| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really considering that the semantics of class names as a serious problem?
There are bigger fish to fry. Call each bag of abilities by whatever name you like, but please don't expect an official change... consider what havoc and ambiguity that would create in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me but what species of fish are you talking about ?There are bigger fish to fry.
Aboleths.
Excuse me but what species of fish are you talking about ?
There are bigger fish to fry.
I mean that the semantics of class names really don't affect my game experience at all. Other rules do. Actual problems with the rules do.
Saying "class names should conform to the following standards" is pointless, because such a thing can only be achieved through house rules (which make the game harder to organize) or a very-unpopular errata (which would cause annoying legacy errors in hundreds of products).
At the end of the day, a class is a box of thematic powers, and you need a label on the box. The barbarian is not a "noble savage" class, it is a berserker warrior by way of the picts, celts, and vikings... except that being a class, it need not adhere to those themes at all if the player wants something else.
Take Varisia's iconic Shoanti tribes. They're "barbarians" right? But I would never represent the entire Shoanti race with barbarian levels. They may have a larger number of barbarian class levels than other cultures, but they likely have a not-insignificant number of rangers, fighters, warriors, etc. It is probably the minority of Shoanti that actually have barbarian powers and rage in combat. Even the Ulfen are probably more fighters and rangers than barbarians, if they're analogous to Earth's vikings the berserker is a rare and intimidating figure.
We can talk about the etymology of class names, especially Paladin, Druid, and Monk, and how they don't line up semantically with people's expectations. It just plain doesn't matter. Why on earth would I want to worry about this or try to correct it?
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.
I agree, and have done a conversion using the 3.5 unearth arcana as a starting point, and using the paladin and the antipaladin, for my campaign.
I allow them a optional classes, using the 3.5 unearth arcana names: Paladin of Honor (LG), Paladin of Freedom (CG), Paladin of Tyranny (LE), and Paladin of Slaughter (CE).
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.
By that reasoning, no one could ever be lawful since any and all groups of sentient creatures will have some form of code or structure such that their social groups can interact in some fashion, be it rules, laws, traditions, accepted social practices, etc.
Coming from any sort of society does not automatically make you lawful. Barbarians (the character class that rages) have to be chaotic because being able to rage requires a fundamental inner ability to let ones self control GO and to allow their anger to control them, a concept that is normally anethema to both lawful creatures and generally advanced societies.
If your the kind of a person who actively cultivates the ability to get pissed off on a moments notice and then let your anger take you over, you have to be able to embrace chaos to do it as your rational mind would otherwise step in.
Or something along that line of thought I believe.
Barbarians have to be chaotic to rage because losing control of yourself is a chaotic thing to indulge in regularly.
Edit: Note that the only barbarians (as in the tribal people) who HAVE to be chaotic are the ones who take the Barbarian class and that use Rage. The rest of the barbarians (as in the tribal people) can be of whatever alingment at all, though they tend towards chaos more than order as their peoples embody and value individual freedom and accomplishment over societal structure more often than not.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Gilfalas, they don't have to be chaotic by RAW, just non-lawful :P
Isn't it fun to watch someone sculpt a multi-paragraph thesis around a false point that serves only to prove they don't really know the subject matter in the first place? ;)
I think this issue might spring from what I've always interpreted as an error in the way the Barbarian as a class is presented: It mixes the "Berzerker" concept with the "Barbarian" (understood as per the Roman meaning of the word: Those living outside the predominant civilization). The former is a trade, the latter is a condition; and in D&D, classes are trades, not conditions (well, at least since we scrapped the Elf/Dwarf Class thing).
That confusion in the class leads to that ther' problem: Members of a tribe being automatically asumed as Chaotic, even though there is nothing inherently chaotic about tribes (much on the contrary; they are islands of order in oceans of untamed wilderness).
The Barbarian understood as a Berzerker, the Chaotic requeriment makes sense to me, as it is a class which revels in losing control. Barbarians voluntarily and knowingly throw themselves into a wild frenzy in which they let instinct and emotion (mainly RAAAAAGEEE) take over. I think that makes the character inherently opposed to Law.
The Barbadian understood as the "Tribal Guy", on the other hand, doesn't fit with an alignment restriction, at least no more than the "City Guy", the "Hermit Guy" or the "Sewers and Pig Mound Guy"; their conditions as members of a particular race, culture or living standard shouldn't determine their alignment (at best, it would push them in a particular direction, such as how members of a particular society might be more inclined to put reason before emotion or viceversa).
