Bards and Art

[kgauck]

Sad nobody ever got a better ranger and bard done. They both"mean" the right additio to a party, but lack enough, to make them first choice ever.

Until one plays wilderness with barbarian, ranger and druid restriction or a city adventure with talk, seduction and lots of art (NOT just music). I never did. :eek:

There is an Artist class in Green Ronin's Medieval Players' Handbook that I think becomes a great little adventuring class with some bard levels. Just as the bard can create immediate effects with songs, the artist can create lasting effects with art. So imagine the castle of your PC ruler. As you enter the courtyard a great statue of a famous ancestor strikes you with a sense of awe and respect. Truly this is a great line of heroes.

In the great hall where the courtiers await the presence of the ruler, there is a great tapestry that explains why this dynasty is the rightful occupant of the iron throne. Its explained clearly in the images and those who see it understand and can explain the claim of this dynasty.

In the throne room itself, the throne is crafted with just majesty and beauty that its hard not to be overwhelmed with a sense of submission and obedience.

Its only natural that a regent would use art to surround himself in his home places with effects that improve his safety, majesty, and reputation. They may be priced just like magic items of equivalent effect, but are works of art in their own right and are natural in the home and castle of the ruler.

Using the artist rules, songs and poems could be created that had a specific effect so that bards, who are mechanically only excellent performers, could sing at court or recite a poem, tale, story, &c that inspires, awe, devotion, loyalty, obedience, or whatever emotion that the patron intends. After a person has come past statues, tapestries, paintings, stained glass images, and what have you, most people cannot speak their mind and address the ruler as they please. Instead, for the rest of the day they feel humbled by the greatness of the ruler and perhaps even feel they have shifted one step closer to being their friend. This effect lasts, depending on the art while in the presence of the art, or for some short period after viewing the art, so that this effect really only lasts while you are around the ruler.

The ambassador for Avanil comes to your ruler's court to threaten and intimidate the ruler, but when confronted by the glory of the achievements of the ruler and their ancestors, he cannot bring himself to do anything of the kind and rather obsequiously explains that his master is unjustifiably angry. The ambassador knows as he leaves that he did not perform his duty, but was awed by the spectacle and majesty of the court. Even the Prince probably knows of the art and its effect (since art is famous) and resolves to send a diplomat with a higher will save next time.

[Thelandrin]

That's a cool idea. I just imagine the Prince or the Archduke holding court in a throneroom stuffed with mind-influencing artwork. It's probably akin to when you buy something from an art gallery, only to get it back and find that you're really not that fond of it after all!

[ploesch]

I like it. I imagine a Mage could do the same thing with the current rules, but having a class that just kind of innately makes them is a neat idea.

[Pauper]

Is it the first time you answer or respond to me, or just the first time I perceive it? :)

I emailed Arjan about my problem to get in contact.

So it's only because I can't afford to buy all D&D stuff, that is great. The 3.5 system still offered no ranger or bard who could hold his own compared to rogue, monk or even barbarian. GESTALT bard-monk was bearable, or bard-barbarian. For newbies, Gestalt meant they get the better from both classes and feats from both, too.

I recently read the adventure "The standing stone", does anybody remember that one? I guess something like that "re-adapted" for Birthright could make some good "elven borders" kind of adventure.

As I am rarely online: My basic concept of Birthright core classes in a group of four players would be:

Noble, rogue, magician and cleric or paladin. Needless to say I am not talking hack&slash? :eek:

[ThatSeanGuy]

I like this. You could write a play to influence how the court percieves a historical event, make a work of sculpture that makes visiting dignitaries believe a realm is cultured, pen a song that becomes a popular morale booster with the troops...basicly, letting bards use art to buff or debuff domain actions.

[Sorontar]

My 2ed Druid is not a bard but does have Singing as a NWP. So far I have used it to write a song that promotes the hero (or villain) status of one of the other PCs (who actually wanted to stay behind the scenes) and have also written another song about a PC that is a morale booster. The second one has not yet been revealed to the party but plans were to use it at a major feast.

Therefore songs etc should be able to further or decrease the standing of an individual during one court session. The effect could only boost/hamper any actions within that turn or season. With more effort, the song can be spread throughout the land until it is known in every court, tavern and market in a province. If so, this could have a permanent effect on a PC or NPC's regency.

Major sculptures, paintings or tapestries of the actions of a person could work similarly within a court but I am having trouble imagining how they could have widespread, permanent effect like songs. I suspect mass production of printed versions or minatures would be the only way. I can just see an NPC regent spreading pamphlets showing a picture of a PC regent in a crude/rude position relating to the politics of the day. A good political artist will know what sort of pictures would get the desired effect.

Sorontar.

