Lawful Bards

[TheElfLord]

Okay, I think I've seen on these forums some way for bards to be lawful. Can someone point it out to me.

Also, what are people's thoughts on just dropping the bard's alignment restrictions all together?

[Olethros]

I kinda like the class alignment restrictions as a means of helping players to branch out in there allignment choice. Of course if your players dont suffer from a massive fear of change or allignment bias than I suppose it isnt neccessary.

[Dark Tira]

Devoted Performer from Complete Adventurer. You need Paladin levels though.

Dropping the alignment restrictions isn't game-breaking at all since most of the bard prestige classes don't require it and bards don't lose abilities for changing alignments.

[Noneoyabizzness]

the idea a bard cannot be lawful is a crime.

the old days a bard just had to be part neutral, and we liked it. our jack of all trades could be lawful neutral assassin/circus performers.

a bard should be allowed to be lawful. this concept of being against law seems too pseudopunk rock to Me

[Bears With Lasers]

The Devoted Perfomer feat from the Complete Adventuer lets you make a Lawful Good Paladin/Bard.

[Gamebird]

I have no problems with Lawful Bards. Or even Lawful Barbarians for that matter. Nor even Chaotic Paladins. Heck, I run my PCs up against Evil Paladins on a regular basis, though I call them "Anti-Paladins" (really though, I'm too lazy to make up my own class for them, so I just use the Paladin class, flip the abilities - Detect Good instead of Detect Evil, etc. - and run with it).

My next campaign, when I stray from RAW and core more than I have so far, I'll remove all alignment restrictions. I'm considering removing alignment altogether.

[Renegade Paladin]

It's very easy to make a lawful bard. Only catch is that you can't advance in the class anymore. :smalltongue:

As mentioned, Devoted Performer lets a multiclass paladin/bard keep advancing in both classes while being lawful good.

And simply flipping the paladin's abilities to make an evil champion class is just a dumb idea. If I'm the evil champion of evilness, what use do I have for remove disease? Or contagion, if you flip that as well, unless I just happen to be a plaguebringer? How do you reverse divine health, or if you don't, how do you justify keeping it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?

[Vance_Nevada]

In terms of game balance, it makes very little difference. You can now freely make Bard/Monk or Bard/Paladin multi-classed character, neither of which is going to be particularly powerful. I suppose you could also make a Bard/Lawful Cleric with a slightly different alignment.

In terms of flavour, it makes a number of new personality and character options open.

There's no downside to the change that I can see.

[Tulnavara]

it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?
Why would you need to reverse an immunity? Divine doesn't necessarily make it good and why wouldn't an anti-paladin be immune to disease if he's around it enough I'd think you'd especially want it.

[Renegade Paladin]

Why would you need to reverse an immunity? Divine doesn't necessarily make it good and why wouldn't an anti-paladin be immune to disease if he's around it enough I'd think you'd especially want it.
Why would he be immune to disease? And "because paladins are" doesn't cut it; if anything, that's an argument against.

[Powerfamiliar]

Well paladins of slaughter and tyranny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) keep the disease immunity and replace cure disease with contagion.

[Renegade Paladin]

Yes, and they're stupidly built. They also kept the ex-paladin section, which means they fall for not being lawful good.

[Arceliar]

Why would he be immune to disease? And "because paladins are" doesn't cut it; if anything, that's an argument against.

A better question might be "why are paladins?"

If being a righteous champion of good is enough to bring immunity to disease, being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague ought to do the same. In the case of being evil, it's more so you don't infect yourself in the process...

See: Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny).

[TheElfLord]

Yes, and they're stupidly built. They also kept the ex-paladin section, which means they fall for not being lawful good.

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?

[Gamebird]

If I'm the evil champion of evilness, what use do I have for remove disease?

Removing disease from myself or my allies. Being evil does not preclude one from having a use for curative abilities. An evil god has a vested interest in keeping his champions alive and functioning to spread his faith.


Or contagion, if you flip that as well, unless I just happen to be a plaguebringer?

I'd only flip that for the gods who had the spreading of disease as a portfolio or great interest. Though it *was/is* Rat God. I really didn't think of it much, because there was no reason for the followers of Rat to be spreading plague amongst their own people and they weren't mixing with other groups enough to have a value in spreading it to them.


How do you reverse divine health, or if you don't, how do you justify keeping it, since I seriously doubt an anti-paladin is going to have a purity theme?

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?

[Thomas]

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?

