Historical names for bards: Troubadour, Minstrel, Poet, Balladeer, Storyteller, Skald, Griot, Fili, Scop, Rhapsode, Ashik, Udgatr. They carried the oral traditions of their people, advised kings, retold legends and myths, arbitrated disputes, and generally acted as learned men. If you ever want to experience the Iliad and the Odyssey how they were meant to be done, you need to find out what rhythm they were sung to. Humans learned to sing before they could ever talk, and our traditions were passed down much the same way.
great and all, but the problem I have with historical bards compared to pathfinder bards, is they served VASTLY different utilities to society. forgoing that bards in pathfinder are magical, historical bards were not someone you'd bring to a fight and simply carried poems and songs to nobles for the majority of their wealth. In pathfinder, they are a combat asset, and are quite deadly themselves. which is why I have a problem with a "bard" in my group.
i have no problems with people who play bards as commanders or skald-like battlers, but if you try to RL bard with a pathfinder bard, i lose a lot of my fun right there.
So there's two kinds of bards on that list.
These ones are all, for the most part, stationary and don't travel much: Troubadours, Poets, Balladeers, Fili, Udgatr.The rest regularly traveled, possibly with interesting people, to make their own stories. The Minstrels were the rejects when the Troubadours came into vogue and so they took the road, learning new material and trying to make a living with their song. This is basically the bard description. The Skald wowed their audience with tales of their daring exploits, so they're either consummate liars (I mean, storytellers) or were out adventuring. Griot were court advisers, but they were also the advisers to the people. They regularly traveled (and this being Africa, probably quite a bit) to settle disputes and dispense advice. Scop is just a living...
once again, no problem with the class, my problem is it being supposed that they are dancing and playing a lute until someone decides to flavor it otherwise, and that anyone who plays it that way is ruining any immersions I have. I don't know why people keep taking this as me hating the bard class, or me trying to stop someone else from playing a certain character. I said earlier that when people start acting all bardy, I simply don't show up for following sessions.
once again, anyone making money off of song and performance during the medieval ages was doing it by performing for nobles and bringing them poems and such. They weren't gaining money by performing at your local tavern, sure they could occasionally be paid by some of the better rest stops to perform, but more than likely they traveled to find new material and to bring it to nobles with more money than to know what to spend it on.
If we move out of Europe, then they aren't bards doing bard things. Skalds were part of Norse culture, a culture where just about everyone learned to fight. Also, they didn't really write anything down, hence skalds, but we're not even truely sure about much of Norse culture because they didn't write things down.
Griot so far is the only "bard" I can find outside of west Europe, and that's probably due to the Mali Empires influences. though i doubt that the wikipage is actually capturing what they did and is more just spouting what they culturally were thought to have done, just like with normal bards.
also, The whole, all magic or no magic argument is both flawed and getting tiresome. I can understand that magic can happen to make the universe throw up a fireball. I cannot understand why the bard dancing gives me a constant and continuous improvement to my battle skills. magic, simply doesn't cut it here. The bard feels like it's a fake concept made from several different mythological ideas put into one class. basically, the Pathfinder bard, doesn't exist anywhere outside of DnD or stuff based on its ADnD origins. I can find Wizards in mythos and legend, I cannot find a Bard.
|
also, The whole, all magic or no magic argument is both flawed and getting tiresome. I can understand that magic can happen to make the universe throw up a fireball. I cannot understand why the bard dancing gives me a constant and continuous improvement to my battle skills. magic, simply doesn't cut it here. The bard feels like it's a fake concept made from several different mythological ideas put into one class. basically, the Pathfinder bard, doesn't exist anywhere outside of DnD or stuff based on its ADnD origins. I can find Wizards in mythos and legend, I cannot find a Bard.
