If I'm right, bards don't get two-handed but they get pugil - meaning that you get the extra attacks from using a staff but none of the two-handed defence. That leaves you with parry and dodge. Bards get dual parry however, so dual wielding actually gives you a third defence. That may have something to do with it, but obviously there are more factors in play too.
Dey
I think you are right.
Bards don't have two handed hehe 
[edit] Didn't see the next page...
If I'm right, bards don't get two-handed but they get pugil - meaning that you get the extra attacks from using a staff but none of the two-handed defence. That leaves you with parry and dodge. Bards get dual parry however, so dual wielding actually gives you a third defence. That may have something to do with it, but obviously there are more factors in play too.
Dey
I knew I was right when I made Dey my representative in all things.
Deykari, but what in situation when staff is not two-handed staff, even if it requires two hands? 
(there is separately weapon types two-handed staff (most of the staves) AND staff (two that I'm aware of))
Would the most defensive position for a bard be dual wielding one-handed staves? (just checking your opinions, regardless that logic would answer yes to that question)
If you can dual wield 2 one handed staves, not sure if you can, then yes it is the most defensive position for a bard. Reason being you still can dodge and parry like you could with a 2 handed staff and then also have access to dual parry.
Staffs are the only two-handed weapons that do not require the two-handed skill to use properly.
Just because you are using them without a proficiency penalty doesn't mean you are weapon blocking however.
Dual parry with a staff
Sure beats dual parry daggers for defense, but not for much if you consider the lack of offense.
Wield a Mace/Sword and dual a good dagger, that is the best thing to do.
But who cares about bards, it's not like anyone PK's with one of thoses.
There have been some bards who were extremely successful in pk. Knight, Syndicate, Tribunal. One made it to Knight Elder.
Helmsly I think?
Also been a bard watcher around who killed some badass vampire, that was funny to watch.
Valadar wasn't THAT badass 
Jarl.
And yeah, what jibber said
What's wrong with you guys that you just ALWAYS feel the need to belittle someone else's chars? Valadar was a solidly played vamp. Just bc it wasn't you who played them doesn't mean you need to slighten another's char all the time. 
And it was still funny as hell to watch the watcher bard pk him. He was so wth just happened... a bard?
Wasn't belittling him. I was comparing him to well played vamps like Messalantha, Cariousus and Martineius. I mean, by your logic I could belittle Messalantha because I killed her twice Just saying he wasn't as badass as the other vamps that were badass.
Valadar was solidly played, though. Fun RP, definitely.
If I was killed by a Bard I would roll a healer smurf in shame. 
Come on ... losing to a bard
Next I would have gnome rangers dominating me.
Jarl had a lot of things on his side. Besides being completely decked, he was also magic-resist, and had a few watcher specials on his side.
If Jarl had NOT win, it would have been painful to watch.
You just wait, Mya, you just wait...
Jarl was the man.
Bard imo are a dark horse when it comes to PK, they are extremely powerful and can come from no where to kick your ***.
I fought with and against Helmsley and Jarl - Very very strong.
Jarl had a lot of things on his side. Besides being completely decked, he was also magic-resist, and had a few watcher specials on his side.
BUT, you forget that Valadar was a nexus Elder, so it goes both ways.
But yes, it's not very surprising that a character in a cabal made to fight unnatural beings killed a vampire. Be it a bard.
Bard is very powerful when in skilled hands.
