| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TheRedBard |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 01:39:37
Dear Kindly sages of the realms,
Ive been curious...while the realms has a few famous bards of the realms aka the foppish Danilo, or the lovely Storm...I cannot help but note neither has acted much as a bard. So I ask you, who could be considered the most successful bards in the realms regarding composing songs and stories. Seeking fame and fortune as our newly imposed non lawful status demands. As I am a young and neophite (sp?) bard...who is the best to emulate? Thanks in advance for all responses, they shall be kindly appreciated!!! |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| scererar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 17:02:20
none taken chosen of bane, and I to apologize, if it seemed that I came back a little strong. |
| Chosen of Bane |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 16:46:57
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
[quote]
Not sure if chosen of Bane was replying to my previous post, if yes, My key words were "in my opinion" and how "I" usually run a bard. I can see your example as showing why Bards should not be "required" to run non-lawful.
Sorry if I implied this. I was gearing my sarcasm towards a rule which I think is foolish, no offense was intended towards any fellow scribes. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 16:20:01
1st Edition
"They must always remain neutral, but can be chaotic, evil, good or lawful nuetral if they wish."
The bard never became a Druid, just took lessons from thrm. The thief could be good or lawful nuetral though were rare. *Grin* |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 13:32:05
Well, like I say, it could just be a holdover... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 06:33:20
Thanks for the info, but what is with the rule saying that bards can be chaotic and/or neutral? I can see why a lot of bards would be considered free-spirited wanderers, but I don't see why they would all have to be. Then again that's just me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 04:51:45
In 2E, bards had to be some flavor of neutral. This was explained by saying bards needed to be somewhat detached.
I think this was a holdover from 1E rules. Under 1E, to become a bard, first you had to start off as a fighter. Between 5th and 8th level, you had to switch to thief. Again between 5th and 8th (I think, it may have been 6th and 9th), you had to switch to druid. And that was when you became a bard. Since druids had to be neutral, a bard would have to be. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 04:10:16
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
And by the way, I dislike the "must be non-lawful" rule, myself. Where the hell did it come from, anyway?
Well 2nd threw bard under Rogues but did not appear to include alignment restriction.
So 3.X is where non-lawful appears as a rule.
*laughs*
Yeah, but what I really mean is what is the purpose of such a rule? Not what edition did it start in. |
| scererar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 03:42:40
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Bane
So, a Bard that performs in a court as a King's entertainer or a Bard who uses his lore/knowledge to be a King's advisor cannot be lawful....That makes a ton of sense 
Not sure if chosen of Bane was replying to my previous post, if yes, My key words were "in my opinion" and how "I" usually run a bard. I can see your example as showing why Bards should not be "required" to run non-lawful. |
| Chosen of Bane |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 03:26:08
So, a Bard that performs in a court as a King's entertainer or a Bard who uses his lore/knowledge to be a King's advisor cannot be lawful....That makes a ton of sense |
| scererar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 02:41:21
I can see the non-lawful aspect for Bards. Should it be in place for all bards as a requirement, I don't think so. In my opinion, and how I run a Bards alignment is usually NG, and sometimes CG. I think a bard is someone who has a lot of wanderlust, traveling around the realms in seek of lore, and due to circumstances in life not entirely for "law" in a local society.
anyways, my 2 cents worth |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 02:32:18
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
And by the way, I dislike the "must be non-lawful" rule, myself. Where the hell did it come from, anyway?
Well 2nd threw bard under Rogues but did not appear to include alignment restriction.
So 3.X is where non-lawful appears as a rule. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 02:22:51
Storm Silverhand does indeed sing and entertain people, as least according to Ed Greenwood's works. That's good enough for me. *shrug* I think the answer to this question would depend on one's definition of "bard".
And by the way, I dislike the "must be non-lawful" rule, myself. Where the hell did it come from, anyway? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 01:54:39
Err, I thought you were asking about a definition of a Bard. SKR appears to define a bard based on Celtic origin others consider Shakespeare a bard. These two views conflict and more so with what D&D and FR has done to the Bard.
A Celtic bard was a keeper of lore and law, an assistant to Druids (which were priests and perhaps prestesses in Ireland) to the Celtic people.
Shakespeare was a a writter of old myths (or lore) told in a new way, he was also a musician and clearly not a keeper of law.
D&D bards are a mix of these two things, with added features of being a thief and incapible of adhereing to any legal ethic.
I can not advise you to emulate any D&D bard and be true to what they were and are. |
| scererar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 01:45:28
how about Olive Russkettle and Finder Wyvernspur in the finders stone trilogy. Also I am trying to remember several popular Bards featured for brief periods in EC's novels. |
