Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Why can't bards be lawful
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8767223" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>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).</p><p></p><p>(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)...</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>TLDR: Traditions and nostalgia...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 8767223, member: 4348"] 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Why can't bards be lawful
Top