Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

So I am lawful now and I can't get angry?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The title says it all.

usually when a person changes alignment they can still take the class powers just not gain levels.
I really don't understand the logic IN GAME of a barbarian being lawful and having no rage whatsoever. If only it were that easy....

I understand why from a rules Point of view kinda... but is it really a huge deal not to have rage for like 4 rounds? does it kill the game?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Gets even worse when you consider the Urban Barbarian's controlled rage.


It is a situation where flavor and rules were combined. It is not much different than certain PrC's being restricted to certain races at one time.


Sure, the ex-barbarian can still get angry. But he doesn't have the mindset anymore to tap into that super-adrenaline-surge-RAGE.

I don't think it would be a problem from a balance point of view to allow Lawful barbarians or to allow Lawful ex-barbarians to rage, but I think it should be flavored in some other way, like the Defensive Stance of the Dwarven Defender, or the Ki Frenzy of the 3e Sohei (from Oriental Adventures - sort of a combination of monk, barbarian, and paladin really).

Sovereign Court

be angry at good or angry at evil depending on the other half. you can still be incensed at the outrage of chaos or people doing actions that oppose order.


Jiggy wrote:
Gets even worse when you consider the Urban Barbarian's controlled rage.

this is my main point I woud love to go urban barbarian brutal pugalist then monk. but I cant because of the restrictions

Silver Crusade

I do not see a problem. As long as when your barbarian rages it is in a lawfull fight for the right reasons. I mean a disorganized police officer is still lawfull good. I like to think the alignment system is more about your motives for your actions.


I am referring to the class restrictions here:

"A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class."

I use rage and getting angry as the same word like soda and pop

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh I never really thought of rage as being literally angry. I knew it could be but I thought of it as the mental state that berserkers go through when they enter combat. (Which I always view as a kind of frothing mindlessness, not anger.)

I made a barbarian who was just utterly happy when she entered her "rage" and ran around destroying things to screams of joy. Have at Thee


I think of angry man smashing things and screaming "you are so disappointing as a son. I wish I never had you" throwing things while women cower int he corner as a small child in a bathrobe attempts to stop him by throwing himself at the hulking beast.


There used to be limitations (pre-3e) about barbarian rage. one could not simply enter and leave it at will. the original concept was that one lost control of one's self and gave in to battle lust, which is most definitely NOT lawful as one only had marginal control of one's actions.

In all honesty I can't even understand how the concept is supposed to work in 3e and beyond. I have trouble understanding how one can become some enraged as to gain massive combat bonuses and still somehow be in complete control of one's self. Being "angry" is not going to give you those kind of bonuses, else every race and class would just have it as an ability.


But you're not in complete control of yourself. You get a -2 penalty to AC, because as your offensive instincts come to the fore your defensive ones take a backseat. You also lose the ability to use most skills based on Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence, as well as any ability requiring "patience or concentration" (while the book doesn't outright state it, I would argue that that includes any spellcasting).

Basically, you go all HULK SMASH, but you retain enough control to aim yourself in the right direction.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Staffan Johansson wrote:

But you're not in complete control of yourself. You get a -2 penalty to AC, because as your offensive instincts come to the fore your defensive ones take a backseat. You also lose the ability to use most skills based on Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence, as well as any ability requiring "patience or concentration" (while the book doesn't outright state it, I would argue that that includes any spellcasting).

Basically, you go all HULK SMASH, but you retain enough control to aim yourself in the right direction.

Then how about the Urban Barbarian's "Controlled Rage"? No AC penalty, no Will save bonus, no restriction on actions (you could even do a Linguistics check if you wanted), you can even put the bonus in DEX and suddenly get really good at balancing on a narrow precipice.

The Urbarb's Controlled Rage could not be reasonably described as not being in control.

Yet you lose the ability to do this while lawful.

Liberty's Edge

To be fair, rage, as a mechanic, isn't about getting angry. I've gotten pretty angry in my life, I've never grown claws, grown natural armor, been able to see in the dark, or any of the other powers that rage can grant.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
To be fair, rage, as a mechanic, isn't about getting angry. I've gotten pretty angry in my life, I've never grown claws, grown natural armor, been able to see in the dark, or any of the other powers that rage can grant.

