"Lawful" Bards

[Darkness]

Ya know, Patryn, I've been thinking about this for quite a bit.

Maybe a LG succubus shouldn't shine as much to detect G as she does to E, but I do mind if a rakshasa doesn't. Assuming he's (L)E, which they "always" are.

Heh. On page 4/5 of the MM, it says "Monsters by Type (and Subtype)" and then goes on to list just about all evil outsiders under Outsider (Evil), regardless of whether they actually have the subtype or not.

All this taken together looks like a miscommunication or a failure to update everything related when they changed some rules, IMO. In any case, it's a bit of a mess.

 

[Saeviomagy]

My suggestion would be to dump the alignment restrictions on bards.

Otherwise you can't have the keeper-of-lore and leader of the mining-chant dwarven bard. Which to me is stupid.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My suggestion would be to dump the alignment restrictions on bards.

Seconded. Of all the alignment restrictions in the PHB, this is the one I disagree with most.

 

[Scharlata]

[...]I'm converting someone's 3.0 module to 3.5. In the 3.0 module, there's a wererat bard. [...] In 3.5, Wererats are "Always Lawful Evil" and Bards are "Any non-Lawful."

Hi!

I've converted this module, too, and the same question came up for me.

I just decided to make the character in question an Ex-Bard, losing none of his powers. Because that character isn't about to gain a level (and you know why ) you can give him as much levels in the bard class previous to converting him into a wererat.

The module was fun anyway.

Kind regards

 

[robberbaron]

It's your game so, if you want a lawful Bard, just rule it so.
OK, ok, it's your players' game as well but I doubt the change would spoil their fun.

Actually, I find House Ruling Traditional Concepts rather liberating.
I HR'd that Paladins could be any alignment, so long as they were the same alignment as their God, and I like the result. It's taking a while for the players to get their heads around the concept, but they seem cool with it.

 

[Nazerel]

I'd ditch the alignment restriction for bards too. I say not all bards have to be wanderlusting snakeoil salesmen and pansy musicians or singers. If you think about it, bards actually make half decent Jedi-esque characters if you tweak them just right (and Jedi being fairly lawful in their training and outlook, almost like monks). I'm currently playing as a bard 10 / sublime chord 2 + hexblade 4 / occult slayer 5 / swashbuckler 3 non-psionic Jedi-esque character using gestalt rules. Lawful neutral alignment, skilled in oratory and politics, very knowledgeable about arcana, history, and lore, specializing in divination and enchantment magic (and other Jedi-like spells such as feather fall, haste, detect thoughts, calm emotions, charm monster, telekinesis, etc.), using Disguise Spell and bardic suggestion ("These aren't the droids you're looking for..." *hand wave*), wielding a sun blade (beats using a brilliant energy weapon since I dislike their mechanics), and part of a lawful organization of spellcasters trained specifically to defeat other spellcasters.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMO the non-Lawful restriction for Bards comes from the archetype of wandering minstrel. However I don't see why all bards should be like that, and not for instance court entertainers and diplomats.

I join the "ditch alignment restrictions" guild.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

IMO the non-Lawful restriction for Bards comes from the archetype of wandering minstrel. However I don't see why all bards should be like that, and not for instance court entertainers and diplomats.

Really? I've always believed that the non-Lawful restriction for Bards comes from the archetype of the artist - and that free self-expression is usually associated with Chaos. Thus, bards aren't required to be Chaotic, but they are required to not adhere to the antithesis of artistic inspiration.

Similarly, Barbarians are restricted to non-Lawful because they must understand and accept the role raw emotion plays in their ability to Rage - a tie which isn't possible when dedicated to the rule of logic.

Of course, I allow Lawful bards whenever it comes up - but then, their music is very, very different from that created by Chaotic bards.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, they may be performers but not necessarily composers, in which case they could be also very conservative about arts... more interested in maintaining a tradition and not even glad about new operas unless they follow canons quite strictly.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

more interested in maintaining a tradition and not even glad about new operas unless they follow canons quite strictly.

I took a music appreciation class once, and we discussed a particular form of sonata (I think; it's been a few years).

The professor mentioned that, at the time they were being written, there were all kinds of rules for what musical constructions were allowed, how the progression was to happen, etc. Basically, the professor said, if you really wanted to, you could write a computer program that would take a few initial inputs (starting note, preferred key signature, etc.), which would then write such a sonata.

I see Lawful bards - when composing - composing such music.

Also, the music of the ... other planar humans from Raymond Feist's Riftwar novels ... strikes me as particularly Lawful in bent.

It's also described as culturally stale.