It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a pretty good argument. I think the alignment requirement is a last vestige of an old design philosophy, the same one that made sure Dwarves couldn't be wizards, Bards couldn't be lawful, and Arcane Archery was solely an Elven exploit. I can understand the idea of enforcing flavor, but in the it end limits some neat concepts (or in this case, a totally normal concept). Hopefully, someday, we'll drop the few remaining restrictions on Barbarians, as well as Druids, Monks, and whatever other classes I am forgetting at the moment.
Except Paladins. You'll have to claw Lawful Good only Paladins from my cold, dead hands.
Barbarians are not necesarily tribal warriors, they are kinda to a fighter what a sorceror is to a wizard. They have less formal training but they are born for combat and primal, raw fury.
I don't have a big problem with that being restricted to non-lawful alignments, now I do personally not care a rat's ass about Law/Chaos philosophies as an actual alignment. In my campaigns I often use Chaos as synonimous to evil or morally devoid, I actually appreciate the 4th edition alignment system for that reason where law/chaos largely has lost it's meaning.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful is akin to 'civilized'. Primitive societies don't often have laws so much as 'traditions'. The law is never seen as thing of merit on its own, it is a guideline to the wisdom of the tribe. The idea that law should be imposed and obeyed by someone outside your own clan/kin/tribe/personal loyalty just doesn't exist in many primitive socieites.
Barbarians acknowledge friendship, loyalty, blood ties, blood debts, superstition, and similar things. Contracts and rules imposed by powers/beings the barbarian doesn't care about? Feh. Broken whenever convenient to do so. Obeying the rules just to obey the rules is not something they do. This can extend up to and including the gods.
A LAwful Barbarian is a dichotomy...a civilized savage. Barbarian is about being the savage, not civilized.
Now, having a class that could rage and be lawful? That's a different argument.
==Aelryinth
Lawful is akin to 'civilized'. Primitive societies don't often have laws so much as 'traditions'. The law is never seen as thing of merit on its own, it is a guideline to the wisdom of the tribe. The idea that law should be imposed and obeyed by someone outside your own clan/kin/tribe/personal loyalty just doesn't exist in many primitive socieites.
Barbarians acknowledge friendship, loyalty, blood ties, blood debts, superstition, and similar things. Contracts and rules imposed by powers/beings the barbarian doesn't care about? Feh. Broken whenever convenient to do so. Obeying the rules just to obey the rules is not something they do. This can extend up to and including the gods.
==Aelryinth
Best explanation ive heard in a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Paladins. You'll have to claw Lawful Good only Paladins from my cold, dead hands.
I maintain that there should be an anti-Law CG and anti-Chaos LE version, just like we have the anti-Good CE and anti-Evil LG.
So, basically what you are saying is that law requires a written set of regulations enforced via a bureaucracy.
What about barbarians who serve as battle ragers? Could they be lawful, seeing as how their rage is a fighting style and they could just as easily come from and support a kingdom as a tribe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 players handbook said it well. They may be honorable, but at heart they are wild. I feel like the very essence of throwing yourself into a rage like that transcends all law. Using rage is giving in to the natural instinct to fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I don't see anything in here that should automatically preclude ALL Barbarians from being Lawful. Especially if you consider the Urban Barbarian and his "controlled rage."
I really hate alignment restrictions. They honestly don't add anything to the game, in my opinion. Hell, I'm still upset that the Assassin is an evil only class.
I've never liked the alignment restrictions in this game, personally I think alignments are bad game design, so I usually ignore it, and play a character that would act the way I think they should, given the concept they are based on.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I don't see anything in here that should automatically preclude ALL Barbarians from being Lawful. Especially if you consider the Urban Barbarian and his "controlled rage."
I really hate alignment restrictions. They honestly don't add anything to the game, in my opinion. Hell, I'm still upset that the Assassin is an evil only class.
I do agree on what you say there but I think that a person that can regulary work himself in an emotional rage on a frequent basis should be chaotic, a barbarian with qualities that are otherwise lawful will end up being of neutral alignment.
It doesnt end up affecting the character you play, but his inner rage keeps him from qualifying as lawful.
By the same token an evil character can be quite a decent fellow most of the time, but it happens to be a serial killer called Dexter.
Monks have to be lawful and barbarians have to be non-lawful because that's what Gygax said in AD&D, and never mind that the meanings of law and chaos have never been beaten into anything that makes any actual sense as concepts, much less concepts that explain the class alignment restrictions.