That's because you're not tuned to the..... RageForce. That otherworldly dimension where all speedsters, I mean barbarians draw their powers from. It's an intensely anti-lawful place.

It was the only place where the Barbarian Family could safely contain Paladin Boy Prime.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Just as the monk taps into the power of Law, the barbarian taps into the power of Chaos.

It's no different than a Good cleric being unable to cast Evil spells.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
Paladin Boy Prime.

I have a sudden urge to convert Transformers to Pathfinder, starting with Optimus as a Paladin.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Just as the monk taps into the power of Law, the barbarian taps into the power of Chaos.

I resent your rules-ignorant statement. I tap into the Power of Neutrality and achieve the same results as AM.

Liberty's Edge

Neutral Barbarian wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Just as the monk taps into the power of Law, the barbarian taps into the power of Chaos.
I resent your rules-ignorant statement. I tap into the Power of Neutrality and achieve the same results as AM.

Characters, even barbarians, are allowed to be within 1 step of their power's alignment.

Liberty's Edge

Neutral Barbarian wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Just as the monk taps into the power of Law, the barbarian taps into the power of Chaos.
I resent your rules-ignorant statement. I tap into the Power of Neutrality and achieve the same results as AM.

And Monks can be chaotic if they use the Martial Artist archetype. Though, to be fair, that archetype ditches most of the crazy wuxia powers.

I've never been a fan of alignment restrictions in general.

On the Urban Barbarian train, I kind-of imagine their rage being sort-of like this scene from Equillibrium (which is followed immediately by this one). Anger, anger, anger... then suddenly, it's reigned in and used as a tool. Heck, I prefer if most barbarians are only slightly less controlled than that. Makes them capable of being used in a more diverse fashion.

Sovereign Court

I agree completely with the alignment restriction. Frankly the only reason you don't lose control of the character completely is that's just not FUN.
To be fair to the rules, Urban Barbarian came out after Core. It's a SUPPLEMENT. If controlled rage bothers you, ignore it. Don't use it.
Being lawful precludes the use of the ability, but doesn't remove it. Your mindset is just that it's an abomination, and you won't debase yourself with its use.


I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with a Lawful person using Controlled Rage. That's sort of what I had in mind when I talked about the 3e Sohei stuff earlier, sort of a "lesser Rage".

Liberty's Edge

Enaris wrote:

I agree completely with the alignment restriction. Frankly the only reason you don't lose control of the character completely is that's just not FUN.

To be fair to the rules, Urban Barbarian came out after Core. It's a SUPPLEMENT. If controlled rage bothers you, ignore it. Don't use it.
Being lawful precludes the use of the ability, but doesn't remove it. Your mindset is just that it's an abomination, and you won't debase yourself with its use.

I generally see three problems people have with lawful barbarians, and they're all based on bad assumptions.

(A) A lawful person cannot rage because they cannot give themselves over to anger. FALSE. It is very very easy to imagine a normally calm, collected person giving themselves over to extreme fury in certain situations. It may not happen often, but it need not as barbarians can't rage for very long anyway (even a 20th level barbarian may barely break 5 minutes, while lower level ones may have as few as 24-30s).

(B) A barbarian who uses rage would inevitably become non-lawful. FALSE. A barbarian can, at most, rage for a few minutes a day. Even assuming they use every round of rage they ever get from resting, and were 20th level, this would be a very small portion of their waking day (just under half of a percent). To say that a portion of your day that is a half of a percent of your time at most, and that you likely only utilize every few days at most common, would completely negate all other alignment decisions is simply a bad assumption, and a weak assertion at best.

(C) This is one of the ones you assert, that Lawful people would find the idea of using rage abhorrent. While many might, a person who had already trained as a barbarian obviously did not. And keep in mind, this rage would be restricted to combat, which is itself far more abhorrent than the rage (in general). If a lawful person can be fine with killing, they can be fine with killing while pissed off.

