Aside from an alignment change, is there any way to have a lawful barbarian? I would have assumed Urban Barbarian would let you, but nope. I've always liked the concept of a barbarian that goes Zen instead of frothing at the mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.
All of the fluff in Pathfinder's Barbarian is about berserking and living for battle. I don't get where you get the whole "tradition" bit. They even specifically mention that Barbs come from all walks of life.
All of the fluff in Pathfinder's Barbarian is about berserking and living for battle. I don't get where you get the whole "tradition" bit. They even specifically mention that Barbs come from all walks of life.The whole nomadic, per-agricultural lifestyle associated with Barbs is a pretty darn good example of following tradition.
Except the Pathfinder Barbarian description doesn't mention anything of the sort, so my point still stands.
|
Aside from an alignment change, is there any way to have a lawful barbarian? I would have assumed Urban Barbarian would let you, but nope. I've always liked the concept of a barbarian that goes Zen instead of frothing at the mouth.
If you use 3rd party material, being a Maenad from DreamScarred Press gets you a racial ability called Ordered Rage that lets you do that.
A neutral alignment can follow a code or tradition as long as they are not fanatical about it. The neutral character will follow the code or tradition unless there is a good reason to break it. The lawful character will always follow the tradition or code. For example if your religion says you do not work on a certain day the neutral character will generally follow this but if something comes up that needs to be done then he will go ahead and do it. The lawful character under the same circumstance will not work and try and deal with the situation after the holy day.
A barbarian is not something you train to be, it is something you give into. They live for the moment calling on their emotions to fuel their rage. “Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation or the rules of warfare.” This does not mean they have to froth at the mouth, but they are not the type to keep calm under stress.
If all you want is a lawful character who can rage there are other options besides barbarian. The ranger archetype Wild Stalker also gains the rage ability, but at 4th level. You can also be a cleric, or inquisitor of a deity with the rage domain. Neither of these have any restrictions on alignment so being lawful will not matter.
I´d allow it, frankly. Unless your class features are tied to a conscious third party - as is the case with most divine casters - your personal views on morality, societz and politics probably should not impact them.
Lawful characters are supposed to respect traditions, institutions and codes of conduct, but that does not preclude getting temporarily lost in emotion - and a state that gives the same bonuses need not stem from rage.
|
|
There is a prestige class in Oriental Adventures (3.0) called the Singh Rager which must be lawful, and gets Rage as a class feature.
Singh ragers draw their furious strength from the noble lion (called a singh or singha in some societies). The singh ragers' fury never robs them of their discipline and control, which to many minds makes them only more terrifying. They are paragons of warrior virtue whose speed, strength, and courage are unrivaled.
As Mysterious Stranger said, you can pull off a barbarian as a neutral character, albiet one with a lawful mindset.
A barbarian is not something you train to be, it is something you give into. They live for the moment calling on their emotions to fuel their rage. “Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation or the rules of warfare.” This does not mean they have to froth at the mouth, but they are not the type to keep calm under stress.
I disagree here. You can call rage a "full offensive" or a "battle trance" when playing a disciplined warrior. Mechanically, it will be barbarian rage, but should a player desire it, coloring it different depends solely on the campaign and, more importantly, the GM.
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.
This annoys me, because I'm a GM, and I like alignment restrictions. Its not fluff- which I find infinitely mutable- but an actual game mechanic. It is a (very small) part of the rules, tied to the expectations of the players, and especially to the spells.
Just like Mysterious Stranger pointed out, if the player simply wanted a lawful character who rages, there are other ways to do it. If instead a more-or-less disciplined warrior who gains the mechanics of a the class feature is desired instead, a neutral ranger is the way to go. But if the player wants to play the barbarian class and wanted a lawful alignment, that player is outta luck.
|
Paladin of Ragathiel Sacred Servant Archetype, take the Rage Subdomain, at 11th level you can rage 8 rounds per day.
Because you have the rage class feature, you can take Extra Rage as your feat at 11th, providing you with 14 rounds of Rage per day. Keep taking Extra Rage as feats at 13th and 15th and you've got 29 rounds of rage per day at 15th level, plus the ability to smite evil, and a Celestial Ally.
You can take any rage power that doesn't have a level requirement. Meaning you can add superstition to your Raging Paladin for insanely high Paladin saves, lol. Your Will Save will be through the freaking roof when you're raging, as will your fortitude, even your Reflex save will be better than most Rogues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The name of the class is not important, and should be ignored. You can be a barbarian and be of almost any class. The same is true for any class. What matters are the mechanics and the description. The mechanics of the barbarian class say that they cannot be lawful; this is also backed up by the description.