I agree with Merkatz, and wanted to say that my players agreed with me on that, with one exception. They all agreed that a Paladin should ALWAYS be Lawful Good. Their reasoning was that that's basically such a vital part of the Paladin as a concept that it cannot and should not be removed.
I always thought Barbarians had to be non-lawful because the concept of lawful implies order and restraint. At least, I always interpreted it as this. Monks need to be lawful because they achieve their powers through clarity of mind, and Barbarians can't be lawful because their rage is giving in to their passions and becoming an unfettered, raging weapon, which goes against the order and self-control aspects of the lawful axis.
Well, my two cents, at least.
|
I don't have an issue with requiring paladins to be LG, but I think hashing out the code of conduct and following it accomplishes that piece well enough that you can scrap alignment completely. I know I have.
If you need a reason why classes have alignment restrictions, just say that class abilities require the character to be infused with the specific energy, and having an opposing alignment reduces the amount of energy within you below what is required.
So a monk can only advance if his Law energy is pure enough, and a barbarian whose alignment is Lawful does not have enough Chaos within him to power his rage.
|
Pathfinder needs to just make a break from even using an alignment system. Yes it's venerable and long established, but there's a reason that most other RPGs out there don't use alignments.
The cavalier class has orders, and each order has an ethos of behavior that's expected, and defines the consequences of breaking the ethos.
It's an idea that's far superior than sticking paladins, monks, barbarians, etc to alignments. Give an 'ethos' to classes that are suppposed to behave a certain way, and let that be the end of it.
A lawful person is willing to abide by the results of the law, even when he or she disagrees with that result.
A lawful person may be unhappy with the result of an election, but accepts that the elected official has the right to hold office.
Now lets look at the barbarian in this situation. His rival is a weakling who could never hope to effectively lead the horde into battle, but this rival proposes that the leader of the tribe should be chosen via a series of debates, fundraisers, back-room deals with power brokers, and lots of ass-kissing in order to win an election. Somehow the tribe agrees to this system, and the rival is elected tribal leader a few days before scouts report that another tribe is getting ready to attack.
Is a barbarian really going to say "I will abide by the result of the election and follow the weakling's orders at this crucial point in history"?
|
It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?
It isn't lawful, as in "I will follow a code"
It is Lawful, the opposite of Chaotic.
Conceptually it is intended as "Civilization" vs "Tribalism".
City mouse vs Country mouse.
Or at least that is how I've always considered it.
Don't get me started on LG only paladins. If there is anything that I absolutely loathe in 3.5/Pathfinder, it is that restriction.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that written regulations, debate, and bureaucracy are not necessary to have law. All that is necessary is a code that the majority agrees to follow. A tribal culture is no less strict on such matters than a more civilized one. Look at the Celtic or Germanic tribes and compare them to the Romans. One is primitive and tribal, the other is a superpower, yet I would consider both lawful in their own way.
Law (capital 'L') does not mean "follows civil code", and Chaos (capital 'C') does not mean "follows no rules".
Say rather that the chaotic will follow laws (notice small 'l') that he/she - as an individual - acknowledge as fair and respect leaders that have proved themselves worthy (as opposed to laws in principle and leaders as representative of system).
In that light, I see the non-lawful requirement of the barbarian as a mark of individualism and personal freedom of thought as a requirement to invoke rage (a very personal and self-relying ability).
IMO, Law has nothing to do with personal code either (like honour), so I wouldn't exclude honorable barbarians (even chaotic ones) with codes (potentially) identical to that of a paladin, but coming from fundamentally different motivations.
Then again, I have a slightly different view on alignment.
'findel
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lawful person is willing to abide by the results of the law, even when he or she disagrees with that result.
A lawful person may be unhappy with the result of an election, but accepts that the elected official has the right to hold office.
Nothing says a lawful person will do those things. Only that they tend to. 'Lawful aligned' does not equal 'follows laws'.
Nothing says a lawful person will do those things. Only that they tend to. 'Lawful aligned' does not equal 'follows laws'.A lawful person is willing to abide by the results of the law, even when he or she disagrees with that result.
A lawful person may be unhappy with the result of an election, but accepts that the elected official has the right to hold office.
Yeah, true enough. An absolutely lawful person would always follow the law. Most lawful people probably fall into the category of "usually follows the law."
But of course, you can only use that "I'm a lawful person who just chose not to follow that particular law" line for so long before getting kicked out of the club.
