What does the Barbarian do? He gets really, really angry and this actually results in a physiological change to his body. It isn’t just throwing a tantrum (anyone can do that, and how many times does it actually help the person?), it’s taking an emotion and focusing it into a useful purpose. Psychic Warriors using the Animal Affinity power are doing practically the same thing and neither the class nor the power has an alignment restriction. So why can’t Barbarians be lawful? (Enter the phrase "Barbarian King".)
I mean, didn't Bards get to be lawful (I can't quite remember, but I think that alignment restriction got waived.)? So why not the Barbarian too?
Well, Pathfinder allows lawful bards once more, but lawful barbarians are only actually prohibited from levelling up and entering rage.
But the question is Why? Why must that alignment restriction be that way? What is inherently unlawful about what a Barbarian does (bearing in mind my example with the Psychic Warrior and that he's doing practically the same thing with no alignment restrictions)?
Possibly because it's fantasy and there is something elementally chaotic about drawing upon your inner rage to warp your body and gain temporary powers?
As I read it, the barbarian abilities depend on a sort of "primal life", some tenuous link of a person (or tribe-like group) with the dawn of humanity, when physical power was unfettered by the reins of reason, convention and "civilization". That seems to fit into the patrimony of philosophical Chaos. If the barbarian relinquishes that lifestyle, "civilizing himself" he'll have to take another path, as his link to his primal unconscious will dilute.
The non-Lawful Bard was a bit narrow, as it seemed to favor a sort of archetype, the bit-of-a-scoundrel wandering performer, maybe nice, but not tied down to a place, convention or belief too strongly (only to "art", maybe). That left out some cases, like religiously-inspired performers, who could be members of a LG religion and focus their "art" in a form of praise; or brave skalds, in the service of their liege and army, inspiring performers but strongly tied to the group; or seedy information brokers and professional slanderers or propagandists. A Nazi-type "minister of information" would be surely a LE Bard!
Psychic Warriors using the Animal Affinity power are doing practically the same thing and neither the class nor the power has an alignment restriction. So why can’t Barbarians be lawful? (Enter the phrase "Barbarian King".)
I did not give a concrete answer to that and I have a couple ideas:
1) "Barbarian King": there are Chaotic kings, barbarian or not. If you go with the alignment labels, there are C and N people who belong to Lawful organizations or even run them. Also, bear in mind that "Barbarian Kings" do not usually call themselves that. In real world, that tended to be a pejorative word cast at them by cultures who considered themselves more "civilized".
2) Psychic Warriors: as I see that class, what they do is triggering a particular mental state through (psionic) meditation, training and discipline. Like a medium uses a certain training to go into a trance or you may use hypnosis or auto-hypnosis or drugs to achieve an "altered state of consciousness", be it for pleasure, therapy or religious practice. It is induced through effort and technique. The barbarian's rage is primal and a legit emotional state (non-induced). Of course, the player does choose when to use the power, but that's purely a rules convention. The barbarian PC would probably just "fly into a rage". Check many fantasy stories where a raging barbarian actually has time coming back to normal afterwards, when foes have been vanquished.
I mean, didn't Bards get to be lawful (I can't quite remember, but I think that alignment restriction got waived.)? So why not the Barbarian too?
In my opinion, it was arbitrary, and was put in place as a balancing factor. I think the alignment restriction is silly and that there is no legitimate reason for it. I would allow lawful barbarians in my game. Lawful bards, too. J.S. Bach, anyone? People to this day still listen to his music to inspire competence. And it's difficult to imagine anything more structured than his music.
|
What Andreas Skye said. Also, see the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard. The day the barbarian class ceases to be a blatant attempt to emulate Conan the Cimmerian is the day D&D loses its soul.
