This is at least a refreshing change to the alignment-based classes craze going on in the forums...
Well honestly, I'd say that obeying the law, even repeatedly, wouldn't be enough to make a barbarian... fall (God it feels weird saying that). Instead, if a barbarian decided to become more disciplined and eschew his anger and wild ways, I could see them becoming an ex-barbarian.
I think more if he obeyed the law and in doing so denied doing what he FELT he should do or what he WANTED to do. Basically if he exhibits a disciplined approach, that's what I'd consider taking steps towards a lawful alignment. Plenty of non-lawful people still obey the law most of the time because dealing with the consequences of breaking it is just a hassle. But if the barbarian REALLY wanted to free those slaves, yet slavery is a protected institution of the law of the country, and he chose to obey the law rather than free the slaves, yes, that's lawful.
S'more to do with intentions (again) than anything.
Chaotic (or neutral) aligned people can follow the rules when they feel like it. If they think the rules benefit them or are doing the right thing, then they'll follow them.
Now if the Barbarian starts deciding to follow the law SOLELY BECAUSE it's the law and laws should be followed, then yeah he should "fall".
it doesn't have much to do with barbarians per se. they are just an after effect.
it just comes down to how you rule alignment shifts, which applies to every character, wizard included.
it will likely be a long slope of changes, one act not doing it, but just the entirety of events.
almost certainly you would shift to neutral before shifting to chaotic, so it wouldn't be a surprise event.
Alignments should be ejected from the game as a game mechanic.
Keep whatever you wish lore-wise, but no alignment-based restrictions should be placed on anyone, which permits people to play their character without needing to justify their actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignments should be ejected from the game as a game mechanic.
Keep whatever you wish lore-wise, but no alignment-based restrictions should be placed on anyone, which permits people to play their character without needing to justify their actions.
What a chaotic viewpoint :) To each their own I suppose. I love alignments, because they give me a baseline for how to roleplay a character, otherwise, I'd just roleplay every character like my own personality. It's an old argument though. At least we've shifted away from some attitudes from the 80's and 90's (2nd edition) where it was thought that you should never let players roleplay "evil" characters. I love that one of the pre-set characters for one of the adventure paths is Lawful Evil.
This brings up an interesting fact: in many circumstances, it is hard to make a unintentional shift towards Lawful or Good. Most of the time, it is about shifting to Chaotic and Evil. I guess that this is because going down to the store and paying for goods is a normal baseline, and robbing and murdering the shopkeep not.
Of course, being good and lawful is about consistently acting for the betterment of people and society. Chaos is about impulsive, spur of the moment actions, and evil is about not caring who you hurt. Essentially, the fact that you are not kicking down doors and kicking puppies does not prove that you are a constructive member of society, although it is a prerequisite.
Even if the barbarian does not break the law, it could just be based on his personal desire just to relax and opinion that getting involved would be too troublesome, rather than a deep-seated belief in the integrity of the law. Even if he allowed someone be taken legally as a slave right in front of him, that would more likely be a shift towards evil rather than lawful, since he decided that that person's life was less important than his desire to not get involved. So trying to get a barbarian to fall is tricky without it coming off as an out of the blue attempt to cripple him.
I would say if he buys a house, shaves and trims his hair, gets married to a nice girl, and buys a toy breed dog. :P
Seriously though, if he frequently allows the rules and expectations of others to constrain him from what he wants to do, then he's behaving lawfully. If he begins organizing a unified government among the tribes, not based upon strength and fear, but based upon a code of rules, maintaining peace through negotiation, and respect for rights, he's in danger of "falling".
This brings up an interesting fact: in many circumstances, it is hard to make a unintentional shift towards Lawful or Good. Most of the time, it is about shifting to Chaotic and Evil. I guess that this is because going down to the store and paying for goods is a normal baseline, and robbing and murdering the shopkeep not.