And who on earth cares anyway? It's hardly much of an effort to switch it around.

(And don't anybody start with the "it's stupid, they'd fall for healing a friend in combat" -thing again; if that were true, regular paladins would fall for wounding or killing an opponent in combat.)


Remove disease is the worst, most useless ability paladins get, anyway, and the main reason you should prestige out after level 4 or 5.

[Khantalas]

I think the 3.0 Bards were built by someone who was a jazz fan. Obviously those guys can't be lawful. After all, their best work comes from rolling with it.

[Caelestion]

If I'm going to multiclass out of Paladin, I generally choose the non-spellcasting version and get my loyalty bonuses (+1 BAB, +1 to all saves) and all melee weapons ignoring DR X/good at 6th-level.

[Rabiesbunny]

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?

Preach on!

[Renegade Paladin]

A better question might be "why are paladins?"

If being a righteous champion of good is enough to bring immunity to disease, being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague ought to do the same. In the case of being evil, it's more so you don't infect yourself in the process...

See: Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny).
Paladins are because of their roots in Arthurian legend; that's also why they have remove disease per week and the laying on of hands. And saying that being an evil slaughterer of the innocent and spreader of the plague should make you have the same abilities as a righteous champion of good, then you are plainly not thinking this through. And yes, as I said above, I know the designers of the paladin variants in Unearthed Arcana were being lazy.

What makes you say that they kept the ex-laladin section?
Because they did. The class variant section in UA says that all classes are as presented in the Player's Handbook except as specifically noted in the variants. The ex-paladin section was not altered. Therefore, it is as the Player's Handbook.
Removing disease from myself or my allies. Being evil does not preclude one from having a use for curative abilities. An evil god has a vested interest in keeping his champions alive and functioning to spread his faith.
This is why the divine champion's lay on hands ability only affects followers of his deity. :smallamused: The powers of evil don't tend to be interested in altruism.

I'd only flip that for the gods who had the spreading of disease as a portfolio or great interest. Though it *was/is* Rat God. I really didn't think of it much, because there was no reason for the followers of Rat to be spreading plague amongst their own people and they weren't mixing with other groups enough to have a value in spreading it to them.
I think you're not understanding my meaning. If you're designing a class to champion some evil alignment, the abilities should reflect the agenda of that alignment. They should not reflect those of the paladin, because that's not what, say, Bane or Hextor would want in their champions.

They just get Inflict - wait, that's Lay on Hands. Hm, Divine Health - so what, they're immune to disease. Hardly matters. They don't need a purity theme to have it, and what keeps an Evil character from being pure, devout and/or honorable?
Here's the so what. So what is the reasoning behind it? And I'll tell you what keeps an evil character from being pure, devout, and honorable. He's evil. Duh.

[Caelestion]

Gamebird did mention an "or" there. Plenty of evil people are devout and/or honorable.

[JaronK]

I have no problem with a pure Lawful Evil Paladin. His faith in his god keeps him going, safe in the knowledge that what he does is the right thing to do... within his morality system. In my games, Paladins can be of any alignment, so you can have a Paladin of Law, who's Lawful Nuetral, and his honor code is entirely about enforcing and maintaining order. You could also have a daemonic Paladin who's Chaotic Evil, dedicated to slaying all those who oppose his daemonic lord. A paladin is just a servant warrior... why shouldn't they be able to serve anyone?

And bards needing to be non-lawful is just stupid. Skalds, one of the things bards are based on, had the job of traveling around the land and teaching people about new laws, as well as acting as judges.

JaronK

[Renegade Paladin]

I'll tell you the problem with evil paladins: They're not heroic champions of a noble cause. :smalltongue: Call it something else; it isn't a paladin, whatever it is.

[ElfLad]

I'm just upset that bards don't have any epic-level spells named "Free Bird."

[JaronK]

Paladins weren't historically super good guys, they were just warrior servants. A Paladin of Nerul or something could be quite noble, quite honorable, and quite evil.

JaronK

[Noneoyabizzness]

fine call the "paladin" the "champion". champion of lawful good matches the current paladin, campion of tyrrany goes with the le paladin, and that should get rid of the connotations of charlemagnes paladins

[Renegade Paladin]

Paladins weren't historically super good guys, they were just warrior servants. A Paladin of Nerul or something could be quite noble, quite honorable, and quite evil.

JaronK
Paladins were historically the paragons of chivalry. You might, and I stress might be able to make a (weak) case for any lawful, but chaotic evil? No.