So, if you clean the Barbarian concept a bit and reduce it to what I think it was supposed to be from the start, the Non-Lawful restriction makes much more sense.
The only 3.X Barbarian I've seen lose control of themselves were the Frenzied Berserkers.
Frenzied berserkers TOTALLY lost control. Babarians MOSTLY lose control. In any case, both need to be chaotic to do so.
It is called Rage after all and not 'intense focus' or 'single minded determination'.
Edit: Just checked some things and I have been using 'chaotic' where I should have been putting in 'non lawful'. My bad. Just insert 'non lawful' anywhere I typed, chaotic.
Doesn't really change my reasoning though.
|
Frenzied berserkers TOTALLY lost control. Babarians MOSTLY lose control. In any case, both need to be chaotic to do so.
It is called Rage after all and not 'intense focus' or 'single minded determination'.
Not seeing it. Also, you seem to be forgetting that Barbarians can be Neutral.
Also: "A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess." "A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage..."
These statements suggest a Barbarian has complete control over when their Rage begins and ends.
Not seeing it. Also, you seem to be forgetting that Barbarians can be Neutral.
Wow folks are really ready to jump down folks throats around here. I already edited my post and corrected my mistake.
Klaus van der Kroft and I are both basically stating that ,conceptually, in the RPG we know and love and overly civilized mind, represented as the lawful alingment descriptio in this case, inhibits the ability to rage (or frenzied rage) and that is why barbarian CLASSED characters have to be non lawful.
...I'm sorry that I post swiftly and you take it as 'jumping down your throat'.
Sorry TOZ it was mostly Jiggy's snarky post that got me bent, I probably should have quoted that.
I know your a good guy and a constructive poster.
What I was referencing was the newest Errata which has this in it:
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 still have a small issue with classifying it around losing control or discipline, because it implies that all Chaotic alignments lose control over themselves.
I don't beleive it implies that. It implies that to learn and use the extraordinary rage ability a non lawful mind is required. I don't see it intimating anything other than that, exept perhaps that a lawful mind cannot learn the rage ability.
That is not to say magic or some other way of pseudo raging is not possible, just not the way that barbarians do it.
In Gilfalas defense, the PRD does describe barbarians as exhibiting the "fury of their passion" and being "battle-possessed", which suggests a certain abandon to more primal instincts.
Well, it wouldn't be the first disconnect between description and mechanics. :)
It probably is the first one you will find in the Core Rulebook, charisma might beat it.
Well, the thing is called Rage after all. That seems to suggest that the Barbarian allows a primal instinct to take over.
My argument for saying that Rage is Non-Lawful is that the Lawful alignment seems to be mostly about making decisions based on logic and reason. And WAAAAAAGH! doesn't quite strike me as letting logic rule the day.
Considering the Barbiarian enters such as state knowingly (ie, he actively pursues a state of primal anger and animalesque ferocity, instead of accidentally falling into it), I would judge that Non-Lawful (but not necessarily Chaotic, since the Barbarian does not always need to let his fists do the thinking).
Well, it wouldn't be the first disconnect between description and mechanics. :)
In all fairness, abandon doesn't necessarily means out of control, so the disconnect isn't so flagrant. It could be interpreted as not rationally however, and this could tie-in with the non-lawful clause.
This brings me again to my theory of mind vs heart...
|
IMO Barbarians should be able to be lawful. Sure, law describes logic, discipline, etc. But a Barbarian does not rage at random. They rage exactly when they want to, for exactly how long they want to. They have perfect control of themselves, they just use their emotions to grant themselves great power.
Does that mean *all* Barbarians choose to take control? No, in fact it's probably a minority, but that does not mean that the control is not there.
Either way, I feel that mechanics and flavor should be as loosely tied as possible (using the "official" flavor as a suggestion more than a rule) and tend to interpret lawful (and some neutral) barbarians as entering a state more similar to Flow, which is not rage but is described as "perhaps the ultimate in harnessing the emotions in the service of performing and learning." The Tranquil Fury trope someone posted earlier is an example of this state, but most instances of this state do not depend on anger.
EDIT: In short, a Barbarian could be acquiring rage through discipline of emotion just as much as they could by losing themselves to it. Flow describes the discipline-style, while the classic berzerker rage would be the other.
