.

A very lawful person might want to be a bard and they will try. But until they are able to break away from the rigid mathmatical side of music, the abrdic powers won't be available to them. Once they do, tada they have access to them, and their alignment switches to neutral. THey might be very very methodical in many things, but in their soul, where their magic comes from , they have less of a lawful bent.

kamikasei
2007-10-17, 08:38 AM
i think it has less to do with a bard being non-lawful as lawful people not being bards. bards a rumor spreaders, performers. which is pretty low in the careers pool in a medieval setting, look at jesters and town fools. (better yet, look at the money got get out of a perform check for a day). and who get themselves into trouble as easily as they get out of it.

You piqued my curiosity, and in fact it turns out that perform checks aren't that bad a return on investment. If you're performing every day of the week, then once you're able to hit DC 20, your Perform check will average more gold than an equivalent Profession check. Of course, the variance is much higher, and for low checks the return is considerably lower.

KIDS
2007-10-17, 08:48 AM
That's the difference to me. While both may be amazing musicians, the chaotic one can add in the emotion that the lawful one just can't. The lawful one may want to, but their personality just won't let them break that barrier.

And so do we complete the circle and go back around to the "lawful = idiot" personality. So far lawful people have been portrayed as celibate, funny-smelling, emotionless, uninspiring and lame, and bards can't be anything of that of course. The problem here isn't with the bard class, it's with the said "lawful = idiot" point of view.

And oh, before you dare say anything about lawfulness interfering with emotion, go to a concert hall at least once.

Techonce
2007-10-17, 09:03 AM
And so do we complete the circle and go back around to the "lawful = idiot" personality. So far lawful people have been portrayed as celibate, funny-smelling, emotionless, uninspiring and lame, and bards can't be anything of that of course. The problem here isn't with the bard class, it's with the said "lawful = idiot" point of view.

And oh, before you dare say anything about lawfulness interfering with emotion, go to a concert hall at least once.

Actually I do, except I sit on the stage.

I'm not saying that Lawful=Idiot. I'm saying that lawful = methodic. And I consider myself lawful (in most things, looking at my desk you would think chaotic). I'm decent with the instruments that I play, but my personality usually forces me to play very rigid, and so I don't always get the emotion in the music that I hope for. Sometimes I do, but it's not constant. Some of the other people do it constantly and their music is far more inspiring. On the flip side, playing in a large group they feel constrained when they have to play their parts and not stand out.

BTW. Lawful people aren't funny smelling... Those are the chaotic people. ;)

Riffington
2007-10-17, 09:24 AM
Kids: nobody's accused lawful people of celibacy. Monogamy, yes.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-17, 09:30 AM
Lawful doesn't equal uncreative, just predictable. for me at least. saying that someones habits are set and therefore they are incapable of creating something original and beautiful seems assanine. Does Lawful mean predictable in your game? or Honourable? or little-l Lawabiding? how about rational? or subbordinate to a heirachy? none of these identifiers seem to rule out creative, or emotionally invested in what they're creating. Only if you rule that Lawful = Boring and Monotinous does a Lawful bard seem a contradiction.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-17, 09:31 AM
Who says lawful people have to be monogamous? If it's traditional for their location they probably are. But what if you're playing an Egyptian style campaign where nobles (who are the law, and are usually lawful) are polygamists?

And what if they only sleep with one person at a time, but lots of those are one night stands that know, going into it, that it's only a one night stand because the lawful person told them?

GolemsVoice
2007-10-17, 09:40 AM
I think bards are chaotic, because paladins are lawful. Both are characters powered by they way they live. You can be a warrior in a thousand ways, wth swords, axes, leather armor, steel armor, good, evil, chaotic, lawful. Your power is the weapon that you wield and the muscles you carry around. But a paladins power is his heart, his belief, his ideals and his code.
Equally, a bards power is his mind. His spirit and his wild and free heart. That's where his powers lie. A bards music is superior to normal music because he plays it with his soul, and puts his soul into every note that he plays, thus achieving that his, maybe encouraging, but not very magical tunes become a song that can truly inspire allies or hamper foes. And he does that with the power of a wild spirit, an unconfined mind.
The bards described in DnD are people that not only wear silly hats, woo maidens and swing on ropes, saying "Haha", but also people able (and willing) to lead revolutions and inspire uprising. Because they really BELIEVE in the poeple's rights to be free.
I hope that makes my point clear, I fear that I am not good enough in English to put my mental image into words.

PS: I do not say that there are no bards like those mentioned above, skalds, lorekeepers and people who carry the law around orally,they just lack the power, the (maybe subconscious) force of will to become what the bard is.

kamikasei
2007-10-17, 09:53 AM
I think bards are chaotic, because paladins are lawful. Both are characters powered by they way they live.