I'm sure I've seen other anti-lawful arguments, but these were the ones that came to mind.


The reason that it's perfectly possible to imagine a reasonable character who is generally lawful but capable of raging is because - say it, everyone - alignment restrictions are nearly always stupid. Just flat-out stupid, and non-lawful barbarians is probably the most wretched alignment restriction still in the system. Sure, it's reasonable to say that a perfect planar exemplar of law and moderation should be unable to rage, bu that's not what being merely lawful means. Even if I wasn't fine with Lawful Barbarians, I'd certainly be fine with lawful urban barbarians - the game has several cases where a class with a nonsensical alignment restriction (monk, barbarian) has an archetype that makes the alignment restriction even more nonsensical (Drunken Master, Urban Barbarian).


Meh - either house-rule it away or play one of the Chaotic alignments in a very lawful sort of way. Your Barbie keeps his word, always (something like that).

I believe there is a line somewhere that says "alignment is not a straight jacket." While that came from a different game, I think it is still applicable. Talk to your GM and tell him that if you could you'd go Lawful with this character, but since you can't you're gonna be as a lawful a Chaotic character as you can be.

Don't look at this as a restriction per se, rather see it as an opportunity to roleplay a unique character.

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:

Meh - either house-rule it away or play one of the Chaotic alignments in a very lawful sort of way. Your Barbie keeps his word, always (something like that).

I believe there is a line somewhere that says "alignment is not a straight jacket." While that came from a different game, I think it is still applicable. Talk to your GM and tell him that if you could you'd go Lawful with this character, but since you can't you're gonna be as a lawful a Chaotic character as you can be.

Don't look at this as a restriction per se, rather see it as an opportunity to roleplay a unique character.

The problem is that alignment is so subjective, and the DM still has the final say. This means that your character may be invalid at one table and valid at another, even in official games, simply because of the DM saying "no way, you're obviously lawful."

Really, the only solution is to remove any alignment restriction that isn't obviously and completely necessary, with removing it breaking your brain. Get your powers from the forces of good? Yeah, a good restriction is perfectly fine. Get your powers from the strength of your discipline and law and such? Lawful is probably fine, but a simple code is probably better.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
The problem is that alignment is so subjective, and the DM still has the final say. This means that your character may be invalid at one table and valid at another, even in official games, simply because of the DM saying "no way, you're obviously lawful."

Then I submit that kind of GM isn't looking at the same unique opportunity. Here is a chance to really play out the internal conflict between Chaos and Law. Obviously Chaos "wins" so to speak, but this is a character who never gives his word unless he's absolutely willing to see something done. Here's a guy who is ordered in all the little things that he does. He's probably got a personal ritual for every thing he does. I could see this as a really religious or spiritual guy, who unleashes the beast regularly.

I dunno, I'm getting into the realm of the self-loathing / tortured soul shtick. Gonna have to back off.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Just as the monk taps into the power of Law, the barbarian taps into the power of Chaos.

It's no different than a Good cleric being unable to cast Evil spells.

no I agree but if i ever became a chaotic evil serial killer monk my unarmed damage wouldn't revert and I can still punch chain mail and wall. with the barbarian once i am lawful i can't rage at all.

now I understand every body sees the game mechanic differently. I see it has getting so angry you see red and end up surrounded by a pile of bodies and then feel all sleepy afterwards.

i just think the restriction makes no sense form a story telling mechanic. it is no different than saying once i was a monk but now that i am not lawful any more I can't punch and hurt you I can only baby slap you and do non lethal damage.

form a mechanical standpoint i under stand you don't want folks dipping into levels of BARB to get rage for x amount of rounds. but really it shouldn't matter. it not game breaking for all the non lawful required classes.

and to clarify the "title should be I am lawful now so i can't rage?" but i am me and see rage and being angry the same thing.

as for urban barbarian i agree it is a weird thematic element that I love in the mechanics sense.

to summarize.... anger =rage for me.

it doesn't make sense to be lawful and then not be able to to the thing you have down your whole life. and not be able to do it if you suddenly rip your clothes off and decide to live on the icy north tundras. you still can't get angry.
apparently being lawful is like 5 years worth of court sponsored anger management.

i am not complaining at all. it was more of an observation like "birds are weird"

and i wanted to see what other people thought.


