|
...at least none I could find in the Core Rulebook. I was considering a barbarian that converted to a Paladin for roleplaying character development purposes, and I was curious to see what abilities were lost by becoming lawful good, ie-non-chaotic. Unless I missed a buried sentence somewhere, it looks like there are no penalties. Since there is a paragraph for druids, clerics, paladins, etc, I assume that this was just overlooked since there is a section in the PH 3.5. Has this been answered before? If not, is there intended to be lost abilies, and if so which ones?
Monks don't lose abilities for becoming Chaotic.
It probably should be spelt out that you can't progress Barbarian levels further if you are non-Chaotic, but I believe that's the general take on it.
I seem to remember a thread about this a while back. I don't think under the PF system there is a penalty. Barbarian for me has always been a strange class.
My game world has 2 different races that could be considered Barbarians. A race similar to vikings from the north and a race with american indian/plains horsemen qualities in the southern areas. Yet neither could be considered primarily Barbarians as the class elicits, but Barbarians as a race. I've been knocking around the idea of changing the name of the class for my campaign but nothing solid.
For my game the chaotic alignment is a fundamental aspect of the class. Rage cannot be bound by law and all that, yet the race itself can be any class depending on character concept.
By no means do I feel anyone needs to follow my example. This is just how I work it at my table and I'm just making conversation. If there's nothing prohibiting it and you have a great idea for a character, I say go for it :)
I seem to remember a thread about this a while back. I don't think under the PF system there is a penalty. Barbarian for me has always been a strange class.
My game world has 2 different races that could be considered Barbarians. A race similar to vikings from the north and a race with american indian/plains horsemen qualities in the southern areas. Yet neither could be considered primarily Barbarians as the class elicits, but Barbarians as a race. I've been knocking around the idea of changing the name of the class for my campaign but nothing solid.
For my game the chaotic alignment is a fundamental aspect of the class. Rage cannot be bound by law and all that, yet the race itself can be any class depending on character concept.
By no means do I feel anyone needs to follow my example. This is just how I work it at my table and I'm just making conversation. If there's nothing prohibiting it and you have a great idea for a character, I say go for it :)
You could call them Berserkers like in AD&D
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.
Well... there is nothing in the RAW prohibiting that :D
Orlando Furioso, Bbn / Pal :)
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.Well... there is nothing in the RAW prohibiting that :D
Barbarians ignore the RAW. They ARE RAW!
Is there an official answer on this? AFAIK, nothing is said about Barbarians not being able to progress in the class should they change alignment, and less than nothing about losing class abilities.
I did it, once: a Barbarian switching to become Monk. I wondered if the rules as written forbade the character to take Barbarian levels again.
I did it, once: a Barbarian switching to become Monk. I wondered if the rules as written forbade the character to take Barbarian levels again.
As long as he is lawful in alignment, they cannot take levels in Barbarian any longer.
Role: Barbarians excel in combat, possessing the
martial prowess and fortitude to take on foes seemingly far
superior to themselves. With rage granting them boldness
and daring beyond that of most other warriors, barbarians
charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand
in their way.
Alignment: Any nonlawful.
Hit Die: d12.
Emphasis mine.
a lawful barbarian loose rage and can not continue in this class.
rage is EX ability, so the Lawful barbarian would not lose it, but you are right in that he will not be able to continue taking levels.
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.
Not if that's against tribal law..
Seriously there's no reason barbarians shouldn't be able to be lawful. Evern tribal societies have laws in place and probably more respect for their laws and traditions than other types of society. I'm ok with lawful barbarians as long as it's played that way.
Well, it is a kind of roleplay issue here. Rules As Written do not talk of a loss of rage anymore... I simply cannot find any rules as clear as the Paladin's Code of Conduct regarding loss of class abilities for a non-lawful barbarian.
I guess Pathfinder adjusted the classes for a wider range of possible character backgrounds. Not a bad thing, but I miss the Roleplay explanations there were back in 3.5.
Alignment: Barbarians are never lawful. They may be honorable,
but at heart they are wild. This wildness is their strength, and it
could not live in a lawful soul. At best, barbarians of chaotic
alignment are free and expressive. At worst, they are thoughtlessly
destructive.
Ex-Barbarians
A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot
gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of
the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and
uncanny dodge).
For the little of what game rules are left to dictate roleplaying, it makes me sad to see such restrictions go away. The Barbarian class once felt like it was a unique path with a taste, sacrificing a little sanity for more destructive power. Now it feels more like a class to dip in for extra bonuses.
