Bards and Lawfulness???

[Fiery Justice]

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]

Bards...free spirit...dirty...feet?

Yeah, I never liked it much myself.

[RTGoodman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Every time a Bard casts a spell, an angel loses his wings.

[Vuzzmop]

Every time a Bard casts a spell, an angel loses his wings.

And an eladrin earns its pointy ears.

[Kurald Galain]

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]

This has confused me as well...especially as rogues can be any alignment, yet a bard cannot be lawful!

[dr.cello]

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]

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]

I can't imagine all pianists being chaotic,

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

/ducks

[KIDS]

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]

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 and have players pick up Bard, Paladin, or Monk as prestige classes later on.

[Fhaolan]

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]

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]

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]

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

/ducks

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

[Tequila Sunrise]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.