Am I in before the people who point out that technically barbarians who change alignment can never regain rage, since atonement doesn't say it works on them? And those who argue that a helm of opposite alignment will therefore strip a barbarian PC's class features forever?

Grrr.


The fix is simple Brutal Pugilist/Martial Artist. Rage and bare handed butt whuppin' the problem is I think you lose Wis to AC when enraged...


Lobolusk wrote:

The title says it all.

usually when a person changes alignment they can still take the class powers just not gain levels.
I really don't understand the logic IN GAME of a barbarian being lawful and having no rage whatsoever. If only it were that easy....

I understand why from a rules Point of view kinda... but is it really a huge deal not to have rage for like 4 rounds? does it kill the game?

I think it is pretty straightforward.

Rage as it is used in game is not the same as being angry, it is about indulging in uncontrolled fury.
A lawful person can get angry, perhaps even uncontrollably so, but that would be an effect of provocations. The barbarians rage is about seeking out uncontrolled rage, and if one wants to be uncontrolled, one is not lawful.


Rage the class ability is not at all like anger. It is tapping into a chaotic primal force. This beserk fury ignores pain, unleashes fight or flight instincts. By its very nature it is unrestrained by reason, and gives way to a recklessness that no one committed to lawfulness would feel comfortable.

Now that I have typed this I see Korpen already said it.


It may be helpful to look at where the idea originally came from.

The ancient Germanic berserker, which comes from ber (meaning bear) and sarkr (meaning shirt) were warriors who wore the skin of a bear when entering battle and believed that they were channeling the spirit of the bear, gaining its strength and rage. (There were also wolf berserkers, called ulfedhin.)

They'd work themselves into a trance before battle. Exactly how this was achieved is a point of contention. Some believe it was purely psychological, others believe that they used certain psychoactive drugs to achieve the trance. Whatever the method, when they fought they fought on pure adrenaline, but with fogged emotions and diminished rationality.

They were exceedingly strong (think about stories you've heard about adrenaline giving people strength during a crisis, then think of bringing that on intentionally), and by shutting down their emotions they were free of fear and hesitation, and oblivious to pain (again, think about highly drugged individuals today who are essentially immune to law enforcement pain compliance, and who can be shot several times and not react.) Once they were done, though, they'd 'come down', and be out cold - if the wounds they'd sustained didn't kill them as soon as the trance/drugs wore off.

There was nothing of anger in what they did. There was nothing of emotion at all. It was all about forcing a psychological and physiological change.

Of course, Pathfinder/D&D isn't Germania, and our barbarians aren't Norsemen or Visigoths. Still, it is the real-world equivalent and inspiration for the rage powers.

Shadow Lodge

Korpen wrote:


A lawful person can get angry, perhaps even uncontrollably so, but that would be an effect of provocations. The barbarians rage is about seeking out uncontrolled rage, and if one wants to be uncontrolled, one is not lawful.

Except the barbarian's rage is completely controlled. He can start and stop it on command.


Can someone explain to me how you access the power of chaos by raging? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The same way jedis access the force?


How is chaos similar to the force?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

They're both magical forces in their respective worlds?


The problem here is that people are viewing "rage" as "going all Hulk smash".

That's not what "rage" is from a mechanics perspective. ANY character can go all "Hulk smash", even a wizard.

"Rage" is a class feature, like wildshape. It provides specific mechanical benefits for the character. It literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the character's emotional state. It's a means of altering the character's actual physical and mental abilities.

It's called "rage" for purely historical/fluff reasons. They could just as well have called it "bleefurgen" except nobody would remember that. The power is described as tapping onto the power of chaos, much like wildshape is described as tapping into the power of nature.

Trying to view "rage" as somehow being tied to "anger" or any other emotional reaction is completely erroneous.

Losing that connection to chaos loses the ability to draw on chaos for the power. That's all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I believe it should be renamed "warp spasm".