This is why I wish the PF devs would change the "barbarian" to a "berserker." It makes so much more sense. A barbarian is just one possible flavor of rage-driven fighters. A "berserker" would encompass them all. I understand the loyalty to the original game, but I just think the change would make things simpler and more open to application in a variety of character concepts.
In all fairness, abandon doesn't necessarily means out of control, so the disconnect isn't so flagrant. It could be interpreted as not rationally however, and this could tie-in with the non-lawful clause.
This brings me again to my theory of mind vs heart...
Hey! I happen to have the exact same understanding of the Law-Chaos axis: The Lawful Guy is the one who lets the brains determine the way his actions will take place (but not the intent; that's Good-Evil in my understanding), while the Chaotic Guy is the one who lets the heart -or intestines- be the designated driver.
That way, Lawful-Good and Chaotic-Good do not differ in their intention, but rather in the angle they use to approach it (the former might try to work within the system to free a wrongfully accused man, while the later will help him escape).
|
|
In all fairness, abandon doesn't necessarily means out of control, so the disconnect isn't so flagrant. It could be interpreted as not rationally however, and this could tie-in with the non-lawful clause.
This brings me again to my theory of mind vs heart...
See, you say non-lawful is 'not rational' and I hear you saying 'Chaos means insanity'.
And WAAAAAAGH! doesn't quite strike me as letting logic rule the day.
pfff. Ork's logic is exemplary...
|
|
My interpretation of Lawful versus Chaotic has been as follows:
* The Lawful character solves their problems and sets their goals with careful thought and reasoning. They can almost certainly tell you exactly why they took the actions they did for anything they do. In extreme cases, they might even give you long drawn-out arguments for why they hang their towels the way they do.
* The Chaotic character solves their problems and sets their goals with Intuition. They do what feels right, but don't put a lot of thought into it. That doesn't mean they can't be clever or that they don't have reasons, but they're unlikely to make well thought-out plans. They might say "Oh yeah, I'm totally going on a trip next month." and, come next month, have nothing prepared for taking that trip. And their reason for the trip would be nothing more than "It sounded like fun."
This basically means that the Lawful character is better when there is time to prepare, but the Chaotic character is better when there is no time to prepare.
pfff. Ork's logic is exemplary...
Sadly true, in their own psychotic and simplistic way, the Orks are the single most logical thing in that setting.
See, you say non-lawful is 'not rational' and I hear you saying 'Chaos means insanity'.
you should hear me saying chaos is instinctive, or intuitive.
chaos vs order
instinct vs logic
heart vs mind
innate vs acquired
etc.
I try to avoid
loyal vs disloyal
orderly vs disorganised
faithful vs rebel
like the laws vs dislike the laws
you should hear me saying chaos is instinctive.
chaos vs order
instinct vs logic
heart vs mind
innate vs acquiredetc.
I try to avoid
loyal vs disloyal
orderly vs disorganised
faithful vs rebel
like the law vs dislike the laws
I disagree, my instincts are really effective, and they typically lean toward order. A person's heart and their mind can be of the same opinion, it's not always the case but that doesn't mean that it never happens.
|
|
Indeed, instinct vs logic is saying that Chaotic characters are animalistic. Heart vs mind is vague enough to be useless. Innate vs acquired suggests to me that Chaotic characters are uneducated compared to Lawful characters.
It sounds like your Law/Chaos divide is between the intellectuals and anti-intellectuals.
This is why I wish the PF devs would change the "barbarian" to a "berserker." It makes so much more sense. A barbarian is just one possible flavor of rage-driven fighters. A "berserker" would encompass them all. I understand the loyalty to the original game, but I just think the change would make things simpler and more open to application in a variety of character concepts.
Unless you have a time machine, a change on the order of renaming a class cannot possibly be called "simple".
As for "more open to application in a variety of character concepts", the semantic accuracy of the class name (or the lack thereof) has absolutely no limiting effect on character concepts.
The non-lawful restriction does limit character concepts. It's a simple matter to find a GM who will waive this requirement if you ask them, and if you're playing PFS you ought to have a long list of more annoying restrictions that you have already accepted, so what's one more?
I think that the point Laurefindel is trying to make is that Law and Chaos are not so much defined by the result they reach, but by the method employed to get to that result.
Yes, heart and mind can point in the same direction, but one paid attention to emotions and the latter to reason. And the interesting things start to happen when both things do not agree: Saving your dad is probably both emotionally and rationally agreeable in almost all possible scenarios, but if you come up to a situation where saving him might bring down all your other plans down (plans that fit with your Good-Evil side of the scheme), the Chaotic character will let his heart decide (which most likely will say "Save him"), while the Lawful might have to consider it (as it will say "If you save him..."). Taken to the extremes, both will yield different courses of action.
