** spoiler omitted ***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
I understand your argument, and it makes sense, but I like playing the paladin too much to treat it as anything less than a core class or at least a core class archetype.
"cannibalism"
On Mars it is a sign of respect to eat a fallen family member, after one dies it is expected. Why should the family waste such valuable protean. The process is very ritualistic, the family gathers, and makes dinner with a loved ones body. It is thought that doing such brings the deceased closer to the family as they gain a full understanding of the deceased as he nourishes them. this process of cannibalism is called Gokking. To Gok means to understand completely.
Paraphrase of Michael Valentine. A Robert Hienlien character
"cannibalism"
On Mars it is a sign of respect to eat a fallen family member, after one dies it is expected. Why should the family waste such valuable protean. The process is very ritualistic, the family gathers, and makes dinner with a loved ones body. It is thought that doing such brings the deceased closer to the family as they gain a full understanding of the deceased as he nourishes them. this process of cannibalism is called Gokking. To Gok means to understand completely.
Paraphrase of Michael Valentine. A Robert Hienlien character
I would not classify that as being an evil act. If one were cannibalizing for the lulz or to desecrate a body or for the intimidation value or just because they can I'd call them evil, but a legitimate cultural reason like the one in your post is not evil to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of Law and Chaos are not popular, generally, but this is more or less how I interpret it:
"Lawful" equals "Disciplined."
"Chaotic" equals "Undisciplined."
Yes, this generally means that in my games, most stalwart, dependable individuals with codes of honour are Lawful, and Chaotic characters tend to shun restrictive codes of ethics and have trouble staying organized.
Not popular, generally, with folks who prefer C over L, but it's worked for my group so far.
I also am perfectly willing to change what constitutes Lawful or Chaotic behavior from campaign to campaign, depending on the themes I want the world to have, or the feel of the world.
my 2 cents.
Barbarians can't be lawful to prevent them multi-classing with Paladins and Monks?
That's the best explanation I could think off, but I am not a fan of alignement system overall and tend to treat actual alignements as extremes and not norms and remove all alignement restrictions from core classes except for Paladins and even then code is their primary restriction and alignement only secondary.
The problem is using alignment as a straightjacket instead of a roleplaying tool. I actually find myself thinking in terms of alignment in real life. It gives players a simple but startlingly robust system for roleplaying their PCs with consistency. The problem comes when people interpret alignments to be exactly nine different personalities, instead of two axes which provide guidelines for actions with possibilities for multiple interpretations.
But there shouldn't be alignment restrictions on the Barbarian. In fact, the class name should be "Rager" or "Berserker" or somesuch. It could equally represent a religious zealot or a mystic warrior who enters an altered state of consciousness in battle, both of which might better be represented with Lawful alignments. But the class is simply too tied to Conan.
I'd get rid of alignment restrictions for all base classes - if something requires that specific a roleplaying restriction, it ought to be a prestige class, or at best an archetype.
Right, and if there were a sufficiently good cultural explanation for the behavior I'd allow it to not be seen as evil.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?
Cannibalism that occurs without the understood consent of the eaten is Evil. At least in my books.
Example of non-evil cannibalism: Aztec priests eating the hearts of warriors who understood what happens to them when they're captured in ritual combat.
Example of Evil cannibalism: Priest eats somebody who really does not want to be eaten.
A culture comprised of evil acts does not validate those acts just because it's "cultural."
Right, and if there were a sufficiently good cultural explanation for the behavior I'd allow it to not be seen as evil.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?Cannibalism that occurs without the understood consent of the eaten is Evil. At least in my books.
Example of non-evil cannibalism: Aztec priests eating the hearts of warriors who understood what happens to them when they're captured in ritual combat.
Example of Evil cannibalism: Priest eats somebody who really does not want to be eaten.
A culture...
The cultures that we were discussing above had implied consent.
My interpretation of Law and Chaos are not popular, generally, but this is more or less how I interpret it:
"Lawful" equals "Disciplined."
"Chaotic" equals "Undisciplined."
