D&D 3.x Why can't bards be lawful

[Bootlebat]

This never made sense to me. Bards like music, and music is defined as "orderly/organized (i.e lawful) sound," unlike noise which is disorderly sound.

 

[billd91]

It’s in the text about alignment for the bard. They conceived of the class in that one way and didn’t really consider anything else like a monarch’s official lore master or any other concept other than roguish, wandering entertainer.

 

[GreyLord]

In 1e the Bard followed the path of being a Fighter/Thief at first. One of the stipulations of that time were that Thieves could NOT be Good. Afterall, the thought was that thieves main focus was...thieving. Taking things unlawfully from others was not seen as good (ironically though, I think you could be lawful neutral...which would be...interesting).

(In theory though, it would have made a LOT MORE sense for them to not to be able to be LAWFUL...which is what some thought at the time...which...kind of could be reflected below)...

Then, after you got to a certain level, you dual-classed or had a special rule for multiclass characters to become a Druid. Druids also were supposed to be neutral...aka...not good (OR evil).

This would imply that Bards were more of a neutral type character (though you didn't specifically have to go that route, depended on DM interpretation).

In 2e Bards were changed to a full class that were independent on their own, but were a subclass of Rogues. Rogues included Thieves and other such things, and of course, as I explained above...in 1e Thieves could not be good (though, I think in 2e that changed and they COULD have a good alignment).

3e had many things that were tossed in because of tradition. They were trying to appeal to older gamers, especially those from 1e who stopped playing when 2e came out, or who had drifted away with all the 2e Complete ideas as well as the 2.5 ideas. (of course, they also wanted to keep those players from the 2.5 era as well, so they also had items that reflected those, but it was more of a cross sectional thought).

So...the long round about thing I'm getting to, is if you have rules that reflect something like an alignment requirement, in many cases it was simply due to "tradition" of the idea.

It's why you also had certain rules on Paladins, Monks, and other classes in relation to who could be one and multiclassing as well as alignments and such.

It was also what led to the idea of favored class, or for more strict DM's, the optional rules inferred in the DMG of actually restricting class to certain races ala 1e and 2e.


TLDR: Traditions and nostalgia...

 

[Tonguez]

You got to free the music man, let it flow through your soul, creative chaos is what brings the true magic…

 

[Alzrius]

In 1e the Bard followed the path of being a Fighter/Thief at first. One of the stipulations of that time were that Thieves could NOT be Good. Afterall, the thought was that thieves main focus was...thieving. Taking things unlawfully from others was not seen as good (ironically though, I think you could be lawful neutral...which would be...interesting).

That's not quite how it was.

https://i.*****.com/TGqok6T.jpeg

Then, after you got to a certain level, you dual-classed or had a special rule for multiclass characters to become a Druid. Druids also were supposed to be neutral...aka...not good (OR evil).

Again, bards in AD&D 1E had a bit more freedom than this when it came to their alignment; check out the last sentence in this section:

https://i.*****.com/auSs4UF.jpeg

 

[Maxperson]

It’s in the text about alignment for the bard. They conceived of the class in that one way and didn’t really consider anything else like a monarch’s official lore master or any other concept other than roguish, wandering entertainer.

That's true to a degree. They did conceive of the bard as a wandering minstrel, rather than an orderly class. In 3.5, though, Loremaster was a prestige class that not just bards could qualify for, but also sorcerers, wizards, clerics and even druids. It wasn't a bard specific thing, so "monarch's official lore master" could be lawful, but not if he was a bard or druid(though I don't know why a druid would go that route).

There wasn't reason for WotC to consider lore masters as an orderly kind of bard. They were also historically(in D&D) a kind of rogue, so that roguishness stuck with them.

 

[payn]

You can ask this about most classes like Monks being only lawful or druids only neutral. Alignment had much more mechanical heft back in 3E and I think this was an attempt to spread the chances around of various different alignments being in any given party.

 

[MoonSong]

Part of this stems from 3.x having alignment serving double duty in the law-chaos axis. In my mind I separate it in social and personal alignment. In an ideal world these would be separate, but the system conflates them.

Social alignment.- How much you care about tradition, law and society, as opposed to personal whims and desires.
Personal alignment.- How much ordered/orderly your life is as opposed to spontaneous and creative.

Bards as minstrels could certainly follow and care about the law, but since they are required to be spontaneous and creative, they couldn't get fully lawful without stagnating.