Paladins are holy warriors explicitly and utterly based around their ideology. Naturally their alignment is important. Bards? Not so much.


You can be a warrior in a thousand ways, wth swords, axes, leather armor, steel armor, good, evil, chaotic, lawful. Your power is the weapon that you wield and the muscles you carry around. But a paladins power is his heart, his belief, his ideals and his code.
Equally, a bards power is his mind. His spirit and his wild and free heart. That's where his powers lie. A bards music is superior to normal music because he plays it with his soul, and puts his soul into every note that he plays, thus achieving that his, maybe encouraging, but not very magical tunes become a song that can truly inspire allies or hamper foes. And he does that with the power of a wild spirit, an unconfined mind.
The bards described in DnD are people that not only wear silly hats, woo maidens and swing on ropes, saying "Haha", but also people able (and willing) to lead revolutions and inspire uprising. Because they really BELIEVE in the poeple's rights to be free.

Quite simply: all the stuff you describe there is fluff that doesn't belong in a restriction on the base class. The idea that a) you have to be chaotic in order to lead a revolution and b) you have to be able/willing to lead a revolution if you want to be able to inspire your allies in battle is far, far too confining. If you want to play bards like that it sounds great, but other players shouldn't have to houserule away alignment restrictions in order to use bard mechanics to represent their characters who have a different philosophy.

Techonce
2007-10-17, 09:54 AM
Lawful doesn't equal uncreative, just predictable. for me at least. saying that someones habits are set and therefore they are incapable of creating something original and beautiful seems assanine. Does Lawful mean predictable in your game? or Honourable? or little-l Lawabiding? how about rational? or subbordinate to a heirachy? none of these identifiers seem to rule out creative, or emotionally invested in what they're creating. Only if you rule that Lawful = Boring and Monotinous does a Lawful bard seem a contradiction.

I generally put lawful more at liking order and stability. And the issue boils down to there only being 3 choices on the axis.

Personally I see there being only a few lawful people, with alot of them being neutral with lawful tendancies. If you plotted it out it would be like this:

|...|............................................. .......|...|
law Neutral chaos

If you put it like this, then alignment restrictions are not a bad thing. Actually most people would be neutral, and I think that is probably closer to reality. The lawful bard would be very rare if it even existed.

But if you divide up the alignmetns like this:


|.................|......................|........ ...........|
law Neutral chaos

Then lawful bards are more likly since lawful has a wider spread, and encompasses more definitions of lawful.

The problem with alignment debates is that people have different views of the graph, and I think the game designers are looking at something else entirely.

honkuimushi
2007-10-17, 11:57 AM
Back in 1st Edition, Bards were a multi dual classed characters that had levels in Fighter, Rogue, and Druid before becoming a Bard. Because of the Druid levels they had to be true neutral. (I can't remember if they were granted any leeway once they became Bards and my 1st edition books are across the Pacific right now.) In 2nd Edition that was relaxed to any neutral (including LN.) However the only connection left to Druids was the alignment and it was redefined as a kind of wandering minstral/ scoundrel. They were even grouped with thieves under the title rogues. This was covered pretty well a few posts up. However, with that sort of description it seemed like a good fit for CG. I think a couple of iconic Forgotten Realms characters were also a pretty reason the alignments were changed.

I read somewhere that Bards were forbidden lawful alignments to make Paladin multiclasses more difficult. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but at this point, the restrictions don't make much sense and should probably be abandoned.

dr.cello
2007-10-17, 02:52 PM
That's the difference to me. While both may be amazing musicians, the chaotic one can add in the emotion that the lawful one just can't. The lawful one may want to, but their personality just won't let them break that barrier.


Right. Because there's never been any emotion in an orchestra.

Techonce
2007-10-17, 03:09 PM
Right. Because there's never been any emotion in an orchestra.

Huh? Wha? I didn't say that.

If you could apply alignments to an orchestra and take an average, my guess is that it would be more chaotic than lawful, but probably right around the middle.

Besides if you look at an orchestra, they are playing a prescribed piece of music. They are giving up some of their own freedom to play the creative works of another. Now each will add their own little "flair" to the bit, including the conductor, but it is anothers creative endevour that they are expressing. And in this case, the lawful musician will excell over the chaotic one. However change over to Irish jam session and the chaotic player will shine, while a strictly lawful one will do okay.

KIDS
2007-10-17, 03:13 PM
Techonce, I respect your argument and admire that you brought a real life example into it, let alone one from your life, but that hardly proves anything. Other people might well be different in that regard. I myself was regarding to the concert or a theather as a direct example. Look at those places. Massive number of people, strict organization. Everyone knows his role, everyone follows it. Flexibility is good of course, but it's not the core of it.

