WHY BARDS (and maybe barbarians) UNABLE TO BE LAWFUL IS JUST SO SILLY

[Kaizen]

Bards unable to be of lawful alignment is one of the silliest things ever designed.

And without adding any justification or arguement to that statement other than the statement itself, I'll just go ahead and leave it at that.

Dammit, Kaizen. If you're going to needlessly spark conflict over issues that really have no singularly correct answer, you should start it in another thread.

Because I love GD so GD much.

By the rules, moral relativity does not exist in normal D&D. You don't get to argue that doing something bad is good if it serves a good purpose in the end. The D&D cosmos does not care about "needs of the many" or "ends justify the means": there exists a universal standard of morality and everyone is stuck within it. There are entire planes based on these concepts. They are the moral laws of the universe given physical form.

Summoning a balor with Gate or whatever is always evil, no matter what. In D&D, you get automatic Evil points just for doing it. Some devil in the Nine Hells gets a shudder up his spine every time a mortal on the Prime Material does it. It makes no difference whether you order the balor to burn down the orphanage or save the children in the orphanage, you're getting Evil points nonetheless. You don't even get Good points for ordering it to do good, because it's the balor that is ultimately doing it--nor does the balor receive Good points, because it is under a compulsion and not in control of its own actions (yet). The wizard may get a warm fuzzy in his stomach for making a balor save children, and all the townsfolk may praise him for it, but the universe doesn't care and considers him a bigger douche (you douche) for having done it.

As much as he might think he's served a "Greater Good" on Faerun or whatever for using demons to save children, the balance of power between the Good and Evil planes has shifted as a result, and the D&D cosmos considers that "greater" than anything that happens on the Prime Material.

Editor's Note: The above is also my arguement in regards to paladins and being lawful good.

And yet there are classes and powers that are either not magical at all or at least not granted by any entity that are still restricted on the basis of moralities that cannot and should not apply to them. Barbarians and Bards, for instance, cannot be Lawful--but who is imposing this rule on them? Barbarians are completely natural and have nothing to do with magic, and Bards gain their magic, at least, much in the same way that Sorcerers do--and there is no alignment restriction on Sorcerers. Neither class' powers stop working if their alignment changes afterwards, so if they become Lawful they may still get angry and Rage or sing and Inspire people as normal. They just can't have this alignment when they take the class.

Restrictions on Bards make even less sense, because at least with Barbarians you can make the (however thin) argument that society dictates law and society says being angry is chaotic. Unless Bardic magic and song is granted by some entity that really hates lawful actions, there's nothing else about them that differs from other classes who can also be lawful. You can say that Bards do a lot of Rogue-y things, but so do Rogues (and then some), and Rogues can be any alignment they wish, and do whatever the hell they want.

Add to this that Sundren has very structured Bardic backgrounds in it’s lore– The Legion (The Law and Order arm of Sundren) have a special name for them, and even sell Bard Only gear – so, you can't even make the "it's what society dictates" argument as with Barbarians. Society is dictating that there's a high degree of rigidity here. As much as jazz is about chaos, freedom, and improv, there are still schools of jazz, right?

tl;dr - Remind us again who says a bard and/or a barabarian can't be lawful?

[[DM] Grinning Death]

Gold freaking star

[Doubtful]

Consider yourself awarded another gold star.

Silly restrictions.

[Catastrophe]

[FoogooFish]

Since we're all posting ridiculous images to show our approval...



THUMBS UP!

[JotunWarrior]

Lawful/chaotic doesn't really make sense to me. Even barbarian tribes have leaders and certain codes and traditions they follow. Is chaotic/lawfulness determined by region? Is it a set standard?

[Dragor]

Just trash the entire alignment system altogether

[roguethree]

Lawfulness is an adherence to a code and a respect for legitimate authority.

E.g., a barbarian follows a code that says he must duel anyone who challenges his manhood. A friend accidentally does something that challenges said manhood. The lawful barbarian honors his code and duels his friend.

Chaotic is doing what you want.

E.g., same scenario. The chaotic barbarian says eff the code, you're my friend. No duel.

[Nyssis]

I'm of the opinion that alignment is integral to keeping the class and should stay that way. Barbarians are warriors that are completely willing to lose themselves in battle, possibly to the extent of accidentally harming their allies (ie. Rage Mage prestige). When you become lawful as a barbarian for whatever reason, the character realizes rage is more of a hindrance than a boost.

Said example might take steps to guarantee he'd never rage or frenzy or spell rage again, becoming wholly lawful and devoting himself to tempering his outbursts with discipline. Cue becoming an ex-barbarian.