Yes, this generally means that in my games, most stalwart, dependable individuals with codes of honour are Lawful, and Chaotic characters tend to shun restrictive codes of ethics and have trouble staying organized.
Not popular, generally, with folks who prefer C over L, but it's worked for my group so far.
I also am perfectly willing to change what constitutes Lawful or Chaotic behavior from campaign to campaign, depending on the themes I want the world to have, or the feel of the world.
my 2 cents.
I disagree, a Barbarian can choose to end his rage as a free action, forcibly calming yourself down from a rage that practically doubles your strength is a truly incredible display of discipline. This isn't even a check that requires a will save, it just goes, that's pretty impressive.
The cultures that we were discussing above had implied consent.
I understand. I was just adding my two cents. Reading back it does appear like I was disagreeing but I'm not.
Yeah, 'rage' is kind of a misnomer. It's mechanically speaking (and how it's fluffed in my games) is more of an adrenaline surge, similar to Bane on Venom from Batman.
I disagree with this as well, Venom is a chemical enhancer, it's closer to a combination potion of bull's strength and bears endurance, only with some nasty side-effects in some continuities. Venom doesn't cause the user to suddenly lose the ability to use skills that require patience or concentration. Especially noticeable with Bane, who is a very smart man, because he was created to beat Batman (which is lame in and of itself), and can talk up a storm while on Venom.
Bane is closer to an alchemist who makes heavy use of mutagens, only he also seems to be a gestalt ranger (favored enemy humans) as well, or maybe a low-level alchemist, with several levels of ranger on it. Depends on the writer really.
My Comics-Fu is mighty.
New house rule.
"Urban barbarian's can be Lawful."
It's important to remember that the barbarian character class isn't simply a member of a barbarian society. He's a tempest waiting to happen. He submits himself to the wild rage.
I have no problem with a barbarian society being predominantly lawful, though I would tend to put most examples in the neutral area between lawful and chaotic. But the few members of that society who call on the beast within themselves to lay the smackdown wouldn't exactly be the most lawful in the group as I understand the alignment.
I have a friend that would LOVE to be a LG dwarven Paladin/Barbarian. Actually, she's quite the type in real life too... sweet, amiable and a KILLING BEAST when playing videogames or RPGs. But she had to do with a NG Cleric/Barbarian. :( Somehow, a Sacred Servant Paladin with the Rage domain wouldn't seem completely fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always despised the hideously contradictory and inconsistent descriptions of law and chaos. It's far worse than the good/evil problems.
Imagine a character that has strict personal codes of behaviour and procedure and is utterly dedicated to the defiance of cultural tradition, civil law and the status quo of society. Lawful or chaotic?
That is your honourable and rationally-minded revolutionary. If freedom is chaotic and rationality only lawful, then the world breaks down and the gears of alignment grind until their teeth break.
I have always despised the hideously contradictory and inconsistent descriptions of law and chaos. It's far worse than the good/evil problems.
Imagine a character that has strict personal codes of behaviour and procedure and is utterly dedicated to the defiance of cultural tradition, civil law and the status quo of society. Lawful or chaotic?
That is your honourable and rationally-minded revolutionary. If freedom is chaotic and rationality only lawful, then the world breaks down and the gears of alignment grind until their teeth break.
I agree with that, part because I would vote for 4th edition alignments, since the law/chaos aspect is nothing but a measure of goodness or evil in that system. Chaos/Law never interested me though it seems too artificial to actually work well in my mind.
I'd gladly remove alignment restricitions for base classes and make paladin a PrC, I'm not sure wether it will cause balance issues though, it seems as the alignment restrictions were used to actually make some combinations not viable. I do not see an instant problem, most things are already possibly through roundabout ways with all the options.
P.S. anyone wants to have a try to rewriting the paladin PrC, I'd prefer it to be accessible for full BAB characters
Barbarians can't be lawful?