Nor should they, I see no reason why a barbarian needs to be chaotic in nature for them to go "berserk" in combat. For that reason our group removed the alignment restriction on barbarian, we also did that for monks, and changed Paladins to match the cleric alignment restrictions.
For a monk to know his body to the point he can ignore poisons and diseases, he better be the lawful type. Progressing as a monk is solid discipline.
Paladins that match their god's alignments are rather templars. That's another subject, though I like this one change.
Barbarians, wherever they come from, live in the moment. It's already been discussing long and large in another thread... tribal societies did not only have characters with Barbarian class levels among them. The Barbarian class is a select path for wild and daring personnalities; they find their strenght in the survival instincts of their inner beast. How can one be faithful to a code of honor or any law orientation when he rages?
The guy cannot use any INT or CHA based skills when raging. This means more than being unable to do technical stuff; this means the raging barbarian is moved by instincts, focused on destroying threats to his life and nothing else. You call that lawful? I certainly don't.
Nor should they, I see no reason why a barbarian needs to be chaotic in nature for them to go "berserk" in combat. For that reason our group removed the alignment restriction on barbarian, we also did that for monks, and changed Paladins to match the cleric alignment restrictions.
They don't need to be chaotic to go berserk, however they do need to be chaotic to progress in level. The very essence of a barbarian is all about unlawfulness. They revolve around recklessness and not adhering to strict order. A barbarian, when in a rage, only cares about smashing, breaking, slicing, and destroying whatever obstacle is before him. A "whatever it takes" attitude is certainly not the one of a lawful character.
Monks, on the other hand, are all about discipline and training. They must go through long years of rigorous training and exacting discipline to hone thier bodies and achieve physical and mental perfection. This disciplined training is lawful in nature, and a chaotic or neutral regimen wouldn't be strict enough to achieve this perfection or enlightenment.
I think both of these alignment restrictions are spot on, and any hand waving of these restrictions is turning a blind eye to IC logic, but also opening the door to munchkins and creating what could possibly be a slight balance issue. However, each group plays differently and this may be how your group wishes to play your game. Whatever is fun for you.
Seriously there's no reason barbarians shouldn't be able to be lawful. Evern tribal societies have laws in place and probably more respect for their laws and traditions than other types of society. I'm ok with lawful barbarians as long as it's played that way.
There's plenty of reasons they shouldn't be lawful. Yes, tribal societies have many laws and honor, etc. You are correct in all of this. However, you're assuming the entire society is made up of barbarians. The majority of such tribal societies would most likely be rangers or fighters and craftsmen, with a few barbarians amongst them. And most likely the Barbarians wouldn't be leaders of the tribes. Those villages that DO have lots of barbarians among them and in positions of power would be good examples of warmongering clans far from lawful.
In fact, the historical Viking "Berserkers", (Of which i assume is a large influence on D&D/Pathfinder Barbarians) were actually both feared and respected amongst their own villagers. Often they would act like thugs and take whatever they wanted in the village, and often were only kept around because they were such intimidating forces against their enemies in defense of their villages.
Hardly lawful.
Well with my viking berserker example I was trying to point out a general unlawful lifestyle rather than just their rage. I highly suggest reading up on historical 'viking' berserkers as background info/flavor to one aspect of Barbarians. If nothing else it's great ideas for characters.
The balance issues I see with removing the alignment restrictions aren't major ones, but they do allow for easy combination of Barbarian/Monk or Barbarian/Paladin multiclassing. If the character knows what he's doing, you can munchkin and stack certain bonuses of both classes a little obscenely. It's nothing too much worse than what min/maxing is already available however.
I understand how many barbarians would have a general unlawful lifestyle, I just don't think it is the only possibility.I could see how barb/pally might be an issue, but we can simply negate that multi class. Barb monk is already a possible multi class if a character has an alignment change.
True, however normally you'd be unable to level one of the two classes anymore, and usually such a radical change isn't likely to happen often if at all. It makes such examples an extreme exception.
Mostly it's the combination of Flurry of Blows and Rage. A monk getting +2 to hit and damage to all of his flurry of blows attacks or stunning fist is a little scary. Add in how you can add rage feats like Strength Surge or Suprise Accuracy AND combine that with a flurry of blows, you could essentially guarantee a sunder, disarm, and trip all at once in one round. Barbarians are rather excellent at Combat Maneuver builds, throw in Flurry of Blows and things start getting ridiculous. Superstition adds a large boost in the already huge saves monks get, making specialized builds be nearly impossible to fail a save. Unexpected Strike paired with Stunning fist can pretty much never allow your opponent to even take his turn at all.