Of course, being good and lawful is about consistently acting for the betterment of people and society. Chaos is about impulsive, spur of the moment actions, and evil is about not caring who you hurt. Essentially, the fact that you are not kicking down doors and kicking puppies does not prove that you are a constructive member of society, although it is a prerequisite.
Even if the barbarian does not break the law, it could just be based on his personal desire just to relax and opinion that getting involved would be too troublesome, rather than a deep-seated belief in the integrity of the law. Even if he allowed someone be taken legally as a slave right in front of him, that would more likely be a shift towards evil rather than lawful, since he decided that that person's life was less important than his desire to not get involved. So trying to get a barbarian to fall is tricky without it coming off as an out of the blue attempt to cripple him.
Bolded just about sums up my take on it. It is far FAR easier to be spontaneous and evil than it is to be organized and good.
I think that this speech is a good example of how a barbarian becomes lawful.
it's not solely a matter of what he does that is lawful, but what he does/doesn't do that is chaotic. if he is balancing out lawful with chaotic behavior, then his alignmente shouldn't shift, certainly not past neutral. what weight (in alignment) is given to each action is left entirely up to the GM, who hopefuly also has some insight into the characters' motivation and thought process.
I love alignments, because they give me a baseline for how to roleplay a character, otherwise, I'd just roleplay every character like my own personality.
These very boards are dripping with arguments over alignments, players coming to the boards seeking advice after tabletop games breakdown into arguments, paladins falling, et cetera.
The game is supposed to be fun and alignment isn't helping that IMO.
I ignore alignment stuff (as I've also tossed experience, but that's a story for another time), but I ask my players to describe their personality. If they deviate from that...no biggie, personality gives room for change over time since it's not a set of unbreakable shackles that seem to weigh so many down.
telling someone they are playing their character wrong and he cant be a barbarian anymore seems like it would end badly.
like i wrote before, the alignment should almost always shift to neutral before shifting to lawful (assuming they were chaotic to begin with). so that leaves plenty of warning, it isn't some surprise thing. nobody picking the barbarian class, and competent in running the rules contained within it, should be surprised about the idea that lawful characters can't continue to progress in barbarian. needing to take a level in fighter instead is hardly a game-breaker, and they can always return to chaotic/neutral alignment thru appropriate actions.
i'm really surprised that so many people post as if alignment NOT shifting is somehow supposed to be normal, when it is never described that way in the game, it's left up to the GM to track. you can have an idea of character motivation in mind, perhaps modeled after a character in a film or novel, but that doesn't mean that the same character couldn't shift alignment in different circumstances... and that isn't a bad thing. given that no class abilities are lost if a barbarian becomes lawful, it just isn't that big of a deal. taking a level of fighter may well mean that you gain MORE rage powers than you otherwise would have.
it's not solely a matter of what he does that is lawful, but what he does/doesn't do that is chaotic. if he is balancing out lawful with chaotic behavior, then his alignmente shouldn't shift, certainly not past neutral. what weight (in alignment) is given to each action is left entirely up to the GM, who hopefuly also has some insight into the characters' motivation and thought process.
So for everytime he stops a purse snatcher, should he get into a drunken brawl? I'm being sarcastic, of course, but this does bring up a point that it is much clearer when someone moves on the good and evil scale than the chaos and neutral scale. While someone can go for the "balance between good and evil" thing by simply aiding one side then the other, to balance chaos and order simply makes you look bipolar. I'll admit: unless you are following a very strict set of moral guidelines (like a paladin's code) then it is hard to judge a change in that person's stand when it comes to order and chaos.
I suppose that since the GM is the arbitrator of such matters, he should make a general code for classes with chaotic requirements to follow. Kind of like with paladins, only it includes more booze, blackjack, and ... "women of the night." This is important since you can't really spring that on people, so defining it from the onset is important.
i think if the GM has insight into the characters' background, motivation, thoughts (thru discussion with player), then they have alot more insight in viewing a specific action, than just anybody here on the boards discussing a specific action in a vacuum. the rules clearly envision the GM shifting alignments to ALL alignment poles. if some alignments require more proof to shift, OK then.