More Bards!!!

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Pieter brings up a good point, but more importantly alot of the very
> functions of Warrior and Priest regents require the authority that comes
> from their person. The Priest performs cerimonies, agitates, motivates his
> flock by getting before them and speaking about matters divine and
> doctrinal. I would also put Bards in this catagory, but the books state
> that bard regents are quite rare.

This is an interesting point. Why aren't there more bard regents? I mean, they
motivate people very well. In fact, their motivational skills "the bard can
heroically inspire his companions (immortalizing them in word and song) granting
a +1 bonus to attack rolls, or a +1 bonus to saving throws, or a +2 bonus to
moral (particularly useful in large battles)" are apparently better than those
of a paladin since they have some demonstrable benefit.... This inspiration
only lasts a few rounds, but a bard can do it just about as many times as he
likes.

Aside from any battle abilities, a bard should be at least as good if not better
at diplomacy and such things as a priest, as is noted by the character class
description with their ability to influence reactions. They get limited spells
in BR, but if I were to take a cue from the Time and Magic thread, imagine the
power of dozens of Charm Person/Charm Monster spells, and the Divination spells
available to them could easily perform the Espionage activities of a thief
regent.

The Rulebook explanation of why bards don't have holdings runs pretty thin to
me. They have bardic colleges (which are pretty much ignored in the published
materials except for in the paragraph noted their existence in the Rulebook p14)
but can't run guilds? That's a little tough for me to accept. Also the
political role of bards in Anuire has been pretty much overlooked. In Rjurik
lands, of course, it is fleshed out quite a bit, but in Anuire bards don't have
the same role, so I don't understand the comment in the description that says
bardic colleges will not accept people destined to rule lands or holdings as
that would violate their "neutrality." What neutrality do they need to
maintain? Oh, you could say they need to remain neutral as observers of events,
but I really don't think that holds up. What's the point of observing if not to
interpret and comment?

Gary

[Kenneth Gauck]

On Thursday, October 29, 1998 6:24 PM, Gary V. Foss
wrote:


>This is an interesting point. Why aren't there more bard regents? I mean,
they
>motivate people very well. [...]
>
>The Rulebook explanation of why bards don't have holdings runs pretty thin
to
>me. They have bardic colleges but can't run guilds? That's a little tough
for me
>to accept. Also the political role of bards in Anuire has been pretty much
>overlooked. In Rjurik lands, of course, it is fleshed out quite a bit, but
in Anuire
>bards don't have the same role.

1) the Complete Bard's Handbook says on p. 101, "To play a bard you must
think like a bard. He is a dreamer, a romantic, a part-time philosopher. A
Bard wants to be master of all skills and be everything. The constraints of
mortality keep a bard moving from one profession and activity to the next.
He fears that if he spends too much time in one place or doing on thing, he
will miss out on something else." It goes on.
None of this discription sounds like a good regent. Indeed the very
tendencies that make the bard what he is make him a poor regent. While it
is possible to imagine a bard who would prefer administering the same lands
and holdings and dealing with the same kinds of problems for a good part of
his life (its quite a comitment) while still having the range of interests
and developing various skills, I have to say, its not going to be common.

>They have bardic colleges but can't run guilds? That's a little tough for
me
>to accept.
2) Even known people who never left school? Who are more interesting in
learning than doing? A bardic college is probably a very cool place for
people who want to hear and offer tales, songs, and learn new things.
Although I imagine the faculty spend as much time away from the college
getting new experiences and following up on things, as they do there.
Guilds are like any business from the neighborhood Hallmark to General
Motors, its a full time job in which there is very little variety. Regents
are specialists, bards are jacks-of-all-trades.

>I don't understand the comment in the description that says bardic colleges
will
>not accept people destined to rule lands or holdings as that would violate
their
>"neutrality." What neutrality do they need to maintain? Oh, you could say
they
>need to remain neutral as observers of events, but I really don't think
that holds up.
>What's the point of observing if not to interpret and comment?

3) Bardic neutrality: To see what they mean, I would suggest taking up a
study of the French Revolution. Even two hundred years later the sides are
clearly drawn between Jacobins (those who defend the Terror), Girondins
(those who defend the revolution but reject the Terror), and conservatives
(who reject the revolution altogether). All the authors are ideologically
motivated. The very methods which have advanced learning, the critical
tools which are so useful are subordinated to the ideological axe the author
has to grind. Learning requires a critical detachment, not ideological
engagement. A regent is going to be commited to his realm. Every decison
he arrives at will be one that commits him to a historical or political
interpretation. He will lose his ability to be even-handed. Again the very
qualities of being a regent are incompatable with being a bard.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> 1) the Complete Bard's Handbook says on p. 101, "To play a bard you must
> think like a bard. He is a dreamer, a romantic, a part-time philosopher. A
> Bard wants to be master of all skills and be everything. The constraints of
> mortality keep a bard moving from one profession and activity to the next.
> He fears that if he spends too much time in one place or doing on thing, he
> will miss out on something else." It goes on.
> None of this discription sounds like a good regent. Indeed the very
> tendencies that make the bard what he is make him a poor regent. While it
> is possible to imagine a bard who would prefer administering the same lands
> and holdings and dealing with the same kinds of problems for a good part of
> his life (its quite a comitment) while still having the range of interests
> and developing various skills, I have to say, its not going to be common.