Mercedes Lackey.
also, The whole, all magic or no magic argument is both flawed and getting tiresome. I can understand that magic can happen to make the universe throw up a fireball. I cannot understand why the bard dancing gives me a constant and continuous improvement to my battle skills. magic, simply doesn't cut it here. The bard feels like it's a fake concept made from several different mythological ideas put into one class. basically, the Pathfinder bard, doesn't exist anywhere outside of DnD or stuff based on its ADnD origins. I can find Wizards in mythos and legend, I cannot find a Bard.Mercedes Lackey.
while I cannot find what you're trying to link to, I doubt he's a guy that knows magic and dances in battle, at the same time.
also, The whole, all magic or no magic argument is both flawed and getting tiresome. I can understand that magic can happen to make the universe throw up a fireball. I cannot understand why the bard dancing gives me a constant and continuous improvement to my battle skills. magic, simply doesn't cut it here. The bard feels like it's a fake concept made from several different mythological ideas put into one class. basically, the Pathfinder bard, doesn't exist anywhere outside of DnD or stuff based on its ADnD origins. I can find Wizards in mythos and legend, I cannot find a Bard.Mercedes Lackey.
A person who has been publishing obscure fantasy fiction since...1987.
There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin). The class has always felt to me like a solution looking for a problem; it "fills a niche" that was never really there in the first place.
I see the OP taking a lot of abuse... some of it for good reason.
<snip>
Because, from its very conception, the bard class's primary function was as comic relief.
<snip>
YMMV.
I believe Bards in first edition AD&D were based on Taliesin
If you don't see bards in tales that is because they are the ones weaving them.
If you don't see bards in tales that is because they are the ones weaving them.
That's a fair point, but I'm not sure there's a need to represent Homer, Dante, the Brothers Grimm or Tolkien as D&D characters. D&D is a game of heroes, not the guys who sing about them. There were surely "bards" who sang the deeds of Odysseus, Sigurd, St. George, Virgil and Merlin, but the aforementioned heroic characters, themselves, were something much closer to rogue, fighter, paladin, oracle and wizard, respectively, in D&D terms.
*to be perfectly honest, much of the "not historic" criticism of the Bard also applies to the D&D Cleric, who is also not really represented in mythology or early fantasy literature as he is typically played. But the Cleric is sort of necessary for the whole ecology of the game, so we give him a pass.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
^^Tom Bombadil, though unambiguously a "D&D-type Bard" in my opinion, is quite clearly not a hero (one could say the same for the Pied Piper of Hamelin), and represents quite possibly the single least interesting portion of the thousands of pages that Tolkien wrote. When we get to the point of using characters like Tom Bombadil to justify the existence of D&D classes, it might be time to ask if we're not going a touch too far.
It's poor form to have yourself in the story. A tale about how you were essential to hero's triumph is more boasting than a story.
Of course that doesn't mean you weren't in the story, you just choose not to report it.
...Historical names for bards: Troubadour, Minstrel, Poet, Balladeer, Storyteller, Skald, Griot, Fili, Scop, Rhapsode, Ashik, Udgatr. They carried the oral traditions of their people, advised kings, retold legends and myths, arbitrated disputes, and generally acted as learned men. If you ever want to experience the Iliad and the Odyssey how they were meant to be done, you need to find out what rhythm they were sung to. Humans learned to sing before they could ever talk, and our traditions were passed down much the same way.
great and all, but the problem I have with historical bards compared to pathfinder bards, is they served VASTLY different utilities to society. forgoing that bards in pathfinder are magical, historical bards were not someone you'd bring to a fight and simply carried poems and songs to nobles for the majority of their wealth. In pathfinder, they are a combat asset, and are quite deadly themselves. which is why I have a problem with a "bard" in my group.
i have no problems with people who play bards as commanders or skald-like battlers, but if you try to RL bard with a pathfinder bard, i lose a lot of my fun right there.
So there's two kinds of bards on that list.