Matsu Berserkers say otherwise. In fact, they'll gut you for merely insinuating that they're anything other than the epitome of honor. (aka, lawfulness)
Honour can have different motivations. Some can be very communal and lawful, others selfish and chaotic.
Honour (which by itself has a loose definition) shouldn't be tied to any alignment and particularly, shouldn't be an exclusive trait of lawful characters - even if many lawful characters do indeed demonstrate their 'lawfulness' with a strict code of honour.
'findel
...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.
They throw themselves into an emotional frenzy is how I've always seen it, yeah. That is, the 'core' of their rage ability is letting loose to some degree.
In fact, in 3.5, there were 'alternate' versions of rage more oriented towards a disciplined, battle-focus that would be more in line with the statutes of self-control. However, they were different and worked differently than 'normal' rage.
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.
I used to think in this way, then...something about it started bothering me. And it turned out, this thing was very simple:
Designers have an intent in mind when they design a class. That is, they have a particular flavor.
So a class then is a collection of rules, yet also a collection of intent and flavor by the designer.
If we truly wish them to be metagame concepts, we should name them as Unarmed Fighter, and so on. Something less flavorful, and more mechanically, grab-bag-to-suit-your-concept oriented.
That is, I don't want to pick up levels in Monk, I want to pick up levels in Unarmed Fighter and add the flavor myself.
They throw themselves into an emotional frenzy is how I've always seen it, yeah. That is, the 'core' of their rage ability is letting loose to some degree....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.
A few other games ask for a self-control test for barbarian to successfully invoke frenzy...
But I agree with the principle that rage is a personal, "inner strength thing". But then again, monks have a lot of personal, "inner strength things" and they are required to be lawful...
There's also the "wild vs order" (à la White Wolf's Wolrd of Darkness) argument, whereas barbarian are tapping in "primaeval wild energy" while monks go for the the "harmony with universe" trope. But the thing is, wilderness in D&D is neutral, not chaotic and not more prone to be non-lawful than non-chaotic.
more to come later...
They throw themselves into an emotional frenzy is how I've always seen it, yeah. That is, the 'core' of their rage ability is letting loose to some degree....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.
A few other games ask for a self-control test for barbarian to successfully invoke frenzy...
But I agree with the principle that rage is a personal, "inner strength thing". But then again, monks have a lot of personal, "inner strength things" and they are required to be lawful...
There's also the "wild vs order" (à la White Wolf's Wolrd of Darkness) argument, whereas barbarian are tapping in "primaeval wild energy" while monks go for the the "harmony with universe" trope. But the thing is, wilderness in D&D is neutral, not chaotic and not more prone to be non-lawful than non-chaotic.
more to come later...
Yeah. I'm just pointing out here that in 3.5, at least, when they wanted a more self-controlled version, they changed the mechanics.
That would imply that the 'basic' form of rage was intended to be, well, less with the self-control.
So that's one way of looking at it. It is not the only way.
While saying this can seems like it's closing the door on Lawful Barbarians, though, it's really not.
With PF's new take on class design being the swiss-army knife that it is, it should be fairly straightforward to make an archetype that attempted to embody that self-controlled, funneled rage and do so flavorfully.
So if you've an idea for a nonlawful barbarian--Paizo opened the door, and opened it wide, to building in your own vision.
Paizo did an amazing thing, opening the door to us modifying classes and tweaking them, rather than an outright change, or "Here's a PrC."
I haven't read all the responses but to the OP. Being lawful is all about personal discipline and control. Being a Barb is all about going crazy and letting go of control. It's just not in a lawful person's nature. They're too OCD. It's not so much that barbarians can't be lawful. Rather lawful people can't bring themselves to be barbarians.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to guess as to why the barbarian can't be lawful, it's probably because of one barbarian in particular: Fafhrd, partner of the Gray Mouser.