[Rabiesbunny]

:smalleek:

Renegade, didn't you and I just have a three day long argument over the nature of LE paladins, where neither of us budged an inch..? These kind of arguments end up causing nothing but headaches all around, huh?

[TheElfLord]

Because they did. The class variant section in UA says that all classes are as presented in the Player's Handbook except as specifically noted in the variants. The ex-paladin section was not altered. Therefore, it is as the Player's Handbook.



Well I don't have UA, so I just have the SRD to go off of, which says that the Paladin variants keep all the class features of the normal paladin, except where noted below. Now the section on ex-paladins is not found with the class features, it is found under its own heading in the same size and font as the heading for class features. So at least according to the SRD, they did not keep the ex-paladin part.


And who on earth cares anyway? It's hardly much of an effort to switch it around.


Well clearly I care or I wouldn't have asked the question. I don't waste my time going on these boards and just typing out things I don't want to know about or bother to come back and read.

[Tor the Fallen]

I'll tell you the problem with evil paladins: They're not heroic champions of a noble cause. :smalltongue: Call it something else; it isn't a paladin, whatever it is.

Neither are paladins.
Paladin is derived from paladine, better known as the Praetorian Guard. They protected the Emperor of propbably the most Lawful Evil empire on earth.

Under the Holy Roman Empire, they served as something like judges.
Under the Catholic Church they were high ranking clergymen.
In 17th century, the term was applied to nobles (lords of counties) who were allowed to exercise rights typically reserved for the crown.

Paladin was used as 'Champion' in Charlemagne's stories about the Twelve Retainers. 19th century Christian revisionism attributed the typical qualities we associate with paladins (devout champions of virtue and justice) to the Arthurian legends, using the once popular Charlemagne archetype for the paladin. In reality, the heros of Arthur's table were Celtic, and many pagan. Many of Arthur's 'paladins' were something of anti-heros, some were inbred, some liked to rape women, some were decended from faerie-folk. Many were engaged in ancient blood feuds. Most met with failure and an inglorious end.

Your idea of a paladin is derived from what you read in the PHB and a couple splat books.

[Renegade Paladin]

Neither are paladins.
Paladin is derived from paladine, better known as the Praetorian Guard. They protected the Emperor of propbably the most Lawful Evil empire on earth.

Under the Holy Roman Empire, they served as something like judges.
Under the Catholic Church they were high ranking clergymen.
In 17th century, the term was applied to nobles (lords of counties) who were allowed to exercise rights typically reserved for the crown.

Paladin was used as 'Champion' in Charlemagne's stories about the Twelve Retainers. 19th century Christian revisionism attributed the typical qualities we associate with paladins (devout champions of virtue and justice) to the Arthurian legends, using the once popular Charlemagne archetype for the paladin. In reality, the heros of Arthur's table were Celtic, and many pagan. Many of Arthur's 'paladins' were something of anti-heros, some were inbred, some liked to rape women, some were decended from faerie-folk. Many were engaged in ancient blood feuds. Most met with failure and an inglorious end.

Your idea of a paladin is derived from what you read in the PHB and a couple splat books.
I could easily choose to be insulted at the insinuation that I'm making assertions with no basis. I won't. This time.

The chivalric ideal of Arthur's knights dates well prior to the 19th century. I am well aware of the shortcomings of most (Launcelot was an adulterer, Gawaine a temper-driven hothead, Kay an arrogant twit; the list goes on and I know it all), and I never said that the paladin is based off of what Arthur's knights were, but what according to legend they aspired to be.

Most pointedly, in the story of Gawaine and the Green Knight (written in the 14th century, not the 19th), the Green Knight dismissed Gawaine's lamenting of his failure to completely uphold their agreement by saying he had been "the most perfect paladin" throughout; his only failure had been a desire to preserve his life through a means that wouldn't cause him to break his pact. If the Knight hadn't meant "the most perfect paladin" to mean he had upheld his honesty and integrity during their game, what in Hades was he talking about? Reacting to Gawaine's behavior by calling him the most perfect Roman praetor wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

As an aside, I am well aware of the etymology of the word. However, we are speaking of the English language, not ancient or Church Latin, nor Italian, nor any variety of French.