While certainly we can find many holes in an instinct/logic division, I think it is better than a Rules/No-Rules one, since there are always going to be rules (even if it is the rule of "No-Rules") unless the character is effectively acting like the protagonist of The Dice Man, which let every decision to the result of a roll (although that could be a very interesting thing to see. And even that guy has to follow at least one structured rules system) or the other divisions often listed in the manuals.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Valentine Michael and the Martian culture are creations of fiction. Cultures that embraced cannibalism on Earth did so as they believed they could consume the strength of others by doing so. The only case of ritual cannibalism that I know of is that which is practised by Roman Catholicism and perhaps Orthodox where the Eucharist is held to be the literal body of Christ. But that's not conventional cannibalism.
In Papua New Guinea (where some claim it still is practised to this day by the Korowai), a person is cremated and some of their ashes mixed into a broth that their loved ones consume, to internalize / carry around the memory of their loved one forever. Tribes in Bali have had (or may still have) similar beliefs and practices.
It's seen as terribly insulting and a rejection of the deceased to refuse to take them into yourself and keep them a part of you, and believed that rejecting a parent or loved on in this way is a good way to make their spirit angry, suffer illness (via curse), etc.
In 2003, a representative of the Twe ('pygmies') in Africa went before the UN to complain that the soldiers on both sides of a civil war in the Congo were killing and eating them, because local belief is that they aren't human, and therefore 'food.'
The Donner party weren't trying to 'absorb the strength' of their departed. They just didn't want to starve to death.
And then there are the cases where someone (an albino, for instance) is killed and their blood or flesh consumed because it's believed to be a cure for AIDS or whatever.
There's no one reason why cannibalism happens, and it can range from respectful to horrific to desperation to superstitious nut-jobbery.
It's mostly social nonsense. If I had a choice between my dead body being eaten by maggots (which I friggin' loathe, nasty creatures!) or people, I pick people. I don't get that choice, so I choose organ and tissue donation (one way or another, parts of my body end up sustaining others), and then cremation (the cycle of life can bite me, or, not, in this case, 'cause I hate worms, and the thought of my body being pumped full of chemicals and lying underground in a nice suit and expensive box for a couple of centuries seems morbid and freakish to me).
|
|
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.
Real world 'barbarians' tended to be far more observant of taboos and cultural laws and traditions than 'civilized' city-dwellers ever were.
Violate a law in the walls of a city, you get punished, if you get caught.
Violate a law in the wilderness, you get eaten (either immediately, or, after being caught and expelled from the tribe, soon enough).
Earlier editions of AD&D even played around with the idea of 'primitive' spellcasters (like members of the Angakok kit) having special taboos, reinforcing how 'primitive' cultures were *forced* to be more lawful and more careful than city-dwellers (whom they often regarded as soft, deceitful and dishonorable).
First level Barbarians have the ability to overexert themselves for like 30 seconds a day to gain a little extra power in exchange for being fatigued when they are done. They have complete mastery over when they decide to exert themselves and when they stop. Hell, a Barbarian might go days, weeks, or even months without taxing themselves in such a manner. And because of this people say that Barbarians can't be lawful?
At least that's the message I'm getting from anyone saying that Rage precludes Barbarians from being lawful. And that just seems silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"People" are not saying that barbarians cannot be lawful, the rules say that barbarians can be lawful.
Whether or not you think that's cool is your own choice. Whether your GM allows you to ignore this is something you should ask them. But the actual rule is quite explicit.
Indeed, instinct vs logic is saying that Chaotic characters are animalistic. Heart vs mind is vague enough to be useless. Innate vs acquired suggests to me that Chaotic characters are uneducated compared to Lawful characters.
Yeah, I had chaged instinct by intuition presisely because animals are neutral in D&D/PF, not chaotic. Instinct is animal. Intuition is a sentient quality, like rationality.
And frankly TOZ, law and chaos are also vague enough to be useless, as this tread (and so many others) have demonstrated.
It sounds like your Law/Chaos divide is between the intellectuals and anti-intellectuals.
Yes and no. If for you intellectual = logical, then yes. But I acknowledge different types of intelligence, and different type of intellectualism.