These ones are all, for the most part, stationary and don't travel much: Troubadours, Poets, Balladeers, Fili, Udgatr.The rest regularly traveled, possibly with interesting people, to make their own stories. The Minstrels were the rejects when the Troubadours came into vogue and so they took the road, learning new material and trying to make a living with their song. This is basically the bard description. The Skald wowed their audience with tales of their daring exploits, so they're either consummate liars (I mean, storytellers) or were out adventuring. Griot were court advisers, but they were also the advisers to the people. They regularly traveled (and this being Africa, probably quite a bit) to settle disputes and dispense
Taillefer, Norman ioglere (juglar) who traveled with William the Conqueror to England. Prior to the battle, he rode between the two armies, recited the Song of Roland to the Norman troops while juggling his swords. When a Saxon solider ran out to challenge him, Taillefer cut him down, spilling the first blood of the conflict. He then lead the charge on the Saxon shield wall. Sounds very much like a bardic performance to me.
As for why the other, why does wiggling your fingers to summon a fireball make more sense than using magical music? The concept of music being something more than mundane is an old one. The Music of the Spheres, the Song of Life/Creation/What have you, Abrahamic Angels being divided up into Choirs. Or in fantasy, Arda literally being sung into creation by Eru and the Valar. Frankly, Bard make more sense than mr. Fireball throwing Wizard.
It's poor form to have yourself in the story. A tale about how you were essential to hero's triumph is more boasting than a story.
Of course that doesn't mean you weren't in the story, you just choose not to report it.
By this logic, there may well have been unreported Flying Spaghetti Monsters in the story, as well. Now there's a class I'd like to play!
Actually, any song from a musical during an action scene could be said to count. Take "One Jump" from Aladdin.
Yes, that's extreme. But in my view, the musical bard's magic works that way: They streamline the scene, keep everyone moving in time with the music, make people feel more confident that they're going to triumph—nobody's allowed to die in the middle of "Kiss The Girl", after all. That'd just be shoddy work.
Let me put this another way: The bard's magic makes the heroes feel like they're in a story. He makes the heroes feel like heroes. And morale really does matter.
Actually, any song from a musical during an action scene could be said to count. Take "One Jump" from Aladdin.
Yes, that's extreme. But in my view, the musical bard's magic works that way: They streamline the scene, keep everyone moving in time with the music, make people feel more confident that they're going to triumph—nobody's allowed to die in the middle of "Kiss The Girl", after all. That'd just be shoddy work.
Let me put this another way: The bard's magic makes the heroes feel like they're in a story. He makes the heroes feel like heroes. And morale really does matter.
I think it should be obvious that both this flavor and what Robert is suggesting above come perilously close to breaking the fourth wall.
That's silly. Bards don't break the fourth wall. Stories in Pathfinder are generally true stories—ballads and odes to real-life heroes. The bard just makes everyone feel like they're going to go down in one of those stories.
It's the equivalent of the St. Crispin's Day Speech—you're convincing your allies they'll go down in history for what they do, and surprise, they fight a bit better and braver. Was King Henry breaking the fourth wall?
There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A person who has been publishing obscure fantasy fiction since...1987.
One of the most famous writers of the romantic fantasy genre is obscure. Gotcha.
You know what this sounds like? Gatekeeping. Except against sources of inspiration and themes rather than players.
There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin).Nope, no bardic nonsense in any of those authors, no sir.
What part about "very, very little" is unclear to you? It does not equal zero. Considering how many...cough...wonderful...cough...elven "songs" pop up in Tolkien's writing, it's not at all surprising that one of his many Elven characters is described once as singing in combat. That doesn't make it any more than an obscure sideshow in his oeuvre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A person who has been publishing obscure fantasy fiction since...1987.One of the most famous writers of the romantic fantasy genre is obscure. Gotcha.
You know what this sounds like? Gatekeeping. Except against sources of inspiration and themes rather than players.
What really upsets me is when you said Mercedes Lackey I immediately thought of the harpers and these guys couldn't be bothered enough to find out what you were talking about to realized you literally, "Oh Snap" on them. The only thing the harpers don't have going for them is magic -- in a non-magical world that makes sense too, and even then their music was considered almost mystical if not magical.
