Bards and Lawfulness???

[Josh the Aspie]

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.

[....]

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]

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]

(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...

[Fiery Justice]

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]

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]

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 ...