|
Okay, after reading all these arguments about why Barbarians cannot be lawful, I have to add my note.
The fact barbarians cannot be lawful has NOTHING to do with culture. Barbarian hoards can be Fighters, even paladins, who are primitive but lawful. (Barbarian referring to the culture, not the class.)
The CLASS cannot be lawful because of the Rage ability.
Rage is pure anger and concentrated chaos. You can't channel it if you are lawful. That is the only reason. It has nothing to do with Conan driving, or what kinds of traditions tribes have. the Non-lawful rule is only for those barbarians who wish to have rage.
Now, can a lawful character have rage? That's at least the right argument.
As someone who has been in years worth of anger management: Yes. Yes you can rage and still be lawful. Rage was something I called upon when I felt an injustice was dealt against me and I was given no alternative method of getting that injustice attention (not being wise enough to realize it doesn't help in that regard). I could also "dismiss" it when it became an immediate liability. I haven't raged in years now (because I've no need to), but I'm sure I could still do it if necessary.
As someone with a math degree: Raging for less than 1% of your day does not require that rage to determine a dominant or even significant portion of your personality.
As someone who hates alignment restrictions in general: Rage can easily be expressed as the disciplining of your emotions. You can call them and dismiss them on command so as to use them for your purposes. That sounds like the epitome of lawful to me. There, a tiny (mentally internal) reflavoring and the rage ability works as lawful, unchanged in either in-world appearance or in mechanics.
I allow Lawful creatures to rage in my pathfinder game. Thus I allow lawful members of the barbarian class. I do insist it be tied to a sense of a violation of justice, but that's not all that uncommon in a proper D&D game. (unless you're in an evil party.)
Actually, that might be an interesting take for a archetype.
Still, I wanted to point out that the alignment restriction is based on that ability, and nothing else. There's a reason that's the only power you lose if you become lawful as a barbarian.
Still, I wanted to point out that the alignment restriction is based on that ability, and nothing else. There's a reason that's the only power you lose if you become lawful as a barbarian.
You also cannot progress further in levels of the barbarian class.
As someone who has been in years worth of anger management: Yes. Yes you can rage and still be lawful. Rage was something I called upon when I felt an injustice was dealt against me and I was given no alternative method of getting that injustice attention (not being wise enough to realize it doesn't help in that regard).
A truly lawful person would have accepted the injustice if they felt it was inherently a part of the system. The chaos and nonlawfulness of rage is that it cannot abide such things.
Rage is saying No. This Shall Not Be So. If necessary, I will burn the world to prevent it. I will trample my enemies, shatter mountains, and cast down the gods themselves rather than let such injustice persist.
No compromise. Ever.
In its purest essence, that is rage. And it can never be truly bound.
|
|
A truly lawful person would have accepted the injustice if they felt it was inherently a part of the system. The chaos and nonlawfulness of rage is that it cannot abide such things.
Rage is saying No. This Shall Not Be So. If necessary, I will burn the world to prevent it. I will trample my enemies, shatter mountains, and cast down the gods themselves rather than let such injustice persist.
No compromise. Ever.
In its purest essence, that is rage. And it can never be truly bound.
You're grasping onto ONE aspect of alignment. This is from the core rulebook:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
So you're telling me that if the ONLY thing they skip is respecting ONE authority, they're not lawful? I would argue otherwise.
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?
When someone asks: "Why can't Class X be Alignment Y?", my knee-jerk response is: "Why do you WANT Class X to be Alignment Y?" What do you expect to gain?
First, RL alignment: In RL, the U.S.A. is nominally LG. However, the vast majority of the citizens are True Neutral. They're interested in their own welfare, and that of their family. You can say that you're LG, but when was the last time that you pulled over to help someone broken down on the side of the road? When was the last time you exceeded the Speed Limit? Just some food for thought.
In D&D/Pathfinder, ALIGNMENT is REAL! Most people, even in a LG or LE society, are True Neutral. They have no strong ties in terms of ethics or morality: They're concerned with the survival and well-being of themselves and their family. People with a non-Neutral component to their Alignment have strong moral or ethical convictions. It's not a straight jacket, but a guideline. To be Lawful, one must be orderly and law-abiding MOST of the time.