People be fools.
Remember when Finrod got into a rock-off with Sauron? That was pretty awesome.
There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin). The class has always felt to me like a solution looking for a problem; it "fills a niche" that was never really there in the first place.People: STOP making stuff up. Myth, legend, and early fiction are all thoroughly riddled with bards. If one takes even a cursory look. Vainamoinen, Thomas the Rhymer, Alan a-Dale, LUGH of Irish folklore, arguably Apollo and the Muses to some extent, Luthien from Tolkien and a good portion of Tolkien's conception of elven magic; heck, Illuvatar - the grand creator of Tolkien's world - created it through song; Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, Prospero from the Tempest via allegory, the 1001 Arabian nights...
I'd add Fergus of the Sweet/True Lips to the list. He appears in an adaption of the Fenian Cycle from the 15th century ("The Battle of the White Strand" or "Cath Finntrágha"). He literally helps people fight better by "praising" them.
A person who has been publishing obscure fantasy fiction since...1987.One of the most famous writers of the romantic fantasy genre is obscure. Gotcha.
You know what this sounds like? Gatekeeping. Except against sources of inspiration and themes rather than players.
Yes, it is gatekeeping...of exactly the type the Paizo developers engage in, themselves. Don't believe me? Have a look.
The standards of "what was its status before the advent of the RPG?" and "is it not goofy?" are part of the criteria which inform the design of this game. That's just how it is.
What part about "very, very little" is unclear to you? It does not equal zero. Considering how many...cough...wonderful...cough...elven "songs" pop up in Tolkien's writing, it's not at all surprising that one of his many Elven characters is described once as singing in combat. That doesn't make it any more than an obscure sideshow in his oeuvre.There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin).Nope, no bardic nonsense in any of those authors, no sir.
Oh, I was going to argue, but then you made the point yourself. You not caring for the rich and storied history of fantasy being interwoven with bardic music and lore doesn't actually equate to it not existing.
Oh, I was going to argue, but then you made the point yourself. You not caring for the rich and storied history of fantasy being interwoven with bardic music and lore doesn't actually equate to it not existing.
The fact that Tolkien was a weird, obsessive English professor who invented an elven language out of whole cloth and wrote a bunch of middling poetry by and about said elves which occasionally shows up in his books as "songs" (which is likely the anachronistic use of the term - that is, meaning something more like "tales", along the same lines as "A Song of Fire and Ice", but I digress)...this has precisely what to do with the D&D character class called bard?
Yes, there was song and poetry in Tolkien's work. No, there weren't a bunch of guys playing lutes to help their friends disable traps or cracking jokes at giant spiders. No one is debating the existence of the freaking bard in history or of bardic lore, songs, whatever - what is at issue here is first, whether or not the bard was, himself, ever actually a hero along the same lines as the fighter, rogue and wizard, and second, whether there were bards who were ever described in even remotely D&D-style terms - you know, singing magic songs to make their buddies stronger, telling magic jokes to weaken their enemies, doing magic dances to...I dunno, turn coke into pepsi.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orpheus is certainly one very good example of what I would consider a D&D-style Bard from a very meaningful mythological source. How many more Orpheii (the plural of Orpheus?!) are there really, though? So many of the examples of historical bards given have just been junky. Sheherazade?! Really...tricking the Caliph by telling a long story makes her a bard, now? Väinämöinen?! He was a frikkin god! If we're going to use mythological gods as our models for character classes, we really do need the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Seriously...so many of these arguments in favor of the bard's place in mythology and the fantasy genre are just throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick. Orpheus is a real thing, but man, beyond him it's a thin field.
D&D is a game of heroes,
Maybe your games. Mine our about really strong and capable guys who cannot become heroes because demons of Abbyss and Faerie Queens keep kicking their butts. (Also thanks to really capable Sidhe war singer, truly).
Wizard literally means "wise man" and yet wisdom is a viable dump stat for one.
Only if you let this happen.