:smalleek:

Renegade, didn't you and I just have a three day long argument over the nature of LE paladins, where neither of us budged an inch..? These kind of arguments end up causing nothing but headaches all around, huh?
Yes, we did. And if you think that a torturer has any claim to a title of honor, regardless of alignment, that is your problem, not mine. She's an excellent character, but laying claim to the title of paladin for her (as opposed to her deluding herself into thinking she's earned it; that I'm fine with) is simply incorrect.

[Caelestion]

The paladins were also in Charlemagne's court. It's entirely possible that the Green Knight is comparing Gawain to one of those.

[Rabiesbunny]

Yes, we did. And if you think that a torturer has any claim to a title of honor, regardless of alignment, that is your problem, not mine. She's an excellent character, but laying claim to the title of paladin for her (as opposed to her deluding herself into thinking she's earned it; that I'm fine with) is simply incorrect.

You have your opinions, I have mine. Torturers can have all kinds of honor, and still do what they do. And this thread isn't about Paladins regardless, but Lawful Bards.

How 'bouts we all...move this differing alignment Paladin thing to another thread if it must be continued?

[JaronK]

Renegade, you keep talking about how Paladins are based on the Aurthurian legend, but they're not. Paladins are not based on the knights of the round table. The name is for the elite gaurds of the Roman Empire, and later Char... screw it, I'm not going to try to spell it. Suffice to say, the whole knights of the Round Table thing has little to do with it, as they only later stole the name.

JaronK

[Renegade Paladin]

Renegade, you keep talking about how Paladins are based on the Aurthurian legend, but they're not. Paladins are not based on the knights of the round table. The name is for the elite gaurds of the Roman Empire, and later Char... screw it, I'm not going to try to spell it. Suffice to say, the whole knights of the Round Table thing has little to do with it, as they only later stole the name.

JaronK
Charlemagne. And if you'd rather I refer to the legends of Roland, that's perfectly fine. My point still stands.

Edit: It occurs to me that I'd best outline my position in detail to make sure there are no misunderstandings here.

My objections to the "evil paladin" concept, especially as presented in Unearthed Arcana, are twofold. First, I object to taking the name paladin and slapping it onto any "champion" class just because the authors are too lazy to come up with an original (or at least a different) name. It not only muddles the definitions in the English language; it also screws around with game terms, which is never a good thing as it potentially causes confusion. This second part is the same objection that I have to saying one has "enchanted" a weapon in D&D; the game term is "enhanced," and "enchanted" in game terms means to have affected a target with a spell of the Enchantment school... which unintelligent magic items generally aren't affected by in the first place. It confuses the issue. For elaboration on this reasoning, you'll find that other people have said it before, and better. (http://seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html)

Secondly, I object to simple lazy work in creating alternate champion classes. This is why I so strongly dislike the Unearthed Arcana variants on the paladin; unlike the other class variants in the book, which at least had a modicum of work and thought put into them, the "paladins" of freedom, tyranny, and slaughter were simply mirrored straight from the existing paladin class. This makes no sense. Mirroring the smite I can see, but everything else? The only thing that had any form at all is the auras, and they even screwed that up. ("Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin of slaughter radiates a malign aura that causes enemies within 10 feet of her to take a -1 penalty to Armor Class. This ability otherwise functions identically to the paladin's aura of courage class feature." See the problem? Otherwise functions identically means that it makes the slaughter variant immune to fear and causes enemies to take a -1 penalty to AC. Erm... What? This problem is mirrored in the other two; for the paladin of freedom it's simultaneously both better and worse, because they made him immune to compulsion effects, but failed to specifically remove the immunity to fear line, meaning that technically by the RAW, he is immune to both.) Instead of taking it and doing something that actually put thought into and balanced completely alternative class features that mirror the agendas of the other extreme alignments, they pulled a stunt that probably hundreds of gaming groups have done for themselves since the advent of 3e: They just took the paladin's abilities and turned them around.

That's what gets me the most. The reason I buy published game accessories is to save myself some work as a DM; that is to say, I'm paying people who I would presume are professional game designers to do the work for me. That's what we all do when we buy any gaming supplement, or even the core rulebooks; pay WotC's people to design the game because we don't want to do it ourselves. Therefore, I think that as a paying customer I should be able to have at least some expectation that they'll actually do what I'm paying them to do. Instead, with the Unearthed Arcana paladin variants, I got something that I could have done myself with five minutes of spare time, which I find irritating. I'm satisfied with a lot of the rest of the book, so I'm not overly upset with the product as a whole, but that was just a cop-out.