However, in D&D/Pathfinder, there are actual MECHANICAL effects of alignment. Detect Evil, Protection from Good, alignment-based DR! A Cleric or Paladin actually emits an Aura of their Alignment!
Magic exists. The Barbarian's Rage is a kind of magic, as is a Monk's Ki abilities! A Barbarian that has a Neutral, Neutral Good, or Neutral Evil alignment can act in a lawful manner most of the time. He just can't be Lawful!
As for the Paladin: He's supposed to be Lawful Good! If he's not, he isn't a Paladin! Someone else pointed out that there are variant "paladins" in the D&D Unearthed Arcana (and there was even a Dragon magazine to that effect, but don't ask me which one).
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I want to reiterate what others have said:
"It's your game. If you want Lawful Barbarians, Neutral Good Paladins and non-Lawful Monks, you can!" In the case of the Paladin and Monk, you're going to have to alter actual alignment-based class abilities (a non-Lawful Monk shouldn't have Ki Strike (Lawful), for instance.
However, I would like to state again: "Why do you want Class X to be Alignment Y?"
|
|
When someone asks: "Why can't Class X be Alignment Y?", my knee-jerk response is: "Why do you WANT Class X to be Alignment Y?" What do you expect to gain?
First, RL alignment: In RL, the U.S.A. is nominally LG. However, the vast majority of the citizens are True Neutral. They're interested in their own welfare, and that of their family. You can say that you're LG, but when was the last time that you pulled over to help someone broken down on the side of the road? When was the last time you exceeded the Speed Limit? Just some food for thought.
In D&D/Pathfinder, ALIGNMENT is REAL! Most people, even in a LG or LE society, are True Neutral. They have no strong ties in terms of ethics or morality: They're concerned with the survival and well-being of themselves and their family. People with a non-Neutral component to their Alignment have strong moral or ethical convictions. It's not a straight jacket, but a guideline. To be Lawful, one must be orderly and law-abiding MOST of the time.
However, in D&D/Pathfinder, there are actual MECHANICAL effects of alignment. Detect Evil, Protection from Good, alignment-based DR! A Cleric or Paladin actually emits an Aura of their Alignment!
Magic exists. The Barbarian's Rage is a kind of magic, as is a Monk's Ki abilities! A Barbarian that has a Neutral, Neutral Good, or Neutral Evil alignment can act in a lawful manner most of the time. He just can't be Lawful!
As for the Paladin: He's supposed to be Lawful Good! If he's not, he isn't a Paladin! Someone else pointed out that there are variant "paladins" in the D&D Unearthed Arcana (and there was even a Dragon magazine to that effect, but don't ask me which one).
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I want to reiterate what others have said:
"It's your game. If you want Lawful Barbarians, Neutral Good Paladins and non-Lawful Monks, you can!" In the case of the Paladin and Monk, you're going to have to alter actual alignment-based class abilities (a non-Lawful Monk shouldn't have Ki Strike (Lawful), for...
Meet Tom. He's a lesser noble who tries to show other nobles what they should strive to be. He's honest to a fault, helps those in need (even if it requires sticking his neck out), but obeys the law and works with it to do so. He's extremely honorable and refuses to face an unarmed foe with a weapon (preferring to either revert to unarmed combat or give them a weapon similar to his own). In most aspects of his life he's considered stubborn, but calm, predictable and dependable.
Just one thing: When he finds himself forced to fight (which isn't often), he gets intense. Really intense. He doesn't yell "RRRRAAARGG" at the top of his lungs, but he gets an intense look and aggressive posture that makes everyone around realize that s+%& just got real. It's obvious he's pissed. As soon as his foe has been subdued, he returns to his former self.
At no point during any of this does he betray any of the values inherent to a lawful person, nor do they step outside of the bounds of what the barbarian class represents mechanically. They use their rage (arguably chaotic, but I stress arguably) in a completely controlled manner, and only when their lawful side says "this is okay." This means that the absolute only thing holding this character back from be lawful, is that barbarian says "no."
Meet Tom.
Meet Guglanush. He's a deranged follower of Rovagug who is mentally unstable and has taken it upon himself to rigidly enforce what he understands Rovagug's wishes to be. He interprets every event, every portent, every word through the filter of Rovagug-centric views. He works ceaselessly to enlighten those around him, converting them to his faith. He is unwaveringly a proponent of Rovagug's will.