So this, say, London Orchestra goes on the stage and plays Beethoven or Mozart or someone third. Or a travelling band sets up a stage and performs Goethe. There is a thunderous silence and a great deal of emotion and those people listening are inspired. Those who hear about it second-hand are inspired too. Those who hear a rhyme or a melody from that orchestra whistled are inspired too. No one can deny that they have been affected by a great deal of emotion.
And still, that inspiration required supreme organization, eternal order, perfect timing excellent management, sense of trust, sense of submission, personal pride and personal humility at the same time, all of it.
Now open the DMG and read about Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus. You will notice the same terms and the same feeling I described here. And I will not say "I rest my case", because lawful inspiration is just a small part of roleplaying possibilities, but rather "give everyone a chance". Thank you.

Riffington
2007-10-17, 03:23 PM
And what if they only sleep with one person at a time, but lots of those are one night stands that know, going into it, that it's only a one night stand because the lawful person told them?

Then they spend a lot of time doing CG things.
Find me thirty good violinists who started lessons at their parents' insistence, who graduated high school with a 3.5-4.0, who perhaps play for an orchestra like Cleveland.
We'll select five good flautists at random.
I'll give you a dollar for each of the violinists' partners, if you give me a quarter for each of the flautists'...

Techonce
2007-10-17, 03:24 PM
Techonce, I respect your argument and admire that you brought a real life example into it, let alone one from your life, but that hardly proves anything. Other people might well be different in that regard. I myself was regarding to the concert or a theather as a direct example. Look at those places. Massive number of people, strict organization. Everyone knows his role, everyone follows it. Flexibility is good of course, but it's not the core of it.

So this, say, London Orchestra goes on the stage and plays Beethoven or Mozart or someone third. Or a travelling band sets up a stage and performs Goethe. There is a thunderous silence and a great deal of emotion and those people listening are inspired. Those who hear about it second-hand are inspired too. Those who hear a rhyme or a melody from that orchestra whistled are inspired too. No one can deny that they have been affected by a great deal of emotion.
And still, that inspiration required supreme organization, eternal order, perfect timing excellent management, sense of trust, sense of submission, personal pride and personal humility at the same time, all of it.
Now open the DMG and read about Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus. You will notice the same terms and the same feeling I described here. And I will not say "I rest my case", because lawful inspiration is just a small part of roleplaying possibilities, but rather "give everyone a chance". Thank you.

I certainly can't argue most of your points, you are right. But in the D&D setting would it have the power of a bard? Is it the music as written, or the personal investment of each performer? I don't know.

Heck on a side note... What would be the effect of an orchestra of bards? Mass suggestion to thousands of people to donate more money?

As for inspiration. Bagpiper performing a march with perfect precsion over an improvisational jazz musician... Both would inspire me to hit harder and stronger, but the jazz musician wouldn't have the exact effect he desired! :smallbiggrin:

KIDS
2007-10-17, 03:33 PM
Oh by the way it just occured to me, and is also a potential argument.
Could one argue that what I wrote was about a Neutral (on law-chaos) Bard? I think yes too, but it is primarily Lawful. The fact that a neutral character could be described with it too just shows that the boundary is thinner than we think. I would say that a Chaotic character would likely feel threathened by the amount of collectivity there.

Wait, orchestra of bards... massive aid another bonuses.... man, my bard must be ecstatic at this moment. He has a new goal. Thanks for the suggestion :smallsmile:

Techonce
2007-10-17, 03:42 PM
And an arguement against my choas bard is that a neutral bard is just as effective as a chaotic bard...

Maybe the power of the inspiration is offset by the confusion of the music.

Unfortunatly most alignment arguements end up with the law/chaos axis havin people classified as:

Lawful - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Neutral - Apathetic
Chaotic - complete randomness and illogic.

And personally none of the above are viable bards.

RTGoodman
2007-10-17, 03:59 PM
That's the difference to me. While both may be amazing musicians, the chaotic one can add in the emotion that the lawful one just can't. The lawful one may want to, but their personality just won't let them break that barrier.

Tell that to any (military) pipe & drum corps, or even to the U.S. military bands. The original goals of using music in to military (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've been taught) were to encourage the allied troops, dishearten the enemy soldiers (especially with the Scots - what's more intimidating than the loud, shrill sound of bagpipes on the dawn of the day of battle?), and to give orders.

The military is probably one of the most Lawful organizations in a nation (it has to be - if your troops don't follow orders or act within the military hierarchy, that leads to things like mutiny, desertion, and equally unpleasant and dangerous things). And these military musicians may not be improvising or anything like a jazz musician, but you can't say that they don't play with emotion or have an effect on morale.

Any hey, look at that: most of the Bardic Music abilities that give bonuses to allies give morale bonuses!