[kgauck]

My approach is that Bards have temporary influence (since their powers are written that way) and artists have permanent influence, since their art can last much longer than a lifetime. So for Sorontar's druid, the song itself is crafted after a successful Inspiration check, and the crafting takes a long time as the song is improved and refined (perhaps with pen and paper, perhaps in front of various audiences).

The bardic part is the performance.


Major sculptures, paintings or tapestries of the actions of a person could work similarly within a court but I am having trouble imagining how they could have widespread, permanent effect like songs.
Put them in public places. Put a sculpture like this one on a busy street (on a public building, like a court or administration building, or an urban castle) and quite a lot of people will see it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Gattamelata.jpg

However, other than a few art works that inspire loyalty and obedience among the populace, I think a ruler would want most of his art where he holds court, so as to influence courtiers, plotters, diplomats, and other visitors to the court. A ruler's art could protect him because after having gazed in awe at his portrait, he could not bring himself to attack the ruler. Or give the ruler benefits to diplomacy, intimidation, or other key interaction skills, slide the attitude of people in court one step more favorable, and so on.

Check out my revised Artist class Here (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:KGauck/Artist) and check out the kinds of things an art work might do to viewers in a court setting. If you wanted to influence the public you could, by putting works of art in public squares in your important towns.

Nobles patronized all of this art to create an impression on people. The artist class just mechanizes that for a fantastic game setting.

[ThatSeanGuy]

I like the idea, but it sounds like a better prestege class than a core class. Just, "I make art." doesn't feel like a career an adventurer should be following. Plus, it forces the Bard into the 'preform/sing' mold, which a bard doesn't nessicarily have to focus on exclusivly.

[kgauck]

I like the idea, but it sounds like a better prestege class than a core class. Just, "I make art." doesn't feel like a career an adventurer should be following.
I don't like adventuring classes. I prefer classes that have some function at court. Adventuring is something that people with too much free time and a lust for blood do when they get bored, its not a profession.


Plus, it forces the Bard into the 'preform/sing' mold, which a bard doesn't nessicarily have to focus on exclusivly.
I was contrasting how bards and artists abilities work. Nothing says that a bard has to perform and sing. Had I been discussing the Scholar class (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php?title=Scholar) then the bard would have been contrasted as a learned person of wide thin knowledge as opposed to a scholar who is deeper and narrower. Nothing says a bard has to be learned. He can have lots of physical or interaction skills instead.

If I compare a fighter and a ranger as archers, nothing says that either of them must be archers.

[ploesch]

I was thinking that the works being discussed were more of a magical nature than Mundane. Just as a Bards art, when being used to influence, is more magical in nature.

If we are considering Mundane works, meant as non-magical not unimpressive, then the effects should be temporary. Perhaps a season, in the province where such a work is displayed. After a while people would becomeacquaintes with it's presense and it would lose it's effect. Although an appropriately great peice of art publicly displayed could have a permanent effect on revenues since visitors would come to see it.

[kgauck]

After a while people would become acquaintes with it's presense and it would lose it's effect.
Why do you suppose this? The influence of historical art is far more potent than this. Before modern media, art patronage is the way rulers put forth their public image. While you can find several paintings of nobles, churchmen, merchants, thinkers, and artists, you certainly don't find enough suggesting that they lose their effect. Instead you find several works because the ruler wants a new effect (rulers often adopted very warlike images during war, only to shift to very peaceable images afterward) or because the ruler wants an image that resembles them.

Over very long periods of time you can see art removed, buildings remodeled, and changes being made. This is the useful life of art. But useful doesn't mean that its not working any more. Early in the life of Henry VIII, he might have art emphasizing his Catholic piety, his Spanish marriage, his youthful vigor, as well as other things he wants to project. At some point, Catherine is divorced, Henry has broken with Rome, and he's not young and fit, but the more familiar middle aged and fat. His early art is not so useful. It may still project Henry as a Catholic monarch with a Spanish bride and a friend of that agenda, taking part in that program. But if Henry doesn't want to appear that way, he must remove that art and replace it with art that identifies him as the single sovereign answerable only to God, Protestant, and unencumbered by any wife in particular. And this only considers a small part of Henry's policies and possible images.

Consider that some art is always kept around to associate the current dynast with former dynasts. Richard II surrounded himself with images of Edward the Confessor. Henry VIII liked to use images of Henry V. If Henry VIII is standing in front of a portrait of Henry V who is going to argue against policies reminiscent of Henry V's policies? Rulers already wield such power that people change their opinions to please the ruler, if the ruler begins to augment their power by using beautiful, magnificent objects of art to reinforce their policy choices, does it not follow that it becomes easier for the ruler to intimidate or persuade, and that it becomes harder to defy the ruler.