Don't get me started on LG only paladins. If there is anything that I absolutely loathe in 3.5/Pathfinder, it is that restriction.
Too late, you have! :)
Again, the LG requirement can make sense in a "must be doing the right thing in every and all things, and never succumb to the temptation of making the life of one better to the detriment of others". Of course if you disagree that this is quintessential to the paladin, then I have no case.
The "must be lawful" part also makes sense as a ethical buoy in times of moral dilemma, and to develop reflexes and automatism in the paladin's faith (which is worth remembering cannot be flinching). Again IMO, the Lawful requirement has nothing to do with the code of the paladin in application, although this code most likely has a Lawful foundation.
'findel
Don't get me started on LG only paladins. If there is anything that I absolutely loathe in 3.5/Pathfinder, it is that restriction.
Too late, you have! :)
Again, the LG requirement can make sense in a "must be doing the right thing in every and all things, and never succumb to the temptation of making the life of one better to the detriment of others". Of course if you disagree that this is quintessential to the paladin, then I have no case.
The "must be lawful" part also makes sense as a ethical buoy in times of moral dilemma, and to develop reflexes and automatism in the paladin's faith (which is worth remembering cannot be flinching). Again IMO, the Lawful requirement has nothing to do with the code of the paladin in application, although this code most likely has a Lawful foundation.
'findel
That is why we disagree, I guess. I think a paladin needs to be an exemplar of good, but I do not see why a CG or NG deity wouldn't choose to create paladins that share their alignment. It makes no sense that they wouldn't want in on the whole holy warrior thing. I am all for LG paladins (I love them to death, as I enjoy figuring out ways to be LG without acting like a traditional paladin), but I think NG and CG paladins should be an option for people who would rather have a different play style. Is it a traditional paladin? No. Do I care that it isn't traditional? No.
That is why we disagree, I guess. I think a paladin needs to be an exemplar of good, but I do not see why a CG or NG deity wouldn't choose to create paladins that share their alignment. It makes no sense that they wouldn't want in on the whole holy warrior thing. I am all for LG paladins (I love them to death, as I enjoy figuring out ways to be LG without acting like a traditional paladin), but I think NG and CG paladins should be an option for people who would rather have a different play style. Is it a traditional paladin? No. Do I care that it isn't traditional? No.
I guess I'm simply old school: holy champion = cleric and this very specific type of holy champion = paladin.
But I agree that in terms of modern RPG design, holy champion should be a class and paladin (the LG class as we know it) should be an archetype. In the defense of the later, paladin started out as an 'archetype' of the the fighter... kind-of.
I find the UA Prestige Paladin to be a much better mechanical representation of the class.
Thematically, Paladin is a perfect prestige class
I find the UA Prestige Paladin to be a much better mechanical representation of the class.Thematically, Paladin is a perfect prestige class
*Growls threateningly and bares claws*
Barbarians is a Racial Slur used by the Greeks, Romans, and Early Christians to insult anyone whom was not them.
In other words the Barbarian from Pathfinder, D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.0, D&d 3.5, and Pathfinder are based on fictitious character type. Actual there based on Conan the Barbarian, straight flat stolen. Furthermore I propose that is was a bad job of stealing at that.
Barbarians are not real world vikings, mongols, native Americans or any-such, because if one did say they were they would be calling them an derogatory name.
So to answer the question, because the original writers like the Conan series of books and tried to capture that flavor. The Barbarians are base off of a character that has no tribe, no family, and a really bad character history.
Real World Definition of a Barbarian!
"A member of a community or tribe not belonging to one of the great civilizations (Greek, Roman, Christian)."
Lawful Rage.
I like that movie. Hehe, he got so pissed he came right back around to perfectly calm.
I know, but it amuses me when someone comes all the way around.
Pally are the police to make sure there is balance of Law and Choas in the world with out them the innocent will be raped and evil would rule unapposed.
It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?
Alignment requirements for the most part are stupid. I think a lot of them are too restrictive and don't often make a lot of sense. Personally I think that paladins should be allowed to be any good. I also think that cannibalism shouldn't be considered evil under the setting. Some people believe that the soul can finally be released from the material world once the flesh is consumed. Others believe that the bodies of people hold wisdom and spiritual enlightenment. Why is cannibalism wrong when it's practical in most cases and spiritual enlightening in others?