Techonce
2007-10-17, 04:11 PM
Tell that to any (military) pipe & drum corps, or even to the U.S. military bands. The original goals of using music in to military (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've been taught) were to encourage the allied troops, dishearten the enemy soldiers (especially with the Scots - what's more intimidating than the loud, shrill sound of bagpipes on the dawn of the day of battle?), and to give orders.

The military is probably one of the most Lawful organizations in a nation (it has to be - if your troops don't follow orders or act within the military hierarchy, that leads to things like mutiny, desertion, and equally unpleasant and dangerous things). And these military musicians may not be improvising or anything like a jazz musician, but you can't say that they don't play with emotion or have an effect on morale.

Any hey, look at that: most of the Bardic Music abilities that give bonuses to allies give morale bonuses!

Actually the music was also commonly used as a way of signaling the troops.

As for the scots, some would say that they charged the enemy to get away from their own pipers... :smallbiggrin:

And knowing a few military musicians... THey hate the regimentation, strictness and the all of that. Heck a firend plays the Oboe in the top Army Band. guy has a phd and is only enlisted. You can't be an officer if you are in the bands since that might make you higher ranked than the conductor.

And I see a difference between normal inspiration and Bardic inspiration. Its a matter of scale. Buy you are right, there isn't a foolproof arguement and I do see both sides.

However for me, I generally play with the rules as written. the darn lawful streak makes it hard for me not too...

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-10-17, 06:55 PM
One thing that's bugged me ever since Complete Divine came out was the statement that Bards who worship St. Cuthbert make good Evangelists. If St. Cuthbert is a Lawful Neutral god, who only allows Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good followers, then how can he have bards in his service? That just makes no sense to me!:smallannoyed:

RTGoodman
2007-10-17, 07:41 PM
One thing that's bugged me ever since Complete Divine came out was the statement that Bards who worship St. Cuthbert make good Evangelists. If St. Cuthbert is a Lawful Neutral god, who only allows Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good followers, then how can he have bards in his service? That just makes no sense to me!:smallannoyed:

I don't know if there are alignment restrictions on just being a worshiper, it's just that you're unlikely to worship a deity if his alignment (and therefore, his world view) doesn't match yours. Regardless, I think only clerics are held to the "can't be neutral [that is, neutral-neutral] unless the deity is neutral" thing, and you can have a neutral-neutral bard.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-10-17, 08:23 PM
I don't know if there are alignment restrictions on just being a worshiper, it's just that you're unlikely to worship a deity if his alignment (and therefore, his world view) doesn't match yours. Regardless, I think only clerics are held to the "can't be neutral [that is, neutral-neutral] unless the deity is neutral" thing, and you can have a neutral-neutral bard.

I thought that you selected a deity based on your alignment, and it followed the "can only be within one step of the deity's alignment" rule.:smallconfused:

Nerd-o-rama
2007-10-17, 08:28 PM
Only applies to Clerics. Anyone else can worship whomever the hell they like. If you're a Vile Chaotic Evil Warchief who tortures puppies and slaughters defenseless villages for fun, you can say you worship Hieroneous. He just probably doesn't like you very much, and would never under any circumstances grant you clerical powers.

Techonce
2007-10-17, 08:41 PM
Only applies to Clerics. Anyone else can worship whomever the hell they like. If you're a Vile Chaotic Evil Warchief who tortures puppies and slaughters defenseless villages for fun, you can say you worship Hieroneous. He just probably doesn't like you very much, and would never under any circumstances grant you clerical powers.

I'm a bit rusty on this, but Forgotten Realms also requires all followers to also be close in alignment. And in FR, you pick a god, or suffer in the afterlife...

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-17, 10:27 PM
Then they spend a lot of time doing CG things.
Find me thirty good violinists who started lessons at their parents' insistence, who graduated high school with a 3.5-4.0, who perhaps play for an orchestra like Cleveland.
We'll select five good flautists at random.
I'll give you a dollar for each of the violinists' partners, if you give me a quarter for each of the flautists'...

No bet. I have no understanding of these particular classes of musicians.

I'm still looking for a reason why military people... say, people in the navy... who never know where their next assignment will be, or when their moving out to a new location in the middle of a war, follow orders extremely well, and blow off a lot of steam couldn't... say... "have a lady in every port" and still be lawful so long as they are up front about it. Yes, it's probably against the tradition of their people if they are from America or Great Britain, but that's only one area of lawfulness, and many military people respect tradition in a lot of other ways? And at this point isn't it almost a tradition for military people to have less societal expectation placed on them about monogamy, so long as they aren't married or engaged yet? If their married then definitely no (adultery is a crime in the US military if I recall).