Remember, Conan and Kull aren't the only literary barbarians that were used as archetypes for the original design of the class (not that these guys were lawfully aligned). Fafhrd, from the Lanhkmar series of books was one source of inspiration, as was Tarzan. In fact, I personally believe that the class skews to the Fafhrd type alignment-wise than any of the the others. Tarzan is the noble savage that, while capable of living in civilized society, preferred to strip off the thin veneer of civilization from time to time. By contrast, Conan is a tactical killing machine. But both characters have very few faults. Fafhrd, on the other hand, is very human, more so than his contemporaries: like Conan, Fafhrd spends his time (along with the Gray Mouser) drinking, feasting, wenching, brawling, stealing, and gambling, and was seldom fussy about who hired his services. Unlike Conan (who is the embodiment of the classic "if it bleeds, we can kill it" mentality) and Tarzan (who has more in common with a certain dark elf ranger than most people think), Fafhrd was more humane. This was intentional, because Leiber wanted protagonists that skewed closer to how people actually were than Conan (who was so emotionally distant most of the time as to barely be human) and Tarzan (who was, for the most part, a paragon of virtue until you did something that teed him off or threatened those he held dear). Compared to Fafhrd, Conan and Tarzan were one dimensional and flat as far as personalities go. Both were trapped by the vestiges of civilization. Fafhrd, to some degree felt this way (especially in the later stories when he was older), but it was obvious when reading about him that he enjoyed life far more than the other two barbarians ever did.
The 1E barbarian (and therefore the Pathfinder barbarian) is a pastiche of these classic literary characters: the nigh-unstoppable warrior (Conan & Kull), the power of nature's rage (Tarzan), and the desire for true adventure (Fafhrd). All of these things were taken into consideration and went into defining and (most importantly) balancing the class alongside the others. Explain why a barbarian/monk should be able to rage and perform a flurry of blows? Or why a barbarian/paladin should be able to rage and holy smite? The barbarian rage is a primal quality of the class, a raw brutish strength that cannot be held in check by the constraints of order and civility. Lawful, as it relates to the paladin and monk, means a measured quality. It is a tempered strength that underlies the core of both of those classes. And it is the reason why the barbarian loses that primal aspect when he or she takes on a mantle of being a monk or a paladin. The capacity to feel anger is not lost, but to rage in the manner that they once did is forever denied them as that which was once primitive and unchecked has been tamed and is marked with due proportion in the form of other abilities.
(Yes, I know that as a barbarian you can take levels of monk with the martial artist archetype and not lose rage, but you give up the measured strength of flurry of blows which serves only to strengthen the point even further.)
I haven't read all the responses but to the OP. Being lawful is all about personal discipline and control. Being a Barb is all about going crazy and letting go of control. It's just not in a lawful person's nature. They're too OCD. It's not so much that barbarians can't be lawful. Rather lawful people can't bring themselves to be barbarians.
I don't like that. I think Lawful alignment should be about opinions towards Law, not about discipline, control, or anything else. Adding all that other stuff to the alignment straight jackets Lawful characters.
I think Blayde MacRonan just won the thread. ^_^
I don't like that. I think Lawful alignment should be about opinions towards Law, not about discipline, control, or anything else. Adding all that other stuff to the alignment straight jackets Lawful characters.
I don't see it so much as particular views and attitudes towards laws but rather as personality types.
I think Lawful alignment should be about opinions towards Law, not about discipline, control, or anything else.
Define Law (capital 'L').
Defining lawful as someone who follows laws (as in the civil code) is rather problematic, as many are in contradiction with each other, and some are even in contradiction within themselves.
That would also prohibit lawful rebels, even against an evil empire.
'findel
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we truly wish them to be metagame concepts, we should name them as Unarmed Fighter, and so on. Something less flavorful, and more mechanically, grab-bag-to-suit-your-concept oriented.
I don't find the name a barrier to refluffing a class. The printed flavor is not the only logical choice, merely one of them.
Again, the essential problem is that law and chaos are not opposites or mutually exclusive at all.
Again, the essential problem is that law and chaos are not opposites or mutually exclusive at all.
Modern science has demonstrated many times that the infinitely random is giving out the same results as the infinitely orderly.