I agree with both of you
while the Bard is about perfoming (for whatever reason the character choses) the Barbarian, not only gets angre... anyone can egt angry and is unable to do what the barbarian does...
the barbarian calls forth the primordial forces of nature and creation (which are most of the time considered to be chaotic by the way) to cause death and destruction to his enemies (and in a few cases, his friends)
when one is unable to see correctly between friend and foe and relishes himself for blood and violence, even in the name of a greater good and by following just the strategy of chopand cleave anything from here to there... i can't seehow that can be lawful at all...
actually i would call psions lawful or neutral all of them... they require as much discipline as any Paladin or Monk
|
IT should never have been called Barbarian, it should have been called berserker...as the chaotic alignment allows the barbarian to be completely reckless...
it's not a culture thing...A barbarian king might be a fighter or even a paladin...though the barbarian king could be a "barbarian" he rules by might, not by rules...his rules might change with his whims...
Berserker is a much better name for the class but dont think there will be any name changes
I take it none of you could be convinced of a channeled, focused rage? Something the Barbarian in question has learned to enter through meditation?
We are justifying the non-lawful requirement for barbarians, not attempting to come up with reasons for lawful rages.
Alignment pre-requisites are bad for the game because all they do is limit character concepts. Why is LG the only alignment that can have crusading Fighter/Cleric wannabes? Why must Monks be Lawful? (Seriously, we have great real-world examples of chaotic disciplines, like Drunken Masters. I could go on.) And why can't we have the Noble Savage (LG/N Barbarian)? A classic archetype if ever there was one.
Every alignment pre-requisite demonstrates a lack of imagination on the part of some writer. They should all be abolished unilaterally and without remorse.
I agree in general (I especially dislike lawful-only monks), except I don't have a problem with alignment restrictions for paladins, blackguards, or other classes specifically devoted to serving celestial/infernal/abyssal powers. For instance, I'd rather see a specific "true neutral paladin" class with its own set of abilities than just allowing paladins to be neutral.
Alignment pre-requisites are bad for the game because all they do is limit character concepts. Why is LG the only alignment that can have crusading Fighter/Cleric wannabes? Why must Monks be Lawful? (Seriously, we have great real-world examples of chaotic disciplines, like Drunken Masters. I could go on.) And why can't we have the Noble Savage (LG/N Barbarian)? A classic archetype if ever there was one.
Every alignment pre-requisite demonstrates a lack of imagination on the part of some writer. They should all be abolished unilaterally and without remorse.
I agree... but then, my group doesn't really play the numbers game so much. I can also see how some players would just try to shoehorn a bunch of things that don't thematically fit together to get a numerical advantage. That *is* a potential abuse of removing all alignment restrictions. I don't think it would be a problem in my games, but I can see how it could be in others.
Berserker is a much better name for the class but dont think there will be any name changes
The 3.5 version of the barbarian is a mix of the 1st edition Berserker and the 1st edition Barbarian.
The rage ability is indeed taken from the Berserker (who was more Viking inspired). The 1st edition Barbarian didn't rage (as far as I can remember) but had abilities similar to uncanny dodge.
Back to the OP, I think the Lawful restriction has both to do with flavour and balance. This way, you eliminate the incompatible (yet very attractive) monk-barbarian, paladin-barbarian combos. It make certain lawful aligned races like Dwarves less likely to become barbarian, even if it would otherwise be a very optimal choice for them (availability to high CON, increased speed, DR etc)
'findel
Back to the OP, I think the Lawful restriction has both to do with flavour and balance. This way, you eliminate the incompatible (yet very attractive) monk-barbarian, paladin-barbarian combos.
But that's just it -- there's nothing that makes a monk-barbarian "incompatible" other than the fact that the rules say so. I've seen a number of kung fu movies with characters I'd characterize as monk-barbarians (in D&D terms).
But that's just it -- there's nothing that makes a monk-barbarian "incompatible" other than the fact that the rules say so. I've seen a number of kung fu movies with characters I'd characterize as monk-barbarians (in D&D terms).
IMO, it's nothing but an arbitrary game balancing decision with little thought behind it that has now gained the wieght of authority because it's been that way for so long, so people make up reasons to justify it.
And while I hate the idea of a kung fu monk in my D&D, I've seen a few Shaw Brothers movies in my day, and I see no reason why monks need to be lawful.
Some people equate lawful with discipline - but yet, the same resoning doesn't apply in the case of a bard, despite the fact that it takes great discipline to master a musical instrument.