What about (getting back to D&D now) a Paladin from a culture that doesn't demand monogamy, but has a person mating periodically for the good of the community? I seem to recall something about the Illuman being along those lines... and the majority of their communities are extremely lawful and regimented. They also have a disproportionate number of Paladins in their ranks, I would think.


Oh by the way it just occured to me, and is also a potential argument.
Could one argue that what I wrote was about a Neutral (on law-chaos) Bard? I think yes too, but it is primarily Lawful. The fact that a neutral character could be described with it too just shows that the boundary is thinner than we think. I would say that a Chaotic character would likely feel threathened by the amount of collectivity there.

Wait, orchestra of bards... massive aid another bonuses.... man, my bard must be ecstatic at this moment. He has a new goal. Thanks for the suggestion :smallsmile:

Taking the leadership feat and getting a symphony together?

Oh, and as a note to the bag pipe haters. Bag pipes, when played by skilled artists, are beautiful instruments capable of inspiring me greatly. The combined harmony and dissonance coming from one instrument is simply breathtaking.

A bagpipe played by a poor player, however, sounds like any other woodwind or brass instrument. It tends to blow for people around them when the player blows.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-17, 10:37 PM
I fail to see how good-evil is much better, frankly

Because its a game of good vs. evil.

It's a game where you can have a Champion of King Human defend the land against Orcs hordes then do the absolutely insane thing of slaughtering his own countrymen when they go against the Orcs.

That's the fun of it. :smallbiggrin:

But yes, I always describe Alignment as "Less important than people make it out to be and more simple than people try to be."

Basically, Alignment is SHORTHAND for how a character reacts. Paladin of Torm doesn't serve Good because he's Lawful Good. He does it because he lives by Torm's laws. We mark him down as LG to give us a basic idea of what it means.

But the problem is that the Shorthand means things differently for everyone else.

In my games, LN are the sticklers for the rules.

JB would be CG because he's a Secret Agent/Commando that only grudgingly serves the cause of the motherland and often drifts to Neutrality in the course of his duties.

Any well detailed character reacts beyond his alignment. However, its nice to have a small idea of where they stand when you don't want them detailed too much.

MrNexx
2007-10-17, 11:35 PM
Because its a game of good vs. evil.

Unless its a game of Law vs. Chaos.

Or Civilization v. Boskone/Faerie/pirates, etc.

Riffington
2007-10-18, 05:51 AM
Josh:
There is no reason a lawful person can't in certain areas of his life perform chaotic acts. Human beings are complex. All good people commit evil acts. All evil people commit good acts. All chaotic people behave lawfully in some areas of their lives.

Nevertheless, the Lawful position is that sex has very powerful consequences, and should be reserved for appropriate situations. Using it to seek a fleeting connection with another person leads to all kinds of messiness and confusion. There are otherwise lawful women with a man in each port. And there are otherwise good men who sometimes beat their wives. But nobody should pretend that wife-beating is a good act.

Techonce
2007-10-18, 06:44 AM
Sex and lawfulness....

As long as both parties know before hand that the intention is only a 1 night stand and are okay with it, what's the real issue?

Riffington
2007-10-18, 06:53 AM
There's no good/evil issue, but there is a lawful/chaotic issue.

The "well, if two people consent and have fun it's great" is a very compelling argument if you are non-lawful. It's in fact the basis of CG morality: an ye hurt none, do as ye will.

Lawful morality seeks to order behavior appropriately. Sex has big consequences. The people having sex don't usually realize the extent of those consequences (even leaving aside the heat of the moment). It changes your attitudes and your affections, and can lead to a lot of confusion, pain, changes in relationships, etc if not channeled correctly. It's playing with fire.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-18, 08:57 AM
*deep breath*

Okay. First of all, I agree that sex has big consequences, and people should be monogomous. Heck, I'm a virgin by choice. I know people locally and in different stats were if I were to show up and ask for it, I'd get it.

I've been described by most people that know me as lawful good or neutral good.

But then I also am a part of a society whos traditions include marrage. I'm not saying that sleeping around is lawful. I'm saying that monogamy is not the only paradigm that lawful people can take.

I have two examples that have been ignored thus far. A noble in an egyptian style campaign. Polygamy. A long term, (hopefully) stable relationship with multiple partners for the male.

Illumans. They mate -for the cabal-, and raise their children communally. They live incredibly structured lives, have a very lawful society (except for a few cabals that follow a different way of life). If they mate for their cabal multiple times, it says nothing about them mating with the same person. They perform tasks as said by the head of the Cabal. Why not this, potentially with different partners to increase the variability of these small, tight nit communities?

I'm not saying that Monogamy isn't a lawful behavior. I'm saying that it's not the only behavior that can be lawful.