But D&D shouldn't be modern science. Law and Chaos need to be opposite and exclusive forces, even if that means that we have to tweak their definition to make this work.
However, Law and Chaos shouldn't lead to mutually exclusive behaviours, as long as the fundamental motivations behind these behaviours are intrinsically different.
Honour is a good example IMO, as one might religiously follow an established code of honour as a test of standing within its society (lawful) or follow it own elastic code as a personal test of virtue to prove itself worthy of its own beliefs (chaotic) - both resulting in a very similar behaviour.
At the source however, these two characters are fundamentally different and will not cope with the same issues in the same way, and will not be influenced by the same cosmic (planar) forces.
Forcing this insanity to fit some mandatory requirement that law and chaos be opposites results in all the contradictions and confusion you see in this thread. If you do it, you're just paying worship to an archaic and broken system for the sake of nostalgia.
Edit: And once more, you present one of the famous misconceptions that makes these things fail so hideously: Chaos = random. It is not. The word chaos should never have been used and it's more harm than help.
Again, the essential problem is that law and chaos are not opposites or mutually exclusive at all.
Good and evil aren't opposites either. I mean it's not my fault that the masses are to inept to govern themselves. I'm ruling over them with an iron fist to keep them safe! ;)
Forcing this insanity to fit some mandatory requirement that law and chaos be opposites results in all the contradictions and confusion you see in this thread. If you do it, you're just paying worship to an archaic and broken system for the sake of nostalgia.
Edit: And once more, you present one of the famous misconceptions that makes these things fail so hideously: Chaos = random. It is not. The word chaos should never have been used and it's more harm than help.
I don't think you understood me; Law and Chaos need to be opposite and mutually exclusive planar forces. Unless you're forgoing the Great Wheel, that part isn't archaic and kept for the sake of nostalgia.
Behavioural Law and Chaos need to be a lot more flexible, which can exist without contradiction to the planar forces. Indeed, lawful and chaotic behaviour can cross on some points and shouldn't be mutually exclusive; that's what I was trying to say above.
'findel
Then behavioural law and chaos should not be called law and chaos and bear no connection to the workings of the great wheel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Barbarian" is a class, not a culture.
What do you call a "lawful barbarian"?
A ranger.
Pathfinder does not use the Great Wheel cosmology. There's a lot less symmetry for symmetry's sake in the Great Beyond cosmology.
Nobody should be losing sleep over this. It's kind of the standard alignment gripe. If you don't like alignment, house rule it out. If that's too much work, play a different game. I'm happy to recommend some good ones.
Then behavioural law and chaos should not be called law and chaos and bear no connection to the workings of the great wheel.
They can if Law and Chaos are objective concepts. A single individual will be influenced by all four forces simultaneously just as the Material Plane is shaped by all four elements. No matter how dominant one force is within one individual, it cannot be mutually exclusive of all others.
Alignment is to the soul what the four elements are to matter.
But that's my interpretation, not RaW's. I've been pretty vocal on how alignment as RaW is less than perfect...
And for the record, I think the barbarian should be free to choose its alignment, perhaps with some perks available to some alignments only. In terms of modern class design, the paladin and monk should be the same I think.
'findel
Pathfinder does not use the Great Wheel cosmology. There's a lot less symmetry for symmetry's sake in the Great Beyond cosmology.
I tend to forget that.
Nobody should be losing sleep over this.
This is too late for me :(
Not meaning to pick on Umbral however. Sorry bud'...
|
But there shouldn't be alignment restrictions on the Barbarian. In fact, the class name should be "Rager" or "Berserker" or somesuch. It could equally represent a religious zealot or a mystic warrior who enters an altered state of consciousness in battle, both of which might better be represented with Lawful alignments. But the class is simply too tied to Conan.
This is basically how I play my current barbarian character. He's Barbarian [Savage Barbarian/Urban Barbarian] 4/Rogue 2/Monk [Martial Artist] 1 and is Neutral Good. When they rage, it's more of a state of Flow than it is a rage (well, usually). They wear a noble's outfit and fight solely evasively and defensively using a single scimitar.