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
What needs to be asked here is what a barbarian is, and what the player wants out of the class? To me a barbarian is not someone who trained under a master and learned discipline. He is someone who follows his instincts and charges in when maybe he should not. Discipline means you are planning for the future and are willing to sacrifice the moment to achieve victory. This is not living for the moment, and implies a great deal of preparation and planning. This does not sound like it anything like the description of the class. A barbarian is not necessarily a wilderness warrior, although he can be. He is just as likely to come from a civilized society as he is a primitive society.
If all he wants is rage then play a Wild Stalker. To be honest that sounds more what the player is looking for anyways. A disciplined warrior probably also has a decent amount of skills including stealth which a barbarian does not get as a class skill.
|
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.Play a CN Paladin instead with this logic!
Alignment restrictions have a purpose.
Quiet of few of my DM's allow for a "Chaos Paladin". It allows for a Paladin that follow's his desires instead of the laws of the land (Lawful Good) instead of completely going into AntiPaladin, that and many people have trouble RPing LG.
and to the OP I would say to just talk to the GM about it, or ask to do something like a dip into monk for the "Zen" clear mind and to fight barbarian with a clear mind.
|
Aside from an alignment change, is there any way to have a lawful barbarian? I would have assumed Urban Barbarian would let you, but nope. I've always liked the concept of a barbarian that goes Zen instead of frothing at the mouth.
Is there a need to be Lawful? Can't you do a Zen barbarian as a Neutral character?
All of the fluff in Pathfinder's Barbarian is about berserking and living for battle. I don't get where you get the whole "tradition" bit. They even specifically mention that Barbs come from all walks of life.
Fluff is mutable and non-binding; it is not rules text, and should have no bearing on how a character is roleplayed.
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.Play a CN Paladin instead with this logic!
Alignment restrictions have a purpose.
If I allowed Paladins at all, and used alignment at all, I would certainly allow them to be of any alignment.
Alignment restrictions exist for no reason than to unnecessarily limit roleplaying and player freedom and creativity. I consider that purpose to be undesirable.
if you want a Zen Barbarian, Reskin your Rage as a Trance of Serenity that functions otherwise identically. nothing says you can't be Chaotic and Zen at the same time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What matters are the mechanics and the description.
No, the mechanics do, the description does not. A class is a collection of mechanical abilities used in concert with other game elements to realize a character concept. Not a straitjacket that says 'all of these are clones'.
|
|
Stalwart Defender is the closest thing to the Anti-Barbarian. (Look up the Dwarven Defender)
Supposedly, the rage represents losing control and is thus chaotic. I think that's a terrible reason to exclude lawful barbarians. (Righteous Indignation!) Who says you can't be lawful and have a temper?
I suppose you could play a Paladin instead. Smite Evil is kinda like Rage.
If your mythic you can take the beyond morality power, but that's an expensive investment. There are also several ways to get rage and even rage powers with other classes.
Talk with your GM about it. The alignment restriction is a legacy gig and to be honest pretty arbitrary. Lawful barbarians don't make the game explode.
I suppose you could play a Paladin instead. Smite Evil is kinda like Rage.
In 3.5 there was a variant that traded out righteous for righteous fury(I think that was the name), that was essentially rage... but for paladins!
|
|
One of my favorite posts on this subject.
Bards used to be forbidden to be lawful. Now they aren't. The sky remains the sky, and has not yet fallen.
Rangers used to have to be good. Even after they were allowed to be evil, they were forbidden to take their own race as a favored enemy unless they were evil (so, no good bounty hunters, upholding the law and bringing in wicked folk), and now that too has been dropped by the wayside, and yet, the sky, she doesn't fall.
Monks and Paladins used to be forbidden to multiclass (or to be any race other than human!). Now, again, not so much. Multiclass Halfling monk / paladins are go!
Dwarves can now be wizards. 'Humanoids' no longer have to cope with shamen and witch-doctors, but can have actual clerics and sorcerers. Fighters no longer automatically get a castle at 9th level.
The game has come a long way. The ditching of 'can't be lawful / must be lawful' from the barbarian and monk seems pretty much inevitable, as the law / chaos alignment direction continue to be red-headed stepchildren. Look at the Paladin, the 'paragon' of lawful good, who doesn't detect chaos, doesn't smite chaos, can associate freely with chaotic folk, etc. 'Lawful' is utterly meaningless to it's own *paragon,* so why should it matter to the monk?
