Lawful Bards

[TheElfLord]

Okay, I think I've seen on these forums some way for bards to be lawful. Can someone point it out to me.

Also, what are people's thoughts on just dropping the bard's alignment restrictions all together?

[Olethros]

I kinda like the class alignment restrictions as a means of helping players to branch out in there allignment choice. Of course if your players dont suffer from a massive fear of change or allignment bias than I suppose it isnt neccessary.

[Dark Tira]

Devoted Performer from Complete Adventurer. You need Paladin levels though.

Dropping the alignment restrictions isn't game-breaking at all since most of the bard prestige classes don't require it and bards don't lose abilities for changing alignments.

[Noneoyabizzness]

the idea a bard cannot be lawful is a crime.

the old days a bard just had to be part neutral, and we liked it. our jack of all trades could be lawful neutral assassin/circus performers.

a bard should be allowed to be lawful. this concept of being against law seems too pseudopunk rock to Me

[Bears With Lasers]

The Devoted Perfomer feat from the Complete Adventuer lets you make a Lawful Good Paladin/Bard.

[Gamebird]

I have no problems with Lawful Bards. Or even Lawful Barbarians for that matter. Nor even Chaotic Paladins. Heck, I run my PCs up against Evil Paladins on a regular basis, though I call them "Anti-Paladins" (really though, I'm too lazy to make up my own class for them, so I just use the Paladin class, flip the abilities - Detect Good instead of Detect Evil, etc. - and run with it).

My next campaign, when I stray from RAW and core more than I have so far, I'll remove all alignment restrictions. I'm considering removing alignment altogether.

[Renegade Paladin]

It's very easy to make a lawful bard. Only catch is that you can't advance in the class anymore.

As mentioned, Devoted Performer lets a multiclass paladin/bard keep advancing in both classes while being lawful good.

And simply flipping the paladin's abilities to make an evil champion class is just a dumb idea. If I'm the evil champion of evilness, what use do I have for remove disease? Or contagion, if you flip that as well, unless I just happen to be a plaguebringer? How do you reverse divine health, or if you don't, how do you justify keeping it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?

[Vance_Nevada]

In terms of game balance, it makes very little difference. You can now freely make Bard/Monk or Bard/Paladin multi-classed character, neither of which is going to be particularly powerful. I suppose you could also make a Bard/Lawful Cleric with a slightly different alignment.

In terms of flavour, it makes a number of new personality and character options open.

There's no downside to the change that I can see.

[Tulnavara]

it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?

Why would you need to reverse an immunity? Divine doesn't necessarily make it good and why wouldn't an anti-paladin be immune to disease if he's around it enough I'd think you'd especially want it.

[Renegade Paladin]

Why would you need to reverse an immunity? Divine doesn't necessarily make it good and why wouldn't an anti-paladin be immune to disease if he's around it enough I'd think you'd especially want it.

Why would he be immune to disease? And "because paladins are" doesn't cut it; if anything, that's an argument against.

[Powerfamiliar]

Well paladins of slaughter and tyranny keep the disease immunity and replace cure disease with contagion.

[Renegade Paladin]

Yes, and they're stupidly built. They also kept the ex-paladin section, which means they fall for not being lawful good.

[Arceliar]

Why would he be immune to disease? And "because paladins are" doesn't cut it; if anything, that's an argument against.

A better question might be "why are paladins?"

If being a righteous champion of good is enough to bring immunity to disease, being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague ought to do the same. In the case of being evil, it's more so you don't infect yourself in the process...

See: Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny.

[TheElfLord]

Yes, and they're stupidly built. They also kept the ex-paladin section, which means they fall for not being lawful good.

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?

[Gamebird]

If I'm the evil champion of evilness, what use do I have for remove disease?

Removing disease from myself or my allies. Being evil does not preclude one from having a use for curative abilities. An evil god has a vested interest in keeping his champions alive and functioning to spread his faith.

Or contagion, if you flip that as well, unless I just happen to be a plaguebringer?

I'd only flip that for the gods who had the spreading of disease as a portfolio or great interest. Though it *was/is* Rat God. I really didn't think of it much, because there was no reason for the followers of Rat to be spreading plague amongst their own people and they weren't mixing with other groups enough to have a value in spreading it to them.

How do you reverse divine health, or if you don't, how do you justify keeping it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?

[Thomas]

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?

And who on earth cares anyway? It's hardly much of an effort to switch it around.

(And don't anybody start with the "it's stupid, they'd fall for healing a friend in combat" -thing again; if that were true, regular paladins would fall for wounding or killing an opponent in combat.)


Remove disease is the worst, most useless ability paladins get, anyway, and the main reason you should prestige out after level 4 or 5.

[Khantalas]

I think the 3.0 Bards were built by someone who was a jazz fan. Obviously those guys can't be lawful. After all, their best work comes from rolling with it.

[Caelestion]

If I'm going to multiclass out of Paladin, I generally choose the non-spellcasting version and get my loyalty bonuses (+1 BAB, +1 to all saves) and all melee weapons ignoring DR X/good at 6th-level.

[Rabiesbunny]

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?

Preach on!

[Renegade Paladin]

A better question might be "why are paladins?"

If being a righteous champion of good is enough to bring immunity to disease, being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague ought to do the same. In the case of being evil, it's more so you don't infect yourself in the process...