Since such effects are either skill checks or Will saves, its still possible for higher level characters, especially those with good will saves, like nobles and clerics, to keep their wits about them and make their points, but low level characters and those with poor Will saves will be humbled before greatness.


Although an appropriately great peice of art publicly displayed could have a permanent effect on revenues since visitors would come to see it.
Art tourism didn't begin until the late eighteenth century. A better analogy is the medieval pilgrimage, but the medieval pilgrim wasn't out to see art, but to see relics. The relics might be glorified by art, but in this role, the art is magnifying the relic, not an attraction in itself.

The comodification of art is really a nineteenth century thing.

[ploesch]

In a way I think you made my point for me.

Leaders change the art because they are looking for a new effect, or some effect. In your example of Henry VIII posing with a portrait of Henry V behind him. How many times do you think that would work before his councillors would sigh and wonder why the leader thinks that still works. They may still agree with the policies proposed because they are good policies, or from fear, but the art would no longer have an effect.

As you mentioned, the art is changed from time to time depending on the situation. So it follows that even you feel that the art loses it's effect after a time.

Do you reallly believe that perisians pass by the "arc de triumphe" and get bleery eyed on a day to day basis? No, we are adaptablecreatures and after a while it's just another peice of landscape. Something you may take pride in when talking with foreigners that aren't being overwhelmed enough for your tastes, but nothing you really even take notice of in your day to day life.

Maybe my Will save is just too high, :) but I just don't see how putting a statue in town square could have a permanent effect on morale of an entire province or town.

[kgauck]

How many times do you think that would work before his councillors would sigh and wonder why the leader thinks that still works.
I don't need to think about it. That's like thinking about how many teeth a horse needs and deciding that's how many he must have. Instead, I can study the use of art by patrons to control their image.


As you mentioned, the art is changed from time to time depending on the situation. So it follows that even you feel that the art loses it's effect after a time.
You might get that impression if you ignore what I wrote.


Do you reallly believe that perisians pass by the "arc de triumphe" and get bleery eyed on a day to day basis?
I believe people are still impressed by the legacy of Napoleon, and I think that his monuments help sustain his legacy. So while I think the term "bleary eyed" is a bit snarky, I agree with the statement.


Maybe my Will save is just too high, :) but I just don't see how putting a statue in town square could have a permanent effect on morale of an entire province or town.
No one said the effect was permanent, I did say the art is permanent. Depending on the effect you may just have to behold it, or you have to contemplate it. Some effects are passive and some are active, but in any event you have to see it, just as with bards you have to hear the song to be effected. The benefit may be permanent, but the effect is not.

[ploesch]

I don't want to be adversarial, but I think we are talking past eachother a bit.

I do understand that Art, when properly used can have an effect on the situation. What I am saying is that if you have the same peice(s) displayed all the time people will eventually get used to it.

For sake of argument, let's just say that when properly used art will have the intended effect every time. What I am saying is that realistically if you used the art in the same way every time those regularly exposed to it would become immune to the effect.

That's something that wouldn't be easy to define in game terms.

I hope that clears up what I've been trying to say.

[kgauck]

What I am saying is that if you have the same peice(s) displayed all the time people will eventually get used to it.
There is an old saying in agriculture: "The master's footsteps are the best fertilizer." The idea being that if the workers see the master is around, they do all their work and the harvest is good. If the master is no where to be seen, the workers slack off.

The purpose of the art is to remind the workers (or courtiers, subjects, diplomats, viewers) of the master. In the absence of an actual ruler, I agree the that art cannot keep people in thrall. But if the ruler is present (art acts, for the most part, as a modifier on the ruler's skills, so the ruler must be present to use his skills) art will always work because the work only says something about the ruler. Art simply augments what is already there in the ruler, it doesn't act in place of the ruler.

Court life is full of constant reminders of the pecking order. The ruler enters, everyone stands, when the ruler sits, others may sit, clothes (sumptuary pracitice) identify rank and precedence, who gets to address whom, and who must wait to be addressed, you can use a persons name, and who must use their title or office, all of these things are constant reminders of who is in charge. Art does that as well, but can also carry content about what the ruler stands for as well.

Rulers surround themselves with symbols for a reason. I don't think that people continue to love the ruler, but get tired of his crown. "Why does the duke still wear the crown? We all know he's the duke." The crown, an object of art, is a constant reminder of who the duke is, his magnificence, majesty, and rightful place in the order of all things.

[kgauck]

Towards the end of Elizabeth I's reign her Privy Council ordered that all unsanctioned and badly made portraits of the Queen be hunted down and destroyed; there had been such an appetite for her likeness that they were being churned out by incompetent artists, and these "disproportioned and unseemelie Counterfeites" debased the coinage of her politically crucial iconography.