I know from my experience with monks that they can be non-lawful (such as with this trait). Is there any way for a Barbarian to have a Lawful Good alignment?
Bloodrager or Skald won't cut it - I need Barbarian levels. I can't think of any way to pull it off though.
Contributor
|
I know from my experience with monks that they can be non-lawful (such as with this trait). Is there any way for a Barbarian to have a Lawful Good alignment?
Bloodrager or Skald won't cut it - I need Barbarian levels. I can't think of any way to pull it off though.
Can you tell us why you need Barbarian levels specifically? Or what else you're trying to accomplish? If you need rage powers, obviously bloodrager, skald, and fighter (viking) can all use them, as can ranger (wild stalker). The latter has the actual rage class feature and isn't locked into a specific combat style.
Please, tell us more. :)
It stacks with other classes that provide rage (which appears to mean that you can switch to lawful after getting the PrC, and still get the benefits from barbarian levels), and it is built around being a loyal guardian of the king after being recruited from the uncivilized lands of the linnorm kings.
It even has an option that makes people fascinated with how you on the brink of both worlds- Civilized people are intrigued by the 'tamed' barbarian, while barbaric cultures are curious on your choice to turn your back on your home culture. It all leads to bonuses to diplomacy checks.
For what the PrC actually does- it has some body guard stuff, but honestly, since you can choose to get rage powers from its 'guardian dedications' every other level, it is not that far from a straight continuation of barbarian (better will saves though; nice for when you are caught by surprise). Some loss if you are an invulnerable rager, but that is just icing on the rage filled cake.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this for PFS? If not... Just ignore those stupid alignment restrictions. They are completely pointless anyway.
Is this for PFS? If not... Just ignore those stupid alignment restrictions. They are completely pointless anyway.
This.
I frequently just rename "Barbarian" to "Berserker" and it works just fine.
In the campaign setting I'm currently running, orcs are a lawful evil race based on a mish-mash of Mongolia and Japan. I explicitly allowed them to be Lawful barbarians as a racial trait and I haven't had any of my players complain yet.
You can be a lawful barbarian, you just can't rage while lawful is all.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Cleric with the Rage Subdomain.
From 8th level you can rage, full cast and be LG. Choose Ragathiel or Vildeis as a deity (they are actually Empyreal Lords but they have Destruction as a Domain). You also get (not instantly) 3 rage power, even if they must not have any level prerequisite. You still have Superstitious and some other good stuff. Remember that you'll have half of your cleric level as barbarian levels.
You may prefer Ragathiel for combat (bastard sword as deity weapon opposed to Vildeis' daggers. How boring.).
IIRC there's a mythic power for dodging alignment restrictions.
A literal reading of the atonement spell restores class abilities without necessarily changing alignment back. RAI is clear though.
Being a Primalist Untouchable Rager is basically a Barbarian.
No casting, and Rage Powers.
You're a pretty garbage Barbarian though. You have room for Beast Totem and Come and Get Me and none of the other swanky rage powers.
Well, you could go Ulfen Guard as well.You're a pretty garbage Barbarian though. You have room for Beast Totem and Come and Get Me and none of the other swanky rage powers.Being a Primalist Untouchable Rager is basically a Barbarian.
No casting, and Rage Powers.
The only thing you miss out on is DR from invulnerable rager.
And I am not entirely sure if this works out, but you could take a dip into Ulfen Guard (2 levels so you get the rage power) and use that to access rage. Afterwards, you could just go standard barbarian. With that, you only lose 1 DR and 1 fire/cold resistance.
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?
|
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?
Lawful barbarians cannot rage and can no longer gain levels in barbarian.
I second the vote for "ignore the alignment requirement". The only classes I keep alignment requirement for are the ones that get their powers from the divine deliberately, like cleric or paladin. And even in the latter case I swap it to "any good" (within one step).
There's a Mythic ability called "Beyond Morality" that removes all alignment based effects from your character. With that you could be a multiclass paladin/antipaladin if you really wanted.
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?Lawful barbarians cannot rage and can no longer gain levels in barbarian.
I second the vote for "ignore the alignment requirement". The only classes I keep alignment requirement for are the ones that get their powers from the divine deliberately, like cleric or paladin. And even in the latter case I swap it to "any good" (within one step).
Damn. I was hoping that a character who behaves in most ways Lawful and still rages (Chaotic) would be considered Neutral.
Nothing a nice houserule and giving the finger to pfs can't fix.
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?Lawful barbarians cannot rage and can no longer gain levels in barbarian.