:)


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe it should be renamed "warp spasm".

:)

Heh... I like that. But maybe "chaosgasm" would be better...


Rage is supressed and prevented by the Calm Emotions spell. The words "chaos" and "chaotic" appear nowhere in the description of Rage; the only fluff text is "A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess" - which sounds decidedly -not- like tapping into some outside force. It's even an (Ex) ability, unlike, say, a monk's Ki. The closest the barbarian description gets to a statement about tapping into the primal power of chaos is the poetic "Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage." The belief that Rage is not an emotional connection but some kind of chaos-tapping appears to be completely unsupported by the rules. Heck, if you look at what deities and powers grant the spell Rage as part of a domain, you'd probably come away believing that it's about channelling evil, not chaos. (A huge number of LE powers grant a domain that has Rage as a spell, but only a handful of non-evil powers do, and they're spread over L/N/G.) Barbarians can tap into the powers of chaos with the Chaos Totem powers, but it's no more a core part of the class or the Rage ability than casting Protection from Law is part of the Wizard's spellcasting.


Joyd, OK, so whether chaos is the source or not, the point is that "rage" is a mechanical class feature, not an emotional response. The fact that certain spells prevent raging is just another mechanical device that is intended to provide a tactical means of addressing rage.

The point is that "rage" is MECHANICAL and is a CLASS FEATURE. It is not the result of being angry or ANY CLASS COULD DO IT.


What matters is not whether it's an emotional response or not, what matters is whether it's sufficiently tied to chaos/non-law to justify a mechanical prohibition on lawful characters being able to rage. The argument that if rage were the result of being angry that any class could do it is ludicrous; it's obviously the ability to hone anger into greater combat prowess represented by having barbarian levels. I don't care what exactly rage is based on (and don't see any particular reason that it'd be based on the same thing for every barbarian), but if it's not based on something that lawful characters of any stripe are literally incapable of tapping into, it doesn't make a lot of sense.


Joyd, I disagree. It's a class feature. The class itself has an alignment limitation.

Period. End of discussion. That's the RAW. There is no need to "justify" it at all. It's a barbarian class feature and barbarians have alignment restrictions.

If people want to houserule so that barbarian/monks can exploit rage along with monk abilities, then fine. But as written rage is a class feature tied to a class that has an alignment limitation.

This is no different than a druid becoming lawful good and losing her wildshape.


ITT: Barbarians are the only characters who get angry.

</topic>


When I say tapping into a chaotic primal force I do not mean some sort of supernatural ability that they are chanelling I mean that they when they go into a state of rage that is different than just getting angry. Perhpas getting pshyched up is a better analogy. But the recklessness and wild abandon that it brings is simply beyond what somone devoted to law would be able to pull off. Yes they can control it to a point and stop it by force of will but when unleashed . . . it is anything but lawful. Now when you get into the archetypes you are diffinately dealing with supernatural abilities which I would define in part as chaotic.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Joyd, I disagree. It's a class feature. The class itself has an alignment limitation.

Period. End of discussion. That's the RAW. There is no need to "justify" it at all. It's a barbarian class feature and barbarians have alignment restrictions.

If people want to houserule so that barbarian/monks can exploit rage along with monk abilities, then fine. But as written rage is a class feature tied to a class that has an alignment limitation.

This is no different than a druid becoming lawful good and losing her wildshape.

So are trap sense, Damage Reduction and Uncanny Dodge, plus any random abilities the barbarian gets from their archetype. Rage is the only class feature the barbarian loses the ability to perform if they become lawful. I do personally feel that there's a need to justify alignment restrictions, because I feel that rules baggage should be carrying some weight somewhere, but other people might like rules that artificially increase system complexity for no beneficial ends. At least the Tree Stride distance table has the courtesy to not randomly throttle character concepts.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Forgetting how to do what you used to be able to do because of a change in moral values is weird unless magic is involved, in my view.


I just don't understand why. the barbarian loses his rage power. out of say the 15 classes only 3 can't multi class into barbarian. the rest can and it is fine.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / So I am lawful now and I can't get angry? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.