This leads to the funny situation of the easy-looking target being the hardest target. Who knew that the guy in the noble's outfit wasn't a squishy?
If we truly wish them to be metagame concepts, we should name them as Unarmed Fighter, and so on. Something less flavorful, and more mechanically, grab-bag-to-suit-your-concept oriented.I don't find the name a barrier to refluffing a class. The printed flavor is not the only logical choice, merely one of them.
Never accused you of being limited. Don't think I'd think that, either. :)
I think we're saying similar things here--designers craft with an intent in mind. It doesn't mean we're limited to it, though, by any stretch.
However, we're also coming at it from two slightly different, though not exclusive, angles.
I'm seeing that the designer should receive the nod first. That is, when they sat down at the table, they construct this rule, that mechanic together with a specific intent. As they perfect it and playtest it, one of the things designers test against is: How well do these mechanics fit the flavor I'm going for?
Example: The alchemist's abilities are chosen and built to reflect a madman who self-experiments, and who over time, becomes something of a monster.
This is the barrier I run into, so I think my discomfort here comes from viewing a class as "just" a bag of mechanics. If we call classes "grab bags of mechanics," then it seems that we'd be better suited--with a collection of vanilla mechanics that could be chosen, selected, and mixed as a set of Legos might be.
Rather than, say, The Alchemist. Or, The Barbarian. Or, The Inquisitor. These classes are a collection of mechanics based around a specific flavor.
The more raw, grab-bag style been attempted in prior years and with some successes: for instance, turning monk abilities into a series of feats, spellcasting as well, and characters are built then from the ground up, choosing mechanics and options that best suit the story their player wants to tell, without regard to the flavor that the designer has constructed.
It is definitely not a bad way of doing things. If it was, systems crafted with this sort of intent wouldn't sell as well as they do. And I'm also not saying here that no, there's only one way of interpreting a class (and I hope no one puts those words in my mouth, either, because who could make that claim?).
What I am saying though, is--classes are designed with intent. When we step outside of that, and view them as "grab bags," it's then we start writing our own rules.
That's something we have Paizo to thank for, too. They've made it easy to do that. ...they've kept the OGL, and they've made classes multifaceted in a way they never have been before in 3.x. With the addition of rage powers, for example, and the emphasis on archetypes--it's possible to do nearly anything. To have permission to rewrite nearly anything.
And then, well. A person can step outside of a designer's original class and say, "this is a grab bag" and begin building their own, as a set of Legos.
And make something fantastic.
And we should expect to need to make adjustments once our vision no longer matches the original writer's.
So that's part of what I mean by two tangents. I'm saying PF is published with "design intent is catered to, first." If we step aside from that--then we're venturing into our own ways and methods of doing things. And we should expect: to make additions, edits, and revisions as necessary.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaks-With-Eagles is the greatest warrior of the Whiterock tribe. He commues with the totems and ancestors of his people and helps to keep the tribes taboos and traditions. He is much sought after by other members of the tribe as a judge and arbiter. When evil monsters threaten his people, he becomes infused with the spirits of his ancestor gods and uses that power to strike down all who move against the Whiterock people.
His class is Paladin.
Rockwin Finnegan is a sailor in the employ of Captain Harker of the Weedy Rose. He grew up as an orphan in the cheapside district of Remus Port, the largest seaport in the empire. All his life he's had to scrap and fight to make his way in the world, and he takes guff from no man. He has his own code of conduct, sure, but get a few drinks in him and he's likely to take your head off for looking at him the wrong way. God help you if you threaten him or his mates. He's got fists like hammers and once ripped the arm off a guy who tried to pick his pocket. Still, he's a decent sailor and knows his way around the rigging and the docks.
His class is barbarian.
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
Something of note this is in fact completely at odds with the AD&D barbarian. In AD&D all barbarians had to be lawful because law dictated the honor and trustworthiness of one's tribe. It was thought that with such small communities a warrior had to be honorable or he would be nothing more than a thug or despot.