I second the vote for "ignore the alignment requirement". The only classes I keep alignment requirement for are the ones that get their powers from the divine deliberately, like cleric or paladin. And even in the latter case I swap it to "any good" (within one step).
It's not "behaving lawfully" that loses the rage powers. It's changing your alignment to Lawful {Whatever}.
If your GM doesn't ding you on alignment infractions, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
|
|
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?Lawful barbarians cannot rage and can no longer gain levels in barbarian.
I second the vote for "ignore the alignment requirement". The only classes I keep alignment requirement for are the ones that get their powers from the divine deliberately, like cleric or paladin. And even in the latter case I swap it to "any good" (within one step).
It's not "behaving lawfully" that loses the rage powers. It's changing your alignment to Lawful {Whatever}.
If your GM doesn't ding you on alignment infractions, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
In pathfinder, "behaving lawfully" is exactly what makes you Lawful {Whatever}. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. You can be LG and burn an orphanage down if you want, but you're probably not going to stay LG.
Not following the above is simply ignoring alignment changes as a possibility.
The hard part is defining what "Behaving lawfully" means. And you have to consider all behaviors, not just one or two. And obviously there's a recency bias (i.e. recent actions mean more than old ones).
Do Barbarians lose their ability to rage if they behave Lawful or is raging just considered so Chaotic that they cannot be considered Lawful?Lawful barbarians cannot rage and can no longer gain levels in barbarian.
I second the vote for "ignore the alignment requirement". The only classes I keep alignment requirement for are the ones that get their powers from the divine deliberately, like cleric or paladin. And even in the latter case I swap it to "any good" (within one step).
It's not "behaving lawfully" that loses the rage powers. It's changing your alignment to Lawful {Whatever}.
If your GM doesn't ding you on alignment infractions, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
And if you start off chaotic, you can pull off a lot before you start getting into trouble, since barbarians can be neutral.
It is kind of hard to have big alignment shifts on the chaos/law axis though, unless your GM is being openly vindictive. It is not the kind of thing where you can shift just because you burned down the blind/deaf kids' orphanage
Another vote for just ditching the alignment requirements.
Bruce Banner was not Chaotic, but that didn't stop him from getting really angry and breaking stuff.
In pathfinder, "behaving lawfully" is exactly what makes you Lawful {Whatever}. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. You can be LG and burn an orphanage down if you want, but you're probably not going to stay LG.
I disagree. Your alignment describes your current outlook. If your alignment/outlook is changed by something (for example a cursed item that inverts your alignment) your behavior changes as a result of your new outlook.
If you're lawful good, that means you're a person who would never burn down an orphanage. You'd have to change your alignment before you could contemplate such a thing.
If you've done evil all your life, but you've suddenly decided sincerely to turn your life around and live unselfishly from now on, that means your alignment is now good, even though you haven't done anything good yet.
|
|
In pathfinder, "behaving lawfully" is exactly what makes you Lawful {Whatever}. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. You can be LG and burn an orphanage down if you want, but you're probably not going to stay LG.I disagree. Your alignment describes your current outlook. If your alignment/outlook is changed by something (for example a cursed item that inverts your alignment) your behavior changes as a result of your new outlook.
If you're lawful good, that means you're a person who would never burn down an orphanage. You'd have to change your alignment before you could contemplate such a thing.
If you've done evil all your life, but you've suddenly decided sincerely to turn your life around and live unselfishly from now on, that means your alignment is now good, even though you haven't done anything good yet.
You're describing individuals whose morality and alignment are currently in sync, and for them your statement will be true. Things that forcibly change your alignment *also* forcibly change your morality so that you don't just immediately start slipping back (otherwise what good would they be as curses?). NPCs are assumed to be "in sync", so both prescriptive and descriptive alignments behave equivalently.
If people always behaved in accordance to their alignment then alignment change could not be a thing (barring curses). An LG person who could not make the choice to burn down an orphanage (or otherwise commit evil acts) would only commit G or N acts and thus would be unable to change from G.
In other words, alignment is, at most complex, both prescriptive and descriptive in some ratio. However, it's much easier to manage as a purely descriptive thing, which means alignment always follows action. And it cannot be purely prescriptive or many presumed concepts of alignment change begin to fall apart, with characters becoming nearly as immutable as the outsiders.
EDIT: Of course, you can play it however you want in your own games, but be careful with the ramifications on player agency.
Flush the alignment restrictions. They're stupid, pointlessly restrictive, archaic and obsolete.
Hell, just flush alignment period.