'Discipline' and 'lawfulness' have nothing to do with each other, or the monk, based off of the *outlaw* martial artist schools of a past in which it was forbidden for peasants to bear arms or resist their masters, leading to the development of rebellious fighting schools, that taught unarmed fighting techniques and how to use various farm implements as weapons.
The barbarian 'can't be lawful' restriction is even more contradictory, thematically, as the 'barbarian' folk had much stricter codes of behavior and cultural taboos than the more open-minded and culturally diverse 'civilized' city folk of their day.
I didn't know that book even existed for PF.
It doesn't, but it was a link to the 3.5 SRD. A good chunk of it is OGL.
I didn't know that book even existed for PF.
Does it matter? Unless you're stuck in PFS, you can use whatever materials you want.
I didn't know that book even existed for PF.Does it matter? Unless you're stuck in PFS, you can use whatever materials you want.
Even better, you can create whatever you want! The world is yours!
I have a question on this subject, so I hope it's okay to ask it here. Also before I start, I just want to say I've only been playing for a few years, have pretty much only played Pathfinder, and am only now starting to get my head around how balance works.
That said, my question is: Does the barbarian's alignment restriction serve a mechanical purpose?
For the other classes that have one, I think I see the mechanical reasons. I think the paladin might be broken without it. I also see the monk is a good class that gets a lot (please don't throw rocks at me), so I can see why it's use would be slightly restricted. With the divine classes, I see the alignment restrictions as a merging of mechanics and roleplay. After all, a god of healing would not like one of his clerics going around slaughtering whole villages.
but with the barbarian, I don't see a reason for it mechanically. Especially in my (admittedly limited) experience, lawful is a lot harder to role play then chaotic or neutral.
Then again, the whole law/chaos side of alignment makes me scratch my head a lot.
Believe it or not, some people don't like using non paizo material for PF.I didn't know that book even existed for PF.Does it matter? Unless you're stuck in PFS, you can use whatever materials you want.
And your point is?
That said, my question is: Does the barbarian's alignment restriction serve a mechanical purpose?
No.
The only reason alignment exists at ALL is because Gygax was having trouble with players fighting amongst themselves in PvP. Instead of just talking to the players about what is and isn't appropriate behavior in the game, he created 'alignment', which existed solely so he could say 'your characters are good, therefore they can't fight each other' and ham-handedly rein in his players.
Alignment is such a murky concept that tying classes to it to a significant degree is silly. And I've seen enough "the other PCs must behave like this because I'm a Paladin" to last me three lifetimes. :-(
Why is it, I wonder, that when someone decides they want to play a Paladin, everybody else is expected to re-do their characters? Does anybody ever go 'no, you change YOUR character'?
Why is it, I wonder, that when someone decides they want to play a Paladin, everybody else is expected to re-do their characters? Does anybody ever go 'no, you change YOUR character'?
Alignment is such a murky concept that tying classes to it to a significant degree is silly. And I've seen enough "the other PCs must behave like this because I'm a Paladin" to last me three lifetimes. :-(
if the group wants to play their characters in a way the paladin player doesn't like, then the paladin can rewrite his character, but if the paladin accepts the conflict and roleplays himself as a self righteous closed minded hypocrite, you as a party, can point out every similar deed the paladin has performed, or every time you torture a prisoner for information, you can go tell the paladin to pick mushrooms for a few hours.
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.Play a CN Paladin instead with this logic!
Alignment restrictions have a purpose.
Doesn't mean they are always ideal.
One of the iconic RL literary inspirations for the barbarian, Beowulf, was, IMO, LG, which I think makes this particular alignment restriction a bit less than ideal.
There is a ranger archetype from Ultimate Combat that gets Rage and Rage Powers... but has no alignment restrictions.
Two Words: Dick Cheney.
That's less of a barbarian and more of a vampire.
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.
Pretty much what I was going to say.
Talk to your GM. Any reasonable one will realize that alignment restrictions are BS and remove it.Play a CN Paladin instead with this logic!
Alignment restrictions have a purpose.
Doesn't mean they are always ideal.
One of the iconic RL literary inspirations for the barbarian, Beowulf, was, IMO, LG, which I think makes this particular alignment restriction a bit less than ideal.
Wouldn't Beowulf be the poster boy for the Viking archetype of fighter? They get rage, too, you know.
Admittedly, you'll end up a 6th century fighter that is going to be excited with an iron sword (it's better than bronze, after all), but there you have it.