Gary Gygax might show up at my door and smack me around for this, but I really
hate that kind of description of a character class. I think character classes
should be the most basic outline of a character's abilities and skills. That's
it. I don't want the personality and behavior of a character dictated to me. I
don't think a bard should be inflicted with wanderlust and flightiness any more
than any other character class. There could be just as many stay-at-home bards
as flat-footed ones, IMNSHO. The description you quote is OK for certain
purposes, but a serious minded, patriotic, dedicated bard should be just as
possible as one in purple pantaloons chasing tavern wenches.

> >I don't understand the comment in the description that says bardic colleges
> will
> >not accept people destined to rule lands or holdings as that would violate
> their
> >"neutrality." What neutrality do they need to maintain? Oh, you could say
> they
> >need to remain neutral as observers of events, but I really don't think that
> holds up.
> >What's the point of observing if not to interpret and comment?
>
> 3) Bardic neutrality: To see what they mean, I would suggest taking up a
> study of the French Revolution. Even two hundred years later the sides are
> clearly drawn between Jacobins (those who defend the Terror), Girondins
> (those who defend the revolution but reject the Terror), and conservatives
> (who reject the revolution altogether). All the authors are ideologically
> motivated. The very methods which have advanced learning, the critical
> tools which are so useful are subordinated to the ideological axe the author
> has to grind. Learning requires a critical detachment, not ideological
> engagement. A regent is going to be commited to his realm. Every decison
> he arrives at will be one that commits him to a historical or political
> interpretation. He will lose his ability to be even-handed. Again the very
> qualities of being a regent are incompatable with being a bard.

Actually, I have studied the French Revolution! :)

Critical detachment is the will o' wisp of academia, luring scholars through the
forest of information until they fall headlong into the pit of opinion and
languish there for the rest of their careers. (I actually graduated from
college spouting prose like that. Can you believe it?) My history professors
in college included a Marxist, a Israeli nationalist, a New Deal Democrat (who
was on the verge of retirement, thank God) at least two feminists, and a
Catholic priest. My French Revolution professor, for that matter, was a
Spiritist.

In short, I think a bard might go ahead and have a few opinions and not destroy
his ability to perform his chosen profession of singing songs and telling
tales. Telling such heroic tales might actually require locking in a couple of
political opinions. How is one going to motivate the soldiers to fight if not
by endorsing their cause in some way?

Gary

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

Ok, if you didn't like Ken's reasons...

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

> This is an interesting point. Why aren't there more bard regents? I mean, they
> motivate people very well. In fact, their motivational skills "the bard can
> heroically inspire his companions (immortalizing them in word and song) granting
> a +1 bonus to attack rolls, or a +1 bonus to saving throws, or a +2 bonus to
> moral (particularly useful in large battles)" are apparently better than those
> of a paladin since they have some demonstrable benefit.... This inspiration
> only lasts a few rounds, but a bard can do it just about as many times as he
> likes.
>
> Aside from any battle abilities, a bard should be at least as good if not better
> at diplomacy and such things as a priest, as is noted by the character class
> description with their ability to influence reactions. They get limited spells
> in BR, but if I were to take a cue from the Time and Magic thread, imagine the
> power of dozens of Charm Person/Charm Monster spells, and the Divination spells
> available to them could easily perform the Espionage activities of a thief
> regent.

No one listens when you sing your own praises. Bards work best, and in
fact perhaps at all, when they have at least the appearance of neutrality.
If they sing other people's praises, people will listen (particularly if
the tune is catchy), but as soon as you start tooting your own horn,
people either laugh at you, or ignore you.

> The Rulebook explanation of why bards don't have holdings runs pretty thin to
> me. They have bardic colleges (which are pretty much ignored in the published
> materials except for in the paragraph noted their existence in the Rulebook p14)
> but can't run guilds? That's a little tough for me to accept. Also the
> political role of bards in Anuire has been pretty much overlooked. In Rjurik
> lands, of course, it is fleshed out quite a bit, but in Anuire bards don't have
> the same role, so I don't understand the comment in the description that says
> bardic colleges will not accept people destined to rule lands or holdings as
> that would violate their "neutrality." What neutrality do they need to
> maintain? Oh, you could say they need to remain neutral as observers of events,
> but I really don't think that holds up. What's the point of observing if not to
> interpret and comment?