[Rabiesbunny]

:smallsigh: *Hands out cupcakes and green tea*

Let's just stop arguing in the wrong thread guys, kay? :)

[Renegade Paladin]

:smallsigh: *Hands out cupcakes and green tea*

Let's just stop arguing in the wrong thread guys, kay? :)
*Shrug* The way I see it, the OP's question has been asked and answered, so we're not exactly hurting anything here. The thread would just die otherwise; we might as well get some mileage out of it. :smallwink:

[Thomas]

Here's the so what. So what is the reasoning behind it? And I'll tell you what keeps an evil character from being pure, devout, and honorable. He's evil. Duh.

Purity and devoutness aren't related to alignment at all; honor is Lawful, at most.

I play a MUSH (link in sig, I think) where the entire royal court is, in D&D terms, Lawful Evil; they're big on honor, devotion (to the Queen), and so on. They've got twelve knightly virtues, with Courtesy ranked highest - so keeping up appearances is important (this resounds through the whole society, including the justice systems; punishment is always handled out of sight so as to not upset anyone, etc.). Whether you're honorable or not depends on the local definition of honor, which varies by society and by time.

Any cleric, whether Evil or Chaotic or what, can be devout. Any other follower of any deity or ideal, regardless of alignment, can also be devout. Evil characters can be devoted to ideals, persons, organizations, philosophies, and so on.

Purity is a no-brainer; any group, creature, philosophy, or what-have-you can be strict about purity (whether it's virginity before marriage, celibacy, not touching dead things, or whatever).

[Tor the Fallen]

I could easily choose to be insulted at the insinuation that I'm making assertions with no basis. I won't. This time.

The chivalric ideal of Arthur's knights dates well prior to the 19th century. I am well aware of the shortcomings of most (Launcelot was an adulterer, Gawaine a temper-driven hothead, Kay an arrogant twit; the list goes on and I know it all), and I never said that the paladin is based off of what Arthur's knights were, but what according to legend they aspired to be.

Most pointedly, in the story of Gawaine and the Green Knight (written in the 14th century, not the 19th), the Green Knight dismissed Gawaine's lamenting of his failure to completely uphold their agreement by saying he had been "the most perfect paladin" throughout; his only failure had been a desire to preserve his life through a means that wouldn't cause him to break his pact. If the Knight hadn't meant "the most perfect paladin" to mean he had upheld his honesty and integrity during their game, what in Hades was he talking about? Reacting to Gawaine's behavior by calling him the most perfect Roman praetor wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

As an aside, I am well aware of the etymology of the word. However, we are speaking of the English language, not ancient or Church Latin, nor Italian, nor any variety of French.

Yes, we did. And if you think that a torturer has any claim to a title of honor, regardless of alignment, that is your problem, not mine. She's an excellent character, but laying claim to the title of paladin for her (as opposed to her deluding herself into thinking she's earned it; that I'm fine with) is simply incorrect.

Oh, I get it. Semantics. You've decided what a paladin is.
Well, thanks for informing us what one is.

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh, I get it. Semantics. You've decided what a paladin is.
Well, thanks for informing us what one is.
Not semantics. I conclusively demonstrated that the definition I'm using has been around since the 14th century at least; you claimed the 19th. Being off by 500 years isn't a matter of semantics.

Though in one sense this whole thing is semantics; we are, after all, discussing the definition of a word.

[Thomas]

Indeed. In modern RPG usage, the word pretty much means "melee warrior with supplementary holy magic" (just as rogue and wizard and cleric have their own general definitions that tend to apply across RPGs).

[Tor the Fallen]

Not semantics. I conclusively demonstrated that the definition I'm using has been around since the 14th century at least; you claimed the 19th. Being off by 500 years isn't a matter of semantics.

Though in one sense this whole thing is semantics; we are, after all, discussing the definition of a word.

The use of it simply as a 'champion' predates that by almost a full millenia. A 'holy warrior that uses magic to champion a divine cause' is a relatively new term. Paladins would have been more like cloistered clerics, before the legends were written up.

I still hold that the widespread use of paladin as a 'holy warrior that uses magic to champion a divine cause' is a rather recent phenomena. If you could give anything more definitive than a line from a 14th century text, that'd be great.

[Gamebird]

Though in one sense this whole thing is semantics; we are, after all, discussing the definition of a word.

Yeah, but I was calling it an "anti-paladin" and using the paladin class as a template. Most of what you're arguing about doesn't apply to the example given.