Again, it's nothing that's really blowing away things, but it's enough in my opinion to tip things beyond the power curve as intended.
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.Not if that's against tribal law..
Seriously there's no reason barbarians shouldn't be able to be lawful. Evern tribal societies have laws in place and probably more respect for their laws and traditions than other types of society. I'm ok with lawful barbarians as long as it's played that way.
This.
I play a CN barb, but in reality he's more like Chaotic Lawful -- he has very little use for the norms of genteel society, but he's loyal to his clan and defers to the decisions of his chieftan.
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.Not if that's against tribal law..
Seriously there's no reason barbarians shouldn't be able to be lawful. Evern tribal societies have laws in place and probably more respect for their laws and traditions than other types of society. I'm ok with lawful barbarians as long as it's played that way.
This.
I play a CN barb, but in reality he's more like Chaotic Lawful -- he has very little use for the norms of genteel society, but he's loyal to his clan and defers to the decisions of his chieftan.
So does orcish tribes, under the strongest ruler. That doesn't make them any more lawful.
Loyalty isn't part of the Law/Chaos axis. A Chaotic character might even be truer to his friends than a Lawful one. The Chaotic character is going to discard societal norms to aid a friend, even if it defies authority. No code, no laws whatsoever imprisons his decisions. He values doing what he considers right, on a whim.
That is, what it means to be Chaotic.
When you become lawful as a barbarian, all your clanmates kill you.Not if that's against tribal law..
Seriously there's no reason barbarians shouldn't be able to be lawful. Evern tribal societies have laws in place and probably more respect for their laws and traditions than other types of society. I'm ok with lawful barbarians as long as it's played that way.
This.
I play a CN barb, but in reality he's more like Chaotic Lawful -- he has very little use for the norms of genteel society, but he's loyal to his clan and defers to the decisions of his chieftan.
So does orcish tribes, under the strongest ruler. That doesn't make them any more lawful.
Loyalty isn't part of the Law/Chaos axis. A Chaotic character might even be truer to his friends than a Lawful one. The Chaotic character is going to discard societal norms to aid a friend, even if it defies authority. No code, no laws whatsoever imprisons his decisions. He values doing what he considers right, on a whim.
That is, what it means to be Chaotic.
This argument is why I don't like alignment in the game. It's hard to take out when abilities/spells use it in their mechanics, but trying to define a character in two descriptors is just not able to be done well in my mind. Paladins are the only class I see as needing an alignment code and that to me should be based more on the deity they follow than their alignment. Monks could grow up in a monestary training in unarmed combat and be very disciplined/lawful. That same set of mechanics should be able to be used to define the fighting style of an underground smuggling syndicate/non-lawful, but can't because they're called monks and monks are lawful. Very limiting in my mind.
I just wanted to point out that
1) there's already like four other threads arguing over monk alignment, and
2) monk/barbarian multiclass is absolutely terrible. Enjoy being hilariously bad at everything.
Creative Director
|
Basically, you just need to be non-lawful to gain a level in barbarian. You don't lose barbarian stuff if you become lawful, but you can't take new levels until you repent for your law-abiding ways.
And since barbarians are supposed to be the class that says, "TO HELL WITH DEFENDING MYSELF... I WANNA SMASH STUFF!" and the monk is supposed to be the class that says "I may not do a lot of damage out of the gate, but I'm hard to hurt so I'll be around long enough to finish the job," it kinda makes sense that combining them shouldn't be a great option.
Although, as with anything RPG-related, one person's "suboptimal" is another person's "OMG BROKEN!"
And since barbarians are supposed to be the class that says, "TO HELL WITH DEFENDING MYSELF... I WANNA SMASH STUFF!" and the monk is supposed to be the class that says "I may not do a lot of damage out of the gate, but I'm hard to hurt so I'll be around long enough to finish the job," it kinda makes sense that combining them shouldn't be a great option.
An orc barbarian/monk character is one of the strongest, most effective combat characters we've seen in a long time--and many of us are optimizers to begin with!
Without going and quoting a ton of rules, if you change to an alignment not allowed to a class, then there is no more advancement in that class til the character is of an allowed alignment again. If this also involves being of a divine class, then loss of spells and/or abilities also happens until the alignment change is corrected and proper atonement is made to the slighted deity.
Just wanted to clarify that my above post is referring to our playing group, not optimizers as a whole. Somehow, that little tidbit got lost in an edit somewhere.