Uthgardt barbarian tribes are the best example of stereotypical barbarians on Abeir-Toril, in my opinion. They can be chaotic and rageflip caravans, but if they find out their best friend is a mage in secret? The mage is dead because they're rhabdophobic like most Netherese descendents; no exceptions even for someone that's a friend. One lawful action that adheres to their principles doesn't negate their chaotic alignment entirely.

Bards are tricky because there are war chanters and battle bards. The fact that they devote their lives to working alongside people as a front lines inspiration would foster a lot of accountability in said bard, but would this instantly shift their alignment to lawful? I doubt it. A bard in a military setting would be a boon on the battlefield, but a whimsical layabout off it. A bard that goes from place to place helping whoever needs it would be unreliable.

[Satoshi]

I just wanted to add something about (my opinion) on bards and the non-lawful alignment. From everything I can gather, the 3.0/3.5 Edition has strayed from it's druidic class roots, and follows a 'wandering minstrel' concept. Their 'power' comes from their music, and their music is a soulful thing that comes from a life of whimsy, wanderlust, adventure, and shining moments of random inspiration.

Shifting one's lifestyle away from those attributes would (in theory) reduce the bard's creative output, and perhaps diminish their free-flying spirit that allowed them to create such works of art. They don't lose any 'songs' they already created, but they have lost motivation and inspiration to create something new and original. They lose that 'spark' in the drudgery of the status quo.

That's just my take on it.

[Kaybrie]

A character can be a leader or join the army without being lawful. Just as a character can viciously oppose evil without being good.

[Mournas]

I just wanted to add something about (my opinion) on bards and the non-lawful alignment. From everything I can gather, the 3.0/3.5 Edition has strayed from it's druidic class roots, and follows a 'wandering minstrel' concept. Their 'power' comes from their music, and their music is a soulful thing that comes from a life of whimsy, wanderlust, adventure, and shining moments of random inspiration.

Shifting one's lifestyle away from those attributes would (in theory) reduce the bard's creative output, and perhaps diminish their free-flying spirit that allowed them to create such works of art. They don't lose any 'songs' they already created, but they have lost motivation and inspiration to create something new and original. They lose that 'spark' in the drudgery of the status quo.

That's just my take on it.

That is exactly the reason why you don't have lawful bards.

Though according to the experts here Lawful Good Paladins can always murder anyone who is evil, just because they are evil. Or break their human Laws and codes. So no one really cares about the rules unless its a cleric who doesn't waste points on a skill because they do not get it via their domains like they should.

I think I will stick to the rule books, and not wrong opinions.

[Thief Of Navarre]

I just wanted to add something about (my opinion) on bards and the non-lawful alignment. From everything I can gather, the 3.0/3.5 Edition has strayed from it's druidic class roots, and follows a 'wandering minstrel' concept. Their 'power' comes from their music, and their music is a soulful thing that comes from a life of whimsy, wanderlust, adventure, and shining moments of random inspiration.

Shifting one's lifestyle away from those attributes would (in theory) reduce the bard's creative output, and perhaps diminish their free-flying spirit that allowed them to create such works of art. They don't lose any 'songs' they already created, but they have lost motivation and inspiration to create something new and original. They lose that 'spark' in the drudgery of the status quo.

That's just my take on it.

I saw OP's thread. Was about to post this and made the good judgement of reading ahead. This ^

A bard is a wanderer so some lands may have different laws and of course he cant adhere to them all and still keep his creative spirit. Just like rauckus dwarven racist bigots tend to be lawful.

[Catastrophe]

That is exactly the reason why you don't have lawful bards.

Though according to the experts here Lawful Good Paladins can always murder anyone who is evil, just because they are evil. Or break their human Laws and codes. So no one really cares about the rules unless its a cleric who doesn't waste points on a skill because they do not get it via their domains like they should.

I think I will stick to the rule books, and not wrong opinions.

Yeah, who knows, we may get some people who are clerics of a nature deity but specialize in necromancy and also go around using undead.

Let's not throw around veiled insults towards people here. Keep the undertone under control.

[Satoshi]

Though according to the experts here Lawful Good Paladins can always murder anyone who is evil, just because they are evil. Or break their human Laws and codes.

I addressed my thoughts on this in the 'Think Twice' thread, but I'll give a short re-iteration. A Paladin will actively work against people they detect with evil auras whenever it is viable, but without witnessing their crimes or having evidence to issue judgement in proportion to the crime they can only act within the Code. Church Dogma and the cosmic 'Law' and 'Good' are set before human laws and doctrines for a Paladin, and they will actively work against laws that conflict with their alignment (as long as it does not detract from a more important crusade).