It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?Alignment requirements for the most part are stupid. I think a lot of them are too restrictive and don't often make a lot of sense. Personally I think that paladins should be allowed to be any good. I also think that cannibalism shouldn't be considered evil under the setting. Some people believe that the soul can finally be released from the material world once the flesh is consumed. Others believe that the bodies of people hold wisdom and spiritual enlightenment. Why is cannibalism wrong when it's practical in most cases and spiritual enlightening in others?
I'd handle that on a case by case basic, determining whether or not cannibalism in an evil act by looking at why the act of cannibalism was committed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's because alignment restrictions are a good mechanic. Restricting monks, barbarians, and paladins in this way makes sense. The fluff behind the monk class is all about mastery and perfection, which takes dedication and focus, something a chaotic mind is going to have difficulty with. Rage is the opposite, letting oneself give in to the raw primal fury, letting it take him where it wants to go, instead of restraining it, something that is anathema to the lawful mindset.
Paladins are meant to be the epitome of all that is good and righteous in the world, but also tempered by a code and a deep personal dedication to doing what is right at ALL times, never what is merely expedient or popular. That requires a mindset that cannot be beset by doubt or willingness to give serious consideration to any other way.
That is what separates these classes from the mere fighter or cleric. Any fighter can do unarmed strike damage and run around without armor, or devote themselves to a god, or just abandon reason and focus in battle... but only these classes are the embodiment of pure focus, or pure anger, or pure righteousness. A CG paladin cannot exist, just as a chaotic monk or a lawful barbarian cannot. It just doesn't make sense.
I'd handle that on a case by case basic, determining whether or not cannibalism in an evil act by looking at why the act of cannibalism was committed.It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?Alignment requirements for the most part are stupid. I think a lot of them are too restrictive and don't often make a lot of sense. Personally I think that paladins should be allowed to be any good. I also think that cannibalism shouldn't be considered evil under the setting. Some people believe that the soul can finally be released from the material world once the flesh is consumed. Others believe that the bodies of people hold wisdom and spiritual enlightenment. Why is cannibalism wrong when it's practical in most cases and spiritual enlightening in others?
That's my point cannibalism isn't always evil. I just bring it up because the hex for witches cook people is ruled as it's always an evil act.
It's because alignment restrictions are a good mechanic. Restricting monks, barbarians, and paladins in this way makes sense.Not restricting classes via alignment makes sense too. No mechanic is going to be good for every group.
Please, show me how it makes sense.
That's my point cannibalism isn't always evil. I just bring it up because the hex for witches cook people is ruled as it's always an evil act.I'd handle that on a case by case basic, determining whether or not cannibalism in an evil act by looking at why the act of cannibalism was committed.It makes no sense. It is my understanding that most barbarians belong to more primitive tribal peoples. The thing is, most such tribes have their own laws, and expect them to be adhered to. These laws are more informal than that of an established government, but they are laws none the less. Would not adhering to these and upholding them be a lawful act? Why is a barbarian who protects and upholds a tribe's way of life any different than a paladin who does the same of a kingdom in terms of alignment?Alignment requirements for the most part are stupid. I think a lot of them are too restrictive and don't often make a lot of sense. Personally I think that paladins should be allowed to be any good. I also think that cannibalism shouldn't be considered evil under the setting. Some people believe that the soul can finally be released from the material world once the flesh is consumed. Others believe that the bodies of people hold wisdom and spiritual enlightenment. Why is cannibalism wrong when it's practical in most cases and spiritual enlightening in others?
Right, and if there were a sufficiently good cultural explanation for the behavior I'd allow it to not be seen as evil.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please, show me how it makes sense.
Classes are metagame constructs. A Barbarian is not a barbarian. A Monk is not a monk. You can represent an unarmed warrior that finds his focus to improve his combat capability with the Barbarian class. Barring a class from alignments reduces the number of ways you can design a character, and shuts out concepts.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, show me how it makes sense.Classes are metagame constructs. A Barbarian is not a barbarian. A Monk is not a monk. You can represent an unarmed warrior that finds his focus to improve his combat capability with the Barbarian class. Barring a class from alignments reduces the number of ways you can design a character, and shuts out concepts.
Tell me about it.
*Growls threateningly and bares claws*I find the UA Prestige Paladin to be a much better mechanical representation of the class.Thematically, Paladin is a perfect prestige class
As a side benefit, there is no excuse not to drop the hammer on those who break the code. They chose their path, and they can use their old class abilities for a while til they atone.
Its worth consideration at least.
Requirements: LG, obey the code of the paladin for one level without benefit.