I am also saying that having a one night stand, as long as it is agreed upon before hand should not count as a chaotic act, unless there is some expectation that the person in question not have said one night stand, be it legal, religious, or a societal mores.

Is it the most lawful of behaviors? No. Is it inherently chaotic to specifically discuss and agree ahead of time on the implications of an act one is about to take? To basically form an oral contract? I really don't think so.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-10-18, 11:22 AM
Oh, and as a note to the bag pipe haters. Bag pipes, when played by skilled artists, are beautiful instruments capable of inspiring me greatly. The combined harmony and dissonance coming from one instrument is simply breathtaking.

A bagpipe played by a poor player, however, sounds like any other woodwind or brass instrument. It tends to blow for people around them when the player blows.

QFT!

My brother took up bagpipes on a lark and fell in love with them. Now he's pretty good at it, though one time the neighbors called the police on him when he was practicing outside. I like bagpipe music greatly, though I confess the drones can sometimes give me a headache.

Techonce
2007-10-18, 11:27 AM
Oh, and as a note to the bag pipe haters. Bag pipes, when played by skilled artists, are beautiful instruments capable of inspiring me greatly. The combined harmony and dissonance coming from one instrument is simply breathtaking.

A bagpipe played by a poor player, however, sounds like any other woodwind or brass instrument. It tends to blow for people around them when the player blows.

Sorry if you got an impression that I was a bagpipe hater. Definitly not. Not a player... yet, but will be someday. Actually I'm more interested in the Uillean Pipes, but most don't know the difference until you see them played.

Nothing bettern than pulling up to a stoplight, next to a car blasting (c)rap music, rolling down your windows and having the sound of bagpipes spill forth. I love the looks I get.

Riffington
2007-10-18, 12:11 PM
Josh:
I refuse to allow non-human examples, including Illumian. All I can accurately describe is human nature. I love inventing orcish psychology, but it's always conjecture and invention - I don't know orcs.

As to polygamy, it has been rejected time and time again by societies as they mature and begin to value women as human beings. There are no polyamorous cultures where men and women alike can have multiple partners. There have been many attempts, but the groups in question soon collapse; it's just unstable. The participants don't have the same attachment that a monogamous marriage provides, and when they find a "better offer" they leave.

I will grant that polygamy can be practiced in a Lawful (Evil) way: it is very stable to treat women as property, and thus to ignore their feelings on the matter. It works even more effectively if you mutilate girls' genitalia, and execute women who cheat or are raped. So yes, your Egyptian example works, I had really been talking about a lawful good context.

But once you treat women as equals, you soon find that they really can't deal with sharing their men. They can put up with it if they have no options, but if they have any degree of freedom to leave, polygamy turns marriages highly unstable.

Look at the US: the mainstream Mormons long ago got rid of polygamy. Even before they eliminated it, they recognized that it was evil (but thought it was a temporarily necessary evil). The tiny non-LDS Mormon cults that practice polygamy do not do so in a very stable or reasonable way. Very often, it turns out the man is simultaneously married to a woman and her daughter.

Riffington
2007-10-18, 12:34 PM
Is it inherently chaotic to specifically discuss and agree ahead of time on the implications of an act one is about to take? To basically form an oral contract? I really don't think so.

I kind of do this, but I'm weird. It doesn't really work well, by the way. The second you wake up in one another's arms (even if you just snuggled all night without sex), the stuff you explicitly agreed to starts to disappear in both of your minds, and is replaced by what you wish were there.
I'm giving this as friendly advice, not as part of my argument. When I was in college I thought that kind of overly-explicit communication would work well; instead it turns out, if one of you wants more, you'll believe your partner's body language instead of the explicit agreement.

MrNexx
2007-10-18, 02:21 PM
As to polygamy, it has been rejected time and time again by societies as they mature and begin to value women as human beings. There are no polyamorous cultures where men and women alike can have multiple partners. There have been many attempts, but the groups in question soon collapse; it's just unstable. The participants don't have the same attachment that a monogamous marriage provides, and when they find a "better offer" they leave.

You ever hear of Tibetan polyandry?

And the term you are looking for is "polygyny", which refers to a single husband with multiple wives. Polygamy implies that it goes both ways, though people tend to be less than precise about that.



Look at the US: the mainstream Mormons long ago got rid of polygamy. Even before they eliminated it, they recognized that it was evil (but thought it was a temporarily necessary evil). The tiny non-LDS Mormon cults that practice polygamy do not do so in a very stable or reasonable way. Very often, it turns out the man is simultaneously married to a woman and her daughter.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=99

The relevant bit is at the very end. It's a woman who willingly, and eyes open, went into a polygynous marriage, and regards it as the ultimate feminist lifestyle.