So of course he hurts people.
Guglanush is a paladin of Rovagug. He's Chaotic Evil because while he follows Rovagug's will, he disregards every other rule, law, or restriction placed upon him.
My point? Style. Guglanush should be an anti-paladin, not a paladin. Because while the game mechanics fit, the essence doesn't. There are better choices than just tossing alignment USUALLY.
Yes, and if the GM and group agree, sure he can be Lawful.
Still, my main question stands: "WHY do you want a Lawful Barbarian?"
If I'm GMing and a player asked if he/she could play a LG Barbarian w/ the backstory that StabbittyDoom gave in his previous post. My first question would be, "Are you planning on staying a Barbarian?"
If my player said, "Yes", then I'd allow it. Cool backstory and a neat way to portray it. If he didn't want to play an Urban Barbarian, I would probably switch out some skills to make it more appropriate (Kn-Nobility instead of Survival, etc.).
If my player said, "No, I want to multiclass into Paladin and/or Monk because it'll give me this cool mechanical advantage that would normally be impossible", then I'd say, "No. You can't."
So, it's a matter of WHY you want your Barbarian to be Lawful. For flavor, then fine. For a game advantage, then no!
|
|
Yes, and if the GM and group agree, sure he can be Lawful.
Still, my main question stands: "WHY do you want a Lawful Barbarian?"
If I'm GMing and a player asked if he/she could play a LG Barbarian w/ the backstory that StabbittyDoom gave in his previous post. My first question would be, "Are you planning on staying a Barbarian?"
If my player said, "Yes", then I'd allow it. Cool backstory and a neat way to portray it. If he didn't want to play an Urban Barbarian, I would probably switch out some skills to make it more appropriate (Kn-Nobility instead of Survival, etc.).
If my player said, "No, I want to multiclass into Paladin and/or Monk because it'll give me this cool mechanical advantage that would normally be impossible", then I'd say, "No. You can't."
So, it's a matter of WHY you want your Barbarian to be Lawful. For flavor, then fine. For a game advantage, then no!
And I say you're doing things in the wrong order here.
If someone can provide a completely reasonable character (no weird funky business in their background) that violates an alignment restriction (but no other mechanic), then the alignment restriction probably shouldn't be there.
You shouldn't have to go through the effort of saying "Here's my in-depth explanation of why this guy can be lawful" when those who are of non-lawful alignments don't. That puts on unfair higher standard on those who wish the play the lawful alignment for the sake of keeping an arbitrary alignment restriction partially-enforced.
You're always going to have munchkins. Using alignment restrictions will not prevent munchkining, it will simply change its strategy. If you want to prevent munchkining in your games, tell them "no" when they make a broken character, don't make a rule that's unrelated to the power level the combination grants. Treat the cause, not the symptom.
(PS: You can already combine Monk and Barbarian via the Martial Artist archetype of monk, which removes the alignment restriction.)
I guess it goes back to the original post.
"Why can't barbarians be lawful?"
Because the rules say so.
If you don't like it, remember that it's just a game, and that the GM has the right to change the rules (and they're even given written permission to do so in the Gamemastering section of the Core Rulebook)!
If it really, really, really sticks in your craw, then I'm not sure what can be done about it. Perhaps write the nice folks at Paizo a letter and suggest they change it. Or maybe start a petition to see if enough people agree that it should be changed. :)
Mechanically, there's nothing about the barbarian that precludes a lawful alignment except that the rules say they can't rage if lawful. Just house rule the alignment restriction away. Easy fix. :)
"Barbarian" is a class, not a culture.
What do you call a "lawful barbarian"?
A ranger.
A Wild Stalker Ranger, to be specific.
|
|
@Weren: The person wanted a reason other than "What the core book says." The answer is "there really isn't a good reason other than DM preference."
I already plan on house-ruling that restriction out for my next campaign.
A Wild Stalker Ranger, to be specific.
This certainly eliminates the "Rage == chaotic" argument. A RAW archetype that grants rage without requiring lawfulness, to a non-barbarian class, something the barbarian themselves cannot do by RAW.