If you can think of a way to add bardic holdings to the game, I'm all
ears. I might suggest that the Build Monument action might be useful for
this, allowing a regent to build a Bardic College which is at least
somewhat sympathetic to his views. In fact, I believe I did some work on
this in the past. Someone suggested it, anyway, and I remember writing
some big reply with lots of ideas, but probably not in a compete enough
form that it ever got picked up by the Netbook.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Gary V. Foss]

Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:

> If you can think of a way to add bardic holdings to the game, I'm all
> ears. I might suggest that the Build Monument action might be useful for
> this, allowing a regent to build a Bardic College which is at least
> somewhat sympathetic to his views. In fact, I believe I did some work on
> this in the past. Someone suggested it, anyway, and I remember writing
> some big reply with lots of ideas, but probably not in a compete enough
> form that it ever got picked up by the Netbook.

I'd love to come up with some information on bardic colleges, but aside from that, why
shouldn't they control guilds just as well as thieves? Are logging, mining, trade and
barter really much more thief-like activities than bard ones?

Thematically, guilds are a problem. I don't really see why thieves should hold them
any better than any other character class. It would make sense if guilds were
thieve's guilds, but they are businesses, shops, trade routes, granaries, etc. Most
of the guilds in Cerilia seem to be up front, legit businesses. There are, of course,
exceptions but why is a thief gaining regency from that? How are these guilds tied to
his character class the way temples are tied to priests, sources to mages and law
holdings to fighters?

Gary

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

> I'd love to come up with some information on bardic colleges, but aside
from that, why
> shouldn't they control guilds just as well as thieves? Are logging,
mining, trade and
> barter really much more thief-like activities than bard ones?

In as much as they are associated with the pursuit of money as opposed to
the pursuit of information/stories/music and a politico-social agenda
rather than an economic one, I would say yes.

> Thematically, guilds are a problem. I don't really see why thieves
should hold them
> any better than any other character class. It would make sense if
guilds were
> thieve's guilds, but they are businesses, shops, trade routes,
granaries, etc. Most
> of the guilds in Cerilia seem to be up front, legit businesses. There
are, of course,
> exceptions but why is a thief gaining regency from that? How are these
guilds tied to
> his character class the way temples are tied to priests, sources to
mages and law
> holdings to fighters?

1.) Because the rules say they are.
2.) Because the rules have always worked just fine for me. And,
3.) Because nowhere in your polemic or your venomous diatribe have you
convinced me that things should be otherwise.

There is a WORLD of difference between saying "I think this is a weakness,
and if you do too then here's a few corrections you can make if you choose
to," and "This is wrong. This must be changed."

Further, in my games, thieves do not typically hold guilds, Guilders do.
Guilders are a rogue Class unique to Cerilia, and ARE specialized in the
large-scale operation of business interests.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 10-30-1998 4:45:54 AM Central Standard Time,
GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

> Thematically, guilds are a problem. I don't really see why thieves should
> hold them
> any better than any other character class. It would make sense if guilds
> were
> thieve's guilds, but they are businesses, shops, trade routes, granaries,
> etc. Most
> of the guilds in Cerilia seem to be up front, legit businesses. There are,
> of course,
> exceptions but why is a thief gaining regency from that? How are these
> guilds tied to
> his character class the way temples are tied to priests, sources to mages
> and law
> holdings to fighters?
>
> Gary
>
(I'm not trying to be snide, here ;) But Thieves, as a class, just like to
get lots of money. They gain experience from it. It makes them feel good.
Guilds produce a LOT of money. Therefore, Thieves should get the most out of
running them. This is, of course, a big generalization, but I think it
illustrates my point well enough.

- -DKE

[Kai Beste]

> Further, in my games, thieves do not typically hold guilds, Guilders do.
> Guilders are a rogue Class unique to Cerilia, and ARE specialized in the
> large-scale operation of business interests.

That's an interesting point Mark brought up. What exactly is the
difference in mentality between guilders and thieves? I suppose
guilders tend to legal operations and trade and are the wealthy,
influential upper middle class (German Hanse, venice merchants,
Marco Polo...), and are normally prepared to cooperate and form
agreements.
On the other hand thieves do more smuggling and black market
business, maybe even protection rackets (though that idea might be
too modern). They are more shadowy figures, stick to the underworld,
and generally are a thorn in the side of any regent. They might tend
to use browbeating before diplomacy. But then, maybe not.
I don't think all guilds have to be held by guilders. Some of them
might be operated by thieves (hmm... Orthien Tane maybe?). They just
operate in other areas and use other tactics. A fighter regent could
end up protecting a guilder from incursions from a thief. This idea
could go a long way to fleshig out the different guilds. At the
moment I have about 5 or 6 different guilds operating in my PC's
realms, and I'm still looking for a way to make them distinct and
recognisable so that the players remember them (wasn't El Hadid the
guy who... :-).

comments anybody?

Kai