Ad res, I think one of the main confusions about Lawful v. Chaotic is that they've gotten away from their traditional meanings... too many people see the "Law" and want to make a totalitarian state full of mindless drones. Too many people see "Chaos" and envision a pure anarchy, full of mindless randomness.

To quote the Great Foglio, when talking about New Hong Kong, "Just because there are no LAWS doesn't mean there aren't any RULES."

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-18, 07:20 PM
Josh:
I refuse to allow non-human examples, including Illumian. All I can accurately describe is human nature. I love inventing orcish psychology, but it's always conjecture and invention - I don't know orcs.


Unfortunately, you are not in a position of authority to allow, or dis-allow examples. You may choose not to respond to them, or to discount them for your personal perspective, but unless the board's rules expressly forbid it, I still have the ability to bring them up, and anyone else who wishes to may respond to them, and discuss them. Refusing to respond to a point does not make my point valid, so I do not 'win' that argument. But it does not make my point invalid. By ignoring that point, you have basically ceded that area of the field of discussion.


Josh:
As to polygamy, it has been rejected time and time again by societies as they mature and begin to value women as human beings. There are no polyamorous cultures where men and women alike can have multiple partners. There have been many attempts, but the groups in question soon collapse; it's just unstable. The participants don't have the same attachment that a monogamous marriage provides, and when they find a "better offer" they leave.

I will grant that polygamy can be practiced in a Lawful (Evil) way: it is very stable to treat women as property, and thus to ignore their feelings on the matter. It works even more effectively if you mutilate girls' genitalia, and execute women who cheat or are raped. So yes, your Egyptian example works, I had really been talking about a lawful good context.

But once you treat women as equals, you soon find that they really can't deal with sharing their men. They can put up with it if they have no options, but if they have any degree of freedom to leave, polygamy turns marriages highly unstable.

Look at the US: the mainstream Mormons long ago got rid of polygamy. Even before they eliminated it, they recognized that it was evil (but thought it was a temporarily necessary evil). The tiny non-LDS Mormon cults that practice polygamy do not do so in a very stable or reasonable way. Very often, it turns out the man is simultaneously married to a woman and her daughter.

And my entire point was that monogomy is not the only type of relationship that can be found in lawful societies. I doubt that the only form of polygamy that is possible is by necessity evil in nature, it does seem to work best in societies where those males who are involved in the practice are definitely above equivalent members of the opposite gender.

For example, patriarchal nobilities. Especially since at that level, marriages are often more political alliances than anything else, and polygamy might just be a way to let a guy have a real relationship inside the bounds of marriage, as well as allowing one or more political alliances. If you are in a period of warring states, with potential assassination in the mix, making it more likely to have male heirs to carry on the patriarchal monarchy is considered a valuable goal.

Also, societies tend do tend to move out of polygamous systems of marrange over time. However a large amount of this is due to the influence of other cultures, who view polygamy as horrible. Whether this is because polygamy is horrible, or because they are pressured to give it up by people who believe it to be, I am not in a position to judge.

There were strong amounts of pressure placed on the Mormons to give up their polygamous ways. Whether they, as a whole, did not want to give up their polygamous ways, including the women, or whether this was just the excuse the women needed to step out of this system, I am not sure.

But again, my entire argument is that monogamy is not the only lawfully aligned type of relationship one might have.

And btw, I'm perfectly aware that those social contracts likely don't work as often as they fail. In such a circumstance any good aligned person that entered into them, no matter what side of the relationship they are on... likely does not.

There are many kinds of people that can fall under any alignment. And there are many different interpretations of what kind of behavior falls under any given alignment.

But in large part what matters most about these interpretations are that a DM and a player sit down and hash out any alignment issues they have, and try to come to an understanding.

I'm currently playing a Paladin under someone that I view as an incredibly overly permissive DM. His views on law are far far FAR more flexible than my own. This works out for us, because in most cases, I just decide how my character acts, and it's waaaaay inside my DM's expectations. There are a couple points where he thinks a behavior would really well fit a paladin that I hadn't considered... but I often find them to be good ideas, and since it's a message board game, I have time to mull it over and incorporate those ideas into my character if I like them.

He is perfectly fine with one night stands, as long as the person is made to understand ahead of time.

There are, however, DMs who would cause a paladin to fall for planning an ambush on their quarry. I wouldn't play a Paladin under one of those.

That paladin I mentioned is in a rather odd relationship at the moment. She has a very intelligent, but... um... odd in the head... woman who is obsessed with her, as well as fate. In fact the CG bard is convinced my Paladin and her are tied together by fate. My LG paladin thinks that fate, if it does exist, is to often used as a cop out by people that don't want to try harder to live up to their duties. But she is friends with, and enjoys the company of the bard.