Yep, the Wild Stalker really sticks a fork in it. :P
Between the Wild Stalker and the Martial Artist, I'd say that it's a good case for at least allowing the Urban Barbarian to be lawful (if not just dropping the alignment restriction for the Barbarian in general)!
EDIT: Based on other things pointed out in this thread, perhaps the term "barbarian" shouldn't even be used to refer to a class. Instead, I would pose that the class should be called "Berserker."
Glad I could help. :)
|
|
Real reason is historical, they were from the get go non-Lawful. As the D&D game morphed into 3e and then the d20 system into Pathfinder sacred cows were slaughtered wholesale. The Barbarian alignment restriction on having to be non-Lawful is a cow that managed to escape notice. So while female characters being weaker and halflings only be able to attain Fighter level 4 all were inhumanly put to sleep the Barbarian must have been hiding in the woods. Perhaps with the Games Workshop Zoats?
S.
|
|
I doubt Paizo will send Cosmo to confiscate your dice.
He's right, it's Sara Marie that has that job now.
But do me careful, all printings from the 3rd on of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook have an inbuilt nano-microphone that sends data back to Paizo regarding usage of the +2 situation bonus. You don't want to know what happens if you misuse that bonus <shudder>.
Why can't barbarians be lawful? Because Rage + Smite just isn't fair!
Be honest now, people just don't want Rage to stack with a Core monk.
None at all, other than balancing that -2 from Flurry at 2nd level.
More damage maybe? Rage Flurry of Spell Sunders?
|
bar·bar·i·an adj \bär-ˈber-ē-ən\
Definition of BARBARIAN
1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
— barbarian noun
— bar·bar·i·an·ism noun
^ thats why a barbarian is non lawful... because the word barbarian conflicts with the concepts of lawful in pathfinder. like it was said earlier, if you dont like it change it. just remember that the term "barbarian" conflicts with a lawful mentality. if you want a lawful barbarian change the name from barbarian to "pissed fighter guy" or "tantrum fighter" but personally i like "Two Year Old with a Great Sword"
|
|
I see nothing in that definition in conflict with the PF concept of Law.
thats because i didnt realize that the definition was cut off half way.
Definition of BARBARIAN
1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
— barbarian noun
— bar·bar·i·an·ism noun
Examples of BARBARIAN
<people who were regarded as barbarian by the ancient Romans>
Origin of BARBARIAN
Latin barbarus — more at barbarous
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to BARBARIAN
Synonyms: savage, barbaric, barbarous, heathen, heathenish, natural, Neanderthal (or Neandertal), rude, uncivil, uncivilized, uncultivated, wild
Antonyms: civilized
<people who were regarded as barbarian by the ancient Romans>
Origin of BARBARIANLatin barbarus — more at barbarous
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to BARBARIAN
Barbarus is Latin for, I kid you not, "bearded man." They were referring to the germanic tribes to the north.
I have a goatee. Can I not be Lawful?
<people who were regarded as barbarian by the ancient Romans>
Origin of BARBARIANLatin barbarus — more at barbarous
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to BARBARIAN
Barbarus is Latin for, I kid you not, "bearded man." They were referring to the germanic tribes to the north.
I have a goatee. Can I not be Lawful?
Sure.
But you have to be Evil.
The name of the class shouldn't be a straightjacket on what it is able to do....
For example:
noun
1. (formerly) a person who composed and recited epic or heroic poems, often while playing the harp, lyre, or the like.
2. one of an ancient Celtic order of composers and reciters of poetry.
3. any poet.
4. the bard, William Shakespeare.
Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English < Celtic; compare Irish, Scots Gaelic bard, Welsh bardd, Breton barz < Indo-European *g w rs-do-s singer, akin to Albanian grisha (I) invited (to a wedding)
I've played a Bard before without any ranks in any Performance skills. I instead. I actually played him as a charismatic fighter and leader of soldiers who eventually became a General in my Kingmaker campaign.
|
|
<people who were regarded as barbarian by the ancient Romans>
Origin of BARBARIANLatin barbarus — more at barbarous
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to BARBARIAN
Barbarus is Latin for, I kid you not, "bearded man." They were referring to the germanic tribes to the north.
I have a goatee. Can I not be Lawful?
Ever had a parking or traffic fine?