Invention and creativity, either artistic or scientific, would be of the domain of Chaos under this interpretation.
|
First level Barbarians have the ability to overexert themselves for like 30 seconds a day to gain a little extra power in exchange for being fatigued when they are done. They have complete mastery over when they decide to exert themselves and when they stop. Hell, a Barbarian might go days, weeks, or even months without taxing themselves in such a manner. And because of this people say that Barbarians can't be lawful?
At least that's the message I'm getting from anyone saying that Rage precludes Barbarians from being lawful. And that just seems silly.
How rational are you when you are angry? I don't mean 'upset' or just 'a bit teed off'. I mean truly, passionately angry. I would imagine that you are not. Now take that sense of anger and multiply it by a factor of 5. Or 10. Or even 100. How rational would you be then? How rational is the Hulk when he rages? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Rage does not not preclude rational thought most of the time. This is even simulated in the description of the mechanic by barbarians 'not being able to use Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.) Those things require a degree of rational thought that just simply isn't there when the character rages. The exception exists in the Urban Barbarian archetype's controlled rage mechanic, hence why I say most of the time. Going back to the Hulk, there is a creature that is rage personified. He is not a rational being, but a creature of instinct and impulse. He is not described as a rational intelligent being, but rather as brutish or cunning. Sure there are times when Banner's psyche is dominant as the Hulk, but the level of strength possessed is always lessened when compared to the Savage Hulk.
But the rage is not what keeps the 'barbarian' from being lawfully-aligned. You can have lawfully aligned 'barbarians' just fine. They just tend to be other classes. The class represents strong-minded, passionate people with abilities that are outside of civilization's conventions and its ability to understand. Civilized society can understand druids, they can even understand oracles, summoners, and witches but barbarians defy explanation.
Remember that the term 'barbarian' itself is an insult, meant to label those that were not like people found in society calling them that. Also remember that barbarian can be defined as 'a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person.' It is that very definition that allows me to call myself a modern-day barbarian because I am those things (I try really hard to be what society terms as nice, but deep down I know that I'm not that person).
And that's what the class is. The name fits the class just fine because the abilities of the class are usually not found within civilized society. The class represents someone that is brutal, cruel, warlike, and insensitive. They don't have to come from a tribal society, but most often do. People are getting so hung up on the historical context of the name being applied to tribal cultures that it is affecting their ability to see things in a different light.
"People" are not saying that barbarians cannot be lawful, the rules say that barbarians can be lawful.
Correction: I meant to say "can't be lawful".
Predictive text.
|
|
@Blayde: There are ways of harnessing emotion in a controlled, rational fashion that are just as extreme as the furious rage. Note the wikipedia article for Flow I linked to earlier.
Even if that weren't true, a barbarian rages for, at most, 50ish rounds a day (barring feat expenditure or other extreme circumstances). That's 5 minutes. For 5 freaking minutes of their day they can rage, and they won't even do that most of the time. You're going to tell me that in order to give themselves to rage for 5 minutes they have to color their whole life as non-lawful? I'm sorry, but at a ratio of 955:5 (or 191:1 - waking minutes only), you're still lawful.
That said, I do agree that the name of the class has some baggage.
PS: I personally have given into an extreme rage before (and have been through years of anger management, to give you an idea of what my definition of "extreme" is) and there has never once been a rage I could not have ended if I thought there was need to. And I have ended such a rage before (the kind where you are lifting things that are twice the weight that you normally could). The reason I didn't is that I felt I was justified in my rage.
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.
While a tribal individual may follow his tribe's customs, is he really likely to follow a different tribe's customs while visiting?
Are you really going to convince Tarzan not to J-walk?
Do you really think Conan would agree to drive on the correct side of the road?
In fact a barbarian is defined literally as someone who is uncivilized. "Does not work well with others" is pretty much as good a summary as you can get. Sure, a barbarian can work within a party, but that's a small, family-like social structure. Expecting that same barbarian to function well in an ordered structure such as say... an army... isn't going to work.
That ALL being said, I would personally allow a Lawful barbarian at my table if the PC's roleplay was one of physically enforcing his crappy little tribe's beliefs and practices upon the entire world because SMASH might SMASH makes SMASH right, SMASH right? Though you're now looking at Lawful Evil, methinks.
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?
The word barbarian reminds many people of savage men who live in the wild, and destroy/pillage villages and towns. They might have traditions, but when someone burns your village down, steals your food, and probably your women, and that is not even a completed list, I can see the chaos factor.