This was complicated when the Paladin was taking a bath, and the bard decided to try to up their relationship another level. The bard and paladin are not girlfriends so much as they are commrads in arms who care about each other deeply, but have had to part at times in their past.

The Paladin wants to eventually get married and have children and a family. And if her husband does not want her enjoying the bard's company... well, she won't be able to... and the bard understands this.

The bard is a reveler and a dancer, and my Paladin is often happiest when she is swept up in the Bard's revels... but she is no the only one the Bard revels with.

Come to think of it due to our talking about Polygamy... depending on the cultures and races the DM presents us with, and the fact that the Bard goes everywhere and does everything with the Paladin, almost like her shadow... the two might wind up marrying the same guy. Assuming one of them doesn't die before a plot angle like that comes up.

....
2007-10-18, 07:24 PM
There are many lawful pianists... but none of those are musicians.

/ducks

This thread is over already.

EDIT: I was just going to throw out this snipe and then move on, but then I glanced up and saw that, somehow, within four pages the thread went from: "Why can't bard be lawful" to some discussion about polygamy...

I suppose I could go read how this thread as so horribly derailed, but there's no way it'll be as funny as what I imagine.

dr.cello
2007-10-19, 09:30 AM
I certainly can't argue most of your points, you are right. But in the D&D setting would it have the power of a bard? Is it the music as written, or the personal investment of each performer? I don't know.

Which is exactly the point. The fluff only indicates that the bardic music is the source. The Sublime Chord PrC even indicates a certain 'seeking the perfect mathematical chord' nature to its magic (whereas the Seeker of the Song is more chaotic, 'the divine muse' in nature). It's pretty easy to imagine that in a fantasy world, the perfect chord or musical combination could produce magical effects. In that case a bard would not be very chaotic at all.

Surely you can appreciate that even in the Real World people can hear a (very lawfully and strictly composed) symphony and feel almost as if it's magical.

Techonce
2007-10-19, 12:07 PM
(very lawfully and strictly composed) symphony


are less lawful and strict than one would think.

There are two types of midi files, or 2 ways of creating them.

1st you can type in the music exactly as it is written, durations, pitch and the like and it will look just like sheet music it is from. This is music without the human touch. Very lawful and strict. And generally feels lacking (IMHO)

2nd, you have a person play an instrument attached to the midi input and the midi recorder saves the music as it receives it. It will put it on a staff and depending on the piece played and the player it will look similar to the sheet music, or a mess of notes and pauses and the like. PLayed back, it will sounds a whole lot better.

The difference in the little bit of choas that the person adds to the music. Lengthening a note by a fraction of a second, slurring notes together, etc.


Now with an orchestra, it's an organized chaos. The players are (or should) giving over their chosen chaos to the conductor (or director). That person is responsible for adding their own bit of chaos to the music and the musicans follow their lead.

What's my point.... I don't know anymore... :smalleek:

Fiery Justice
2007-10-19, 03:26 PM
This thread is over already.

EDIT: I was just going to throw out this snipe and then move on, but then I glanced up and saw that, somehow, within four pages the thread went from: "Why can't bard be lawful" to some discussion about polygamy...

I suppose I could go read how this thread as so horribly derailed, but there's no way it'll be as funny as what I imagine.

I know, horribly derailed isn't? All I wanted was a simple explanation, should've known the whole moral system would need to be reviewed, insulted, endorsed, and so forth for seven or eight pages

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-19, 04:00 PM
The conversation went

"You can't sleep around and be lawful. And bards sleep around. Unless you're monogamous, you're not lawful."

"Who says all bards sleep around? And who said you have to be monogamous to be Lawful?"

And thus, was the start of the derailment, where we were discussing whether lawful nature, and a system other than monogamy could co-exist.

The general consensus seems to be "Yes, they can" But no claims for what place those systems hold on the good/evil axis exist.

Definitely a tangential conversation.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-19, 04:31 PM
And so do we complete the circle and go back around to the "lawful = idiot" personality. So far lawful people have been portrayed as celibate, funny-smelling, emotionless, uninspiring and lame, and bards can't be anything of that of course. The problem here isn't with the bard class, it's with the said "lawful = idiot" point of view.

And oh, before you dare say anything about lawfulness interfering with emotion, go to a concert hall at least once.

Just wanted to chime in to add that perhaps the most emotionally complex person I know, I would describe as lawful if I had to assign her an alignment.

The thing is, unlike many more "chaotic" people, she's not a fluffy little surface person with no depth of feeling -- her passions are deep and lasting.

Feeling? Emotions? I think perhaps only a person who can commit fiercely to something can truly know how deep emotions can be. Maybe it would be just as legitimate to say that bards must be lawful as it is to require them not to be ...