Meet Tom.Meet Guglanush. He's a deranged follower of Rovagug who is mentally unstable and has taken it upon himself to rigidly enforce what he understands Rovagug's wishes to be. He interprets every event, every portent, every word through the filter of Rovagug-centric views. He works ceaselessly to enlighten those around him, converting them to his faith. He is unwaveringly a proponent of Rovagug's will.
So of course he hurts people.
Guglanush is a paladin of Rovagug. He's Chaotic Evil because while he follows Rovagug's will, he disregards every other rule, law, or restriction placed upon him.
My point? Style. Guglanush should be an anti-paladin, not a paladin. Because while the game mechanics fit, the essence doesn't. There are better choices than just tossing alignment USUALLY.
I just wanted to point out that both Guglanush and [random paladin at the local temple] are both Divine Champions. I think that the Paladin class is a very specific version of a broader class. I really wish that they had done away with the "Paladin" and folded the concept into a class based off of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved "Champion" class.
Tangentially, I also don't care for alignment applying to anything or anyone in an absolute sense unless we're talking about intrinsic qualities that cannot be changed — or a subtype, to use the game term.
bar·bar·i·an adj \bär-ˈber-ē-ən\
Definition of BARBARIAN
1
: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2
: lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
— barbarian noun
— bar·bar·i·an·ism noun^ thats why a barbarian is non lawful... because the word barbarian conflicts with the concepts of lawful in pathfinder. like it was said earlier, if you dont like it change it. just remember that the term "barbarian" conflicts with a lawful mentality. if you want a lawful barbarian change the name from barbarian to "pissed fighter guy" or "tantrum fighter" but personally i like "Two Year Old with a Great Sword"
By this definition, if a Rogue belongs to the Thieves Guild he can't be Chaotic.
The real answer has been stated before — Because the rules say so. Saying that a tribal society is chaotic by definition is incredibly short-sighted... using Roman (or any culture's propaganda to back up your argument isn't very wise, either.
Heathen = Someone who lives among/by/beyond the heather fields. (They didn't live in the city so they were godless.)
Nemyetski — That's the Russian word for a German. It literally means "mute" because when the Russian tribes first met the Germanic tribes the Russians, unable to understand them, thought that they were incapable of speech and were just babbling randomly. So they called them "non-speakers". Does that mean that Germans should all babble incoherently when in Russia?
This thread has made me consider removing Alignment restrictions from most classes in games I run.
It got me thinking about a Lawful Barbarian, or something like a Lawful Rage, a "Cold Rage" if you will.
I'm suddenly reminded of a friend in real-life who has an anger issue; he's completely calm and unbelievably polite 99% of the time, but when he gets pushed, he completely shuts down and "rages," but it's not like you'd imagine a barbarian would. He goes completely silent; you can't talk to him, he's consciously not there. I've seen him push doors and door frames off of the walls they were attached to, hurl full propane tanks a good 30'+, body slam and pummel people like rag dolls, lifting them off the ground with little effort.
I call it a "Cold Rage" because he's not wildly screaming like a berzerking barbarian, he goes cold, silent, and fixates on one thing to just utterly destroy. Outside of that rage, he's the most polite and friendly person you'd ever meet. He's only raged like this when absolutely pushed to the brink, or to protect someone else. I would call him Lawful in a second. But I would also call what he does a "rage" without hesitation.
*BRB homebrewing Lawful Barbarian Rage*
*Yawn*
Another pointless thread about people's inability to ignore rules in a book. Yay.
Play a lawful barbarian. I doubt Paizo will send Cosmo to confiscate your dice.
Alignments: The dumbest thing they put in D&D.
Very true.
I let the Barbarian not-Lawful thing stand, because it still leaves a lot of options for them to be. (Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral Evil, and so on).
For any games I ran with alignments, I just said that Paladins had to be LAWFUL, but the rest was up to them and their god(s). So, Pallys had to be LG, LN, or LE.
They were originally a prestige class in D&D (the colored box sets/Rules Cyclopedia). When a fighter hit 10th level (might have been 9th), a lawful fighter could become a paladin, a neutral fighter could become a knight and a chaotic fighter could become an Avenger. thus they gained additional abilities as they leveled.
Other "prestige classes" included the druid.