Paladin with Barbarian Variant Multiclass: Is it legal?


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

Okay, so normally a paladin must be lawful and a barbarian can't be lawful so you can't multiclass them together, however the variant multiclass rules don't mention alignment (although the Paladin does mention the code of conduct) so therefore, would it be legal for a Paladin to be a variant Barbarian even though she can't be a regular multiclass barbarian?

Shadow Lodge

Yep.

Paladin/Bloodrager multiclass is also perfectly legal, as is Paladin/Wild Stalker Ranger (which rages as a barbarian).

A Paladin of Ragathiel with the Sacred Servant archetype can even take the Rage domain without any multiclassing.

Silver Crusade

Yep x2


You could even regular multiclass Barbarian with Neutral Good Grey Paladin without loss of features from either class, although it would be rather lousy . . . .


There's also Raging Blood for a minor rage plus bloodline power.

Quote:

Raging Blood

Your blood boils with latent energy, filling you with an intense fury.

Prerequisite: Eldritch Heritage or sorcerer bloodline class feature.

Benefit: You gain the 1st-level bloodrager bloodline power for your bloodline. In addition, you gain the ability to enter a state similar to (but less powerful than) a bloodrager's bloodrage. You can enter this lesser bloodrage twice per day, for up to 4 rounds. During this lesser bloodrage, you gain a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, and no morale bonus on Will saving throws. Otherwise, this benefit is the same as the bloodrage class feature.

If you have more than one bloodline, you choose the bloodline this feat applies to when you take the feat.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, yeah. My concept for the character I'm making (mythic game) is that she's technically a half-orc by blood, however she was blessed in the womb by the empyreal lord Lymneris and 'called' to be his paladin, so she's instead an angelkin aasimar. So, to reflect her 'orc' blood I also gave her "scion of humanity' and took the feat Racial Heritage: Orc and Mythic Heritage Orc (for the orc's ferocity trait), but I also want her to be able to rage alongside her actual half-orc twin brother (who has the Orc Atavism alternate trait), hence the wanting to VMC with barbarian. Kinda complicated but I think it will be superfun, especially her having to explain how she has an 'orc' for a twin brother.


Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Thanks, yeah. My concept for the character I'm making (mythic game) is that she's technically a half-orc by blood, however she was blessed in the womb by the empyreal lord Lymneris and 'called' to be his paladin, so she's instead an angelkin aasimar. So, to reflect her 'orc' blood I also gave her "scion of humanity' and took the feat Racial Heritage: Orc and Mythic Heritage Orc (for the orc's ferocity trait), but I also want her to be able to rage alongside her actual half-orc twin brother (who has the Orc Atavism alternate trait), hence the wanting to VMC with barbarian. Kinda complicated but I think it will be superfun, especially her having to explain how she has an 'orc' for a twin brother.

That's a lot of feat slots used.

Silver Crusade

Or you could house-rule a version of a Holy Liberator...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

You could even regular multiclass Barbarian with Neutral Good Grey Paladin without loss of features from either class, although it would be rather lousy . . . .

gray paladin is terible and doesnt actually fix anything but just makes paladin as bad as a fighter with out any feats


^I wouldn't say as bad as a Fighter without any feats pre-WMH/pre-AMH. Post-WMH/post-AMH (or maybe even just post-WMH but still pre-AMH), I have to rethink this . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I wouldn't say as bad as a Fighter without any feats pre-WMH/pre-AMH. Post-WMH/post-AMH (or maybe even just post-WMH but still pre-AMH), I have to rethink this . . . .

it costs them all their immunities and their devine grace so ya its pretty much just a fighter with no bonus feats thats restricted to LN or NG


Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.

Why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Why?

For the same reason many people don't like gunslingers in their fantasy I guess. The very idea of it offends me.

I also despise the idea of non-LG paladins.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.

Would you ban all the different ways to get a raging paladin or just VMC barbarian?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Why?

For the same reason many people don't like gunslingers in their fantasy I guess. The very idea of it offends me.

I also despise the idea of non-LG paladins.

?

Sorry, I guess I need to ask what of what's been suggested offends you, cause now I'm confused :3

I don't care for Non-LG Paladins either.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Would you ban all the different ways to get a raging paladin or just VMC barbarian?

If you can find a way to pitch it that I approve of, go wild. I think it's not a raging paladin that I take issue with, it's a barbarian/paladin.

Silver Crusade

dragonhunterq wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Would you ban all the different ways to get a raging paladin or just VMC barbarian?

If you can find a way to pitch it that I approve of, go wild. I think it's not a raging paladin that I take issue with, it's a barbarian/paladin.

Champion of Gwynharwyf?

Shadow Lodge

VMC in general needs to be cleared with the GM since it's an optional rule system and not assