AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Paladins - Have to be Lawful Good because they are champions of justice. This makes sense.

Barbarians - Have to be Chaotic because... Well, let's face it, that's basically the very definition of a barbarian. This makes sense.

Palemasters - Cannot be Good because they manipulate death and other unnatural arts. This makes sense.

Clerics - Have to be close to their deity's alignment because they are a representative of said deity. This makes sense.

Druids - Have to be Neutral on either axis as this represents balance. While I find this one kind of stupid, I at least understand where they're coming from with this.

But Bards... They can't be Lawful? Why? I mean, I see no reason they can't be Chaotic, but just because they can be Chaotic doesn't mean they can't be Lawful. The only thing I could possibly link to it is that some music (especially rap and rock and roll) seems to be linked with rebellion, and thus could be seen as Chaotic... But that's only some music, and thus would only represent some bards (actually, do either of those genres even exist in this setting? Eh, off topic). With Druids, even though I don't like the reasoning, I can at least see how it got there... But with Bards? I don't get it at all, how did the designers of 3e come to the conclusion that Bards can't be Lawful?

MarioFanaticXV wrote:

Barbarians - Have to be Chaotic because... Well, let's face it, that's basically the very definition of a barbarian. This makes sense.

inb4 Iron completely refutes your definition of barbarism.

Actually the reason Bards can't be lawful is because by the nature of the class they are wanderers, scholars, gatherers of stray knowledge. It's not about the music, although music is about creativity and the precise manipulation that turns noise into signal, which could be argued as chaotic if you cared/knew a thing about music theory (which I do not). Chaos isn't about rebellion, it's about freedom.

But ultimately it's about as silly as the other alignment restrictions (I refute your PM one on the grounds that there's nothing inherently evil about corrupting your own body unless you intend to spread that corruption - bodily autonomy is actually a basic human right

I agree with Serbiris.

That said, I also feel the entire alignment system of D&D is limiting. It would be so much easier if we did without it and your character simply acted the way they would naturally. In real life, we don't really go around thinking, "Hmm, am I acting Lawful Neutral?" or.... "Oops! I'm supposed to be good, and that was an evil thing to do!" Also.... good and evil are nearly the same, it's just a matter of perspective.

Soooo.... end rant. But about bards, yes they are supposed to be anti-establishment, therefore, not lawful. I see it, but I don't think it should "have" to be that way.

I don't think bards are supposed to be anti-establishment. I think the designers just intended for them to generally be mindful of slavish dedication to an authoritarian establishment and the negative effects of conformity on individual, artistic expression. Because bards are just as likely to be neutral as chaotic. More or less.

Last edited by Silvarus on Sun, Apr 06 2014, 15:26 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah. The way I see the alignment system is that any diversion from True Neutral requires some actual dedication to any of the cosmic absolutes of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil. For example my Waukeenar cleric Lily is TN simply because even though she prefers the company of nice people and likes a safe and lawful society, she is not prepared to make significant personal sacrifices for either nor is dedicating her life to furthering either a motivation or a priority to her, therefore she does not "deserve" to be either lawful or good even though she is kind of nice and pays respect to law and order.

I see the alignment restriction for Bards in the same terms I describe Lily's alignment. Bards are people who can not afford to dedicate a major portion of their lives to building or protecting structured societies, therefore they do not usually qualify for the requirements to count as Lawful.

EDIT: And yes, my logic leads to the conclusion that most normal people should the True Neutral, which is not true as far as I understand Forgotten Realms lore.

Haha. You can search how I feel about barbarians and alignment. :lol:

But seriously: no reason. There is no legitimate reason for most, if any, of the alignment restrictions in the game. Some of them, like paladin and maybe monk, make internal sense even if they were a bad idea to begin with. Others, especially barbarians and bards but to a lesser extent druids, are just nonsensical. You can always explain it away, but all of the explanations would have counter-examples. I would just take it as one of the quirks of the game that has no IC relevance.

We have officially decided that it is not some metaphysical, absolute restriction in Amiaverse anyway, since we have approved at least one Bard alignment change to Lawful (at max level, so no funny class combinations).

I think that bards are dictated chaotic by how the ultimate society, may view them, (or whatever god rules thy tabletop). In society, artists are rarely seen as consequential, they will simply not sit down and count the beans, the machine of government cannot really control their humanity, so they just try to house them (or wall them away.) In a way bards are /my/ favorite hero in the real world. Because free artists are political by nature, in that they do not agree that society should 'organize' itself, but rather man should organize himself or herself, to the best of his or her ability. Bards say solve thyself, whereas paladins say, solve thy land, clerics in the middle say, solve as thou crosses me. Maybe. Here's an awesome story about a bard that I have I dug up for you all! "REPENT, HARLEQUIN!" SAID THE TICKTOCKMAN

serbiris wrote:

Chaos isn't about rebellion, it's about freedom.

*ganked*

In short: the only reason that bards can't be lawful is that someone somewhere decided that bard/paladin would be broken.

There's nothing inherent to bardery that's even mildly suggestive of any fixed ethical or philosophical ideals. Dedication to freedom as a concept is nice, but there's no reason it should be considered inherent to the class. Why couldn't a bard be a fanatical devtee of Bane, or Jarl Wiltun, or Siamorphe, inspiring the masses with tales of heroes prospering through loyal service to their appointed lords, and the tragic downfall of those self-centered betrayers who lost sight of their noble virtue? There's no room for duty and obedience in the concept of a court troubador, or the loyal sidekick of a gallant knight, or a state-sponsored propagandist?

Nonsense.

What Liz said. Imagine a bard build, who with two levels of pally can get his charisma modifier added to his saves, damage and armor class. With our change that caps modifiers by the amount of levels in the paladin class, perhaps we could actually remove that idiotic alignment restriction from bard. Someone like Uce might know the awnser, but I imagine it could still be a too powerful combo.

If we do, I may need to retire Robert and make the character he was initially on my draft board; a paladin of milil.

[redacted]

I forgot about the saves cap on paladins!

Pony wrote:

What Liz said. Imagine a bard build, who with two levels of pally can get his charisma modifier added to his saves, damage and armor class. With our change that caps modifiers by the amount of levels in the paladin class, perhaps we could actually remove that idiotic alignment restriction from bard. Someone like Uce might know the awnser, but I imagine it could still be a too powerful combo.

I do not see how a bard20/paladin10 would be any different from a bard/blackguard10, which is a decent but not broken build.

With our cap on Divine Grace, Power, and Shield, I don't think it would be broken. Certainly powerful if done correctly, but not broken. I don't give much credit to the bardic alignment restriction for the reasons already stated.

A Paladin of Milil, Sune, or Mystra who also had Bard levels would be a very cool thing to play.

Those totally would be super fun, DI, and I resent the dumbass D&D alignment system for pointlessly forbidding them. (I've ranted this particular rant many times before; feel free to assume the remainder of it here.)

To keep me from making a DD/Bard/PM.

Show me one lawful musician who got to real fame

(I might be a bit oblivious with this one)

Mozart.

Gustav Mahler

I could list the vast majority of classical musicians we know of.

Probably not Beethoven, but Chopin, Bach, Mozart, Wagner... If anything, the first thing that comes to my mind with music is an orderly orchestra, as that's the type of music I prefer to listen to. Once again though, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not claiming bards should have to be lawful, just that it should be an option.

Pony wrote:

Mozart.

Mozart, lawful.... please.
Because of the parties, breaking standards, or calling professionals idiots?

Read their biographies or anything, they were far from lawful - the fact that you lived long ago does not mean you were nicer ^^

You lot are getting really really really offtopic if you start discussing the alignments of long dead real life musicians/ composers.

Lets focus on the lovable amian bards and their lawfull desires and chaotic urges.

Liz touched on this, but I think one of the most archetypal bards is a loyal herald of a king, a cog in the machine of feudal society. Trained in the traditional arts at a bard's college, keeper of a rigorous hierarchy, student of nobility and etiquette. In my mind, a bard can be one of the most iconic knight figures, composing poems about his lords and representing his kingdom as an inspiring paragon. In fact, I have no trouble imagining a bard performing paladinhood better than a paladin.

Or, if you want to go even further back to the origin of the term Bard, certainly the original Gaelic ones had some sense of Law. While they might have been itinerant (I cant recall if that is the myth or the actual), they were charged with keeping the heraldry and genealogy of ruling families alive through oral tradition. Some were even employed by the nobility as lawyers, which I suppose made them lawful in action, even if not in heart.

I hereby move that this thread be punted into Improving Amia, with the suggestion that the silly alignment restriction be politely shown the door.

If the alignment system is removed there still has to be something which is probably dumber to prevent people from picking class combinations that shouldn't exist. This is as thus the complete opposite as what happened 1kfaces yesterday where uncertain rules got enforced mechanically.

Liz was just referring to bards in particular. While I would love to see the abortion that is the alignment system entirely eradicated, that will probably never happen. But there are really no inappropriate class combinations for bard. In vanilla NWN, paladin/bard would be an issue, but not with our balance changes. If anything, it might make bard the Tumble/UMD class for paladins, which should satisfy those who dislike the usual rogue levels.

IronAngel wrote:

If anything, it might make bard the Tumble/UMD class for paladins, which should satisfy those who dislike the usual rogue levels.

Damn right.

Paladins could finally becomes professional boasters too.

Pathfinder did away with the alignment restriction on bards. They can be any alignment.

It's because bards aren't just musicians. Bards are strange type of wanderlust crazy folk that need free minds to express themselves and all that pansy, artsy, theatre crap. Bards constantly seek tales of heroisim, they want to witness the world and all of it's events... they can't but they want to. Bards = YOLO. You Only Live Once. So go out and have fun, discover the world through story telling, or song singing, or war chanting, or whatever the hell it is you do. You can't be tied down in one place or by one thing, you must be free and stuff like that. A bard without freedom is like a bird without wings. can't do shit.

...Alright it's all kind of a bullshitty stretch, but hey if I can write a paragraph long excuse about why they are that alignment than that's good enough for WoTC!

But not good enough for we higher thinkers is the point here, I do believe.

The problem, I think, is that D&D decided bard = thief in second edition with its sub classes. And then 3.5 decided bard = Harper.

That's just my take on it though.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

The problem, I think, is that D&D decided bard = thief in second edition with its sub classes. And then 3.5 decided bard = Harper.

That's just my take on it though.

I think the problem is more or less WoTC.

A lot of people mention the Pally/Bard as being the real cheese build involving these alignment restrictions, but what about a Bard/Monk? Balance-wise is this an unfair build?

Terent wrote:

A lot of people mention the Pally/Bard as being the real cheese build involving these alignment restrictions, but what about a Bard/Monk? Balance-wise is this an unfair build?

No.

Once upon a time, waaaaay back in the days of yore when we bent D&D over our knees, my PC was a bard/monk who specialized in a non-lethal pressure point style of fighting. :wink:

Bard/monk doesn't sound that tough to me personally. You suddenly get disposable potions but no sneak attack. Sure it /can/ be good but I see decent drawbacks to the combination.

Mixing two 3/4 classes doesn't give you much anyway...
And the bard/Paladin combo is just as good as the Bard/Blackguard combo - It's "meh".

It's actually a protests "meh" for Paladian's, who would be a lot harder to dispell because of their increased caster level. Bard would do tons for Paladin builds, but I think think it's just a continuity thing keeping them non lawful at this point.

Lore monkeys: is there an actual reason in Canon for bards to be non-lawful?

Terra_777 wrote:

If the alignment system is removed there still has to be something which is probably dumber to prevent people from picking class combinations that shouldn't exist. This is as thus the complete opposite as what happened 1kfaces yesterday where uncertain rules got enforced mechanically.

Also this. Don't you dare remove alignment restrictions because I will make a barbarian/monk.

NOPE.

Arcane caster level + Divine caster lever does not stack. Your argument is invalid.

:mrgreen:

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Lore monkeys: is there an actual reason in Canon for bards to be non-lawful?

Been looking into this for years and never found any solid canon explanation. Rather, game designers have always been a little recalcitrant about answering it because it was apparently an old game balance thing that no longer applies so much. The only answer I ever saw aside from "game balance" was the one I gave above in this thread about the bardic outlook, which is a bit of a narrow view. Pathfinder, when they took d20 licenses, just did away with the bardic alignment restriction altogether.

Mind, there is a bit of a difference between the PnP bard and the NWN bard. The PnP bard has lots of individual song effects that usually are spaced out over a series of rounds and require certain feat investments to perform at the same time, whereas the NWN bard just goes BANG and they all go into effect in the same round, leaving him free to cast other spells and kick ass as necessary.

Very_Svensk wrote:

NOPE.

Arcane caster level + Divine caster lever does not stack. Your argument is invalid.

:mrgreen:

Didn't know that. Thanks.

Terent wrote:

A lot of people mention the Pally/Bard as being the real cheese build involving these alignment restrictions, but what about a Bard/Monk? Balance-wise is this an unfair build?

Nah, they'd just spread their abilities too thin and suck.

I'd personally love to see bards become unfettered in alignment, since the only real reasons why they can't be lawful are either dealt with (divine grace save cap) or weak ('bardic tradition').

Hmmmm... curious about something. Pretend you could have a Lawful aligned Bard. Provide a back story/character origin that would permit a lawful alignment while being a bard. I think an interesting way to look at this might be backwards. If we assume Bards can be lawful, what would a lawful bard be like?

I don't see why they couldn't be creative and write songs, although they might write songs specifically for a lord. Also need to remember that, bards are not simply musicians... in Oriental Adventures it references this, talking about how Bards as a class wouldn't exist in their campaign setting. They made it clear though that it wasn't void of musicians, just that type of magic.

Considering Bardic magic casts like a sorcerers and it has been described as "Talent". While sorcerers can be any alignment, I do know another talent caster that has alignment restrictions: Warlock. The restrictions exist due to the heritage/source of their magic. Perhaps the same is true of Bards? Where does their magic come from?

We have a thread about that, actually, and the result was a 'shrug' from the powers that be, as I recall.

Which, personally, is what I love about a bard. Bards don't have a stated reason or origin as to their abilities.

Bobo_Underhill wrote:

We have a thread about that, actually, and the result was a 'shrug' from the powers that be, as I recall.

Which, personally, is what I love about a bard. Bards don't have a stated reason or origin as to their abilities.

While not stated a lot seems to be implied. There is only so much you can do though in regards to implications... What we do know is that Bards are natural casters and that they are capable of taking classes such as Dragon Disciple.

Quote:

"It is rumored that the magical powers of sorcerers and bards are somehow connected to the presence of dragon blood in their family tree. Red dragon disciples are sorcerers, and sometimes bards, who use their magical power as a catalyst to ignite their red dragon blood, realizing its fullest potential. They prefer a life of exploration to a cloistered existence. Already adept at magic, many pursue adventure, especially if it furthers their goal of finding out more about their draconic heritage. They often feel drawn to areas known to harbor dragons." - NWN Wiki

Yeah I know that's not from the DMG, but I'm pretty sure the prestige class has a similar description in the book as it does on NWN. In pen and paper it's about unlocking hidden secrets of your draconic heritage. Which may leave some curious about things like "Why is sorcerer a class not a race?" Seems like a silly question at a glance, but it's actually a pretty good question considering that the source of the characters powers come directly from their heritage; suggesting that one is not fully human or elf etc. Same seems to hold true for Bards.

Hah! Perhaps the Chaos behind Bards is actually right here.

Bobo_Underhill wrote:

Bards don't have a stated reason or origin as to their abilities.

No laws are set in stone about origin, just freedom

Bards are spontaneous casters. That's not the same as "natural" casters. There is some shitty vague lore about dragon heritage in 3e, but we shouldn't take that very seriously - it's just something to justify the Dragon Disciple PrC. There is no clear indication of where bardic magic comes from, and the fact that they are trained in colleges and in traditional curriculums suggests it's a learned talent. 2e bards learned their spells from wizard scrolls, anyway, and that's the lore I've held onto on my bard. (Remember, lore doesn't change even if rules do, between editions. We just have to incorporate all past D&D rules into the current world with some sleight of hand.)

My explanation for the spontaneity is that they learn a small number of spells/rhymes/songs by heart, and that's why they can invoke them whenever they please. For whatever reason of technique, their spells don't magically burn from their minds after casting.

Eh... 3.0/3.5 trumps 2.0/2.5. 2.5 saw the first switches toward spontaneous casting which can be seen in some of the class's 'specialization' kits.

I'd say that Bards are non-lawful due to the way in which they harness the Weave as it implies exposure to something wildly chaotic in nature that, for them, is further harnessed and controlled by equally chaotic means.

Of course that largely comes from my observations of the nature of the Weave itself. I see the raw energy of it as something highly chaotic which a few, through dedicated study, can apply order to in able to make a desired result. Some people, however, require less structure than others and can more directly manipulate things to their own purposes based more upon the chaos of their own emotions.

Therefore it stands to reason that the more spontaneous/innate an individual's tie is to the Weave, the more likely it is to tend toward chaos as it becomes far more seemingly emotional in nature. This is just speculation utilizing the natures and nuances of the arcane spell casting classes, however.

Yeah rules are replaced, but it's not like history is magically retconned. (Which is what Ed has explicitly said himself.) We do have, in fact, bard NPCs in books and novels that learned their spells like a wizard. They didn't suddenly get their heritage, personality and training changed overnight to all become impulsive, intuitive dragonspawn casters. Just like specialty priests are still a part of the various churches, even if the build concept is no longer used in the ruleset. It just means we have more options and greater diversity, which is valuable in itself. (That said, I haven't read many novels about FR bards. Elfsong is, of course, the definitive work. Anyone remember how Finder Wyvernspur cast/learned his spells in the five novels? What of Storm Silverhand?)

I don't buy the notion that the Weave has anything to do with energy, personally. I would say, rather, that magic is potential form actualized upon matter (in the Aristotelian, not the physical, sense). The Weave is a collective storage of potential forms that magicians can draw on and add to. Bards do it by various means. I don't see anything emotional about bardic magic (though of course, there can be dozens of different traditions). If anything, it could be seen as unusually lawful if it is produced via ritualistic, formal musical devices. It reminds me of traditional folk magic based on sung verses.

That's actually one explanation I can think of for why bardic magic is spontaneous: if a bard learns his spells as songs and rhymes, they would be psychologically easy to remember. Nothing stops the bard from just singing whatever song he needs at a given moment. It's not purely psychological, though: wizard's spells are supernatural memory patterns that magically disppear when cast. The difference, I suppose, could be in when the magic is introduced. An arcane formula is magical in itself - you can't just read it like any piece of text - and the magic is wrought in crafting the spell itself. The formula is charged with magical potency, and that potency is stored in the caster's mind unlike a mundane memory. You could say that if magic is an intentional act of imposing a form upon matter, then that intention happened in creating and preparing the spell, and casting it may be quite mechanical. A bardic spell, however, could just be a regular song with the prerequisite structure and symbolism. Anyone could theoretically sing the song, but it would require the bard's talent at magical performance and an exercise of his will to bring about the magic. Mind you, this is not my standard explanation, since I like to think of my bard/bladesinger just studying normal arcane spells and practicing his bard's song quite separately. But for those people who want to draw some connection between bardic music and their arcane magic (remember that there's no explicit connection in the rules - bard's magic is not said to be in any way musical by default), it would be a neat explanation. And one that I think I'll develop IC.

In any case, bards are not the ultimate spontaneous casters with a direct link to the Weave. Sorcerers are, and sorcerers have no alignment restrictions. So that's why a categorical alignment restriction on bards based on that argument does not really work. (Not to say it's not a possible interpretation for an individual bard; it's certainly possible to explain away in specific cases, just not across the board.)

EDIT: This is the previous topic, if anyone is interested.

I take the Alignment restriction on any class as more of an RP tool to help the player get a feeling of what the character's personality is like. The fact that this RP tool also makes it difficult to make some power builds is useful on a game that we are playing on a role play server.

But the question here isn't why are there alignment restriction but why is there alignment restriction on bards. The Original D&D bard was any neutral alignment, this includes lawful neutral. They were also druidic and not a sorcerer so somewhere along the line TSR. Or Wizards of the Coast decided that it was time for a change up. In fact They have blasted and tore up their own lore so many times since 1974 that I can't come up with a valid lore reason not to get rid of the alignment restriction.

I do think that we should keep alignment restrictions in place though. If a dev team is nerfing skills like dev crit and hips there is no reason to unlock alignments that would make power building easier.

Why can't Bards be Lawful?

Who is online