Secondly, I object to simple lazy work in creating alternate champion classes.

Well then, object away! Because I'm unlikely to put a lot of work into a class that's exclusively available to NPCs. I've defined exactly what they could do so it's consistent from encounter to encounter. I see no need to develop a balanced and unique set of class features for evil holy warriors.


The reason I buy published game accessories is to save myself some work as a DM; that is to say, I'm paying people who I would presume are professional game designers to do the work for me.

I don't use anything but core, except for a few monsters that fit the game world extraordinarily well, or filled gaps (like for the fey, I had to recruit a lot out of non-core books to get anything resembling a sustainable, self-referential and logical network - and then I had to heavily edit flavor text).

Part of why I used the paladin as the template and then flipped it was to save myself work as DM and to save myself arguments with players for balance issues. I wanted it to be a class, not a monster or template, so I could level it up as necessary. Then it has to be roughly equal in power to an existing class (heh, if I'd been cruel, I should have said, "Okay, all the evil gods are bestial warmongers, so I'm basing all their holy warriors off the DRUID!" Bwahahahaha! [insert evil DM snickering here] - really, for Rat God, this fits perfectly!)

[Telonius]

Hmm. Well, back in Lord of the Rings, Pippin takes an oath to Denethor, and Gandalf calls him a paladin after that. "Sworn Protector" seems to be the definition being used there, as Denethor wasn't exactly the height of lawful goodness. (Apparently Tolkien must have houseruled an exception to the Lawful requirement in Pippin's case. :smallbiggrin: )

EDIT: Anyway, about the original poster's question ... yes. The alignment requirement for Bards should be dropped. I can't see any reason mechanically for it to be there, and the fluff justification is pretty tenuous. Some people are attracted to music because of the inherent order of it. Music can be a very mathematical exercise; listen to the Brandenburg Concertos if you need any clarification on that.

[Gamebird]

I had thought that the literary inspiration for the paladin class came from Aragorn, what with the laying on of hands and the remove disease stuff. I know he inspired a lot of the ranger stuff too.

[Thomas]

I had thought that the literary inspiration for the paladin class came from Aragorn, what with the laying on of hands and the remove disease stuff. I know he inspired a lot of the ranger stuff too.

That sounds like it's based on things saints, holy men, priests, shamans, and the like did... (Saints particularly.)

[Telonius]

Aragorn really isn't the classic "knight in shining armor." Faramir or Eowyn would probably be closer to the archetype. (Immunity to fear, etc.) I'd say that the current Paladin class seems like a mix between those kinds of characters, and Sir Galahad.

[Tor the Fallen]

Personally, I think they based it off Lancelot.

[Renegade Paladin]

Hmm. Well, back in Lord of the Rings, Pippin takes an oath to Denethor, and Gandalf calls him a paladin after that. "Sworn Protector" seems to be the definition being used there, as Denethor wasn't exactly the height of lawful goodness. (Apparently Tolkien must have houseruled an exception to the Lawful requirement in Pippin's case. :smallbiggrin: )

EDIT: Anyway, about the original poster's question ... yes. The alignment requirement for Bards should be dropped. I can't see any reason mechanically for it to be there, and the fluff justification is pretty tenuous. Some people are attracted to music because of the inherent order of it. Music can be a very mathematical exercise; listen to the Brandenburg Concertos if you need any clarification on that.
Actually no, Gandalf didn't call him a paladin; he called him Peregrin, son of Paladin. Paladin Took was his father's name. :smallamused:

[Telonius]

Hmm, I could have sworn I read the phrase "paladin of Gondor" in there somewhere. I don't have the books in front of me, I'll try to find the reference when I get back home tonight.

[TheElfLord]

Actually no, Gandalf didn't call him a paladin; he called him Peregrin, son of Paladin. Paladin Took was his father's name. :smallamused:

Quoted for Truth

I spend the entire time from reading that statement down to reading your post trying to figure out where Gandalf called Pippin a paladin. I had reached the conculsion it must have been a translation issue and in another language. I had forgotten about his fathers name.

[Telonius]

If the reference exists, it's in Return of the King, Book V, right after Gandalf and Pippin are talking with Denethor. I think Gandalf used it in just an offhand sort of comment, as he's about ready to leave; but I'm really not sure now.

[WampaX]

Voice of the Wampinator: Good Gravy this wandered pretty far afield.

Locked, Filed, Briefed, Debriefed, Cataloged, and Numbered.