See: Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny.

Paladins are because of their roots in Arthurian legend; that's also why they have remove disease per week and the laying on of hands. And saying that being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague should make you have the same abilities as a righteous champion of good, then you are plainly not thinking this through. And yes, as I said above, I know the designers of the paladin variants in Unearthed Arcana were being lazy.

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?

Because they did. The class variant section in UA says that all classes are as presented in the Player's Handbook except as specifically noted in the variants. The ex-paladin section was not altered. Therefore, it is as the Player's Handbook.

Removing disease from myself or my allies. Being evil does not preclude one from having a use for curative abilities. An evil god has a vested interest in keeping his champions alive and functioning to spread his faith.

This is why the divine champion's lay on hands ability only affects followers of his deity. The powers of evil don't tend to be interested in altruism.

I'd only flip that for the gods who had the spreading of disease as a portfolio or great interest. Though it *was/is* Rat God. I really didn't think of it much, because there was no reason for the followers of Rat to be spreading plague amongst their own people and they weren't mixing with other groups enough to have a value in spreading it to them.

I think you're not understanding my meaning. If you're designing a class to champion some evil alignment, the abilities should reflect the agenda of that alignment. They should not reflect those of the paladin, because that's not what, say, Bane or Hextor would want in their champions.

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?

Here's the so what. So what is the reasoning behind it? And I'll tell you what keeps an evil character from being pure, devout, and honorable. He's evil. Duh.

[Caelestion]

Gamebird did mention an "or" there. Plenty of evil people are devout and/or honorable.

[JaronK]

I have no problem with a pure Lawful Evil Paladin. His faith in his god keeps him going, safe in the knowledge that what he does is the right thing to do... within his morality system. In my games, Paladins can be of any alignment, so you can have a Paladin of Law, who's Lawful Nuetral, and his honor code is entirely about enforcing and maintaining order. You could also have a daemonic Paladin who's Chaotic Evil, dedicated to slaying all those who oppose his daemonic lord. A paladin is just a servant warrior... why shouldn't they be able to serve anyone?

And bards needing to be non-lawful is just stupid. Skalds, one of the things bards are based on, had the job of traveling around the land and teaching people about new laws, as well as acting as judges.

JaronK

[Renegade Paladin]

I'll tell you the problem with evil paladins: They're not heroic champions of a noble cause. Call it something else; it isn't a paladin, whatever it is.

[ElfLad]

I'm just upset that bards don't have any epic-level spells named "Free Bird."

[JaronK]

Paladins weren't historically super good guys, they were just warrior servants. A Paladin of Nerul or something could be quite noble, quite honorable, and quite evil.

JaronK

[Noneoyabizzness]

fine call the "paladin" the "champion". champion of lawful good matches the current paladin, campion of tyrrany goes with the le paladin, and that should get rid of the connotations of charlemagnes paladins

[Renegade Paladin]

Paladins weren't historically super good guys, they were just warrior servants. A Paladin of Nerul or something could be quite noble, quite honorable, and quite evil.

JaronK

Paladins were historically the paragons of chivalry. You might, and I stress might be able to make a (weak) case for any lawful, but chaotic evil? No.

[Rabiesbunny]

Renegade, didn't you and I just have a three day long argument over the nature of LE paladins, where neither of us budged an inch..? These kind of arguments end up causing nothing but headaches all around, huh?

[TheElfLord]

Because they did. The class variant section in UA says that all classes are as presented in the Player's Handbook except as specifically noted in the variants. The ex-paladin section was not altered. Therefore, it is as the Player's Handbook.

Well I don't have UA, so I just have the SRD to go off of, which says that the Paladin variants keep all the class features of the normal paladin, except where noted below. Now the section on ex-paladins is not found with the class features, it is found under its own heading in the same size and font as the heading for class features. So at least according to the SRD, they did not keep the ex-paladin part.

And who on earth cares anyway? It's hardly much of an effort to switch it around.

Well clearly I care or I wouldn't have asked the question. I don't waste my time going on these boards and just typing out things I don't want to know about or bother to come back and read.

[Tor the Fallen]

I'll tell you the problem with evil paladins: They're not heroic champions of a noble cause. Call it something else; it isn't a paladin, whatever it is.

Neither are paladins.
Paladin is derived from paladine, better known as the Praetorian Guard. They protected the Emperor of propbably the most Lawful Evil empire on earth.

Under the Holy Roman Empire, they served as something like judges.
Under the Catholic Church they were high ranking clergymen.
In 17th century, the term was applied to nobles (lords of counties) who were allowed to exercise rights typically reserved for the crown.

Paladin was used as 'Champion' in Charlemagne's stories about the Twelve Retainers. 19th century Christian revisionism attributed the typical qualities we associate with paladins (devout champions of virtue and justice) to the Arthurian legends, using the once popular Charlemagne archetype for the paladin. In reality, the heros of Arthur's table were Celtic, and many pagan. Many of Arthur's 'paladins' were something of anti-heros, some were inbred, some liked to rape women, some were decended from faerie-folk. Many were engaged in ancient blood feuds. Most met with failure and an inglorious end.

Your idea of a paladin is derived from what you read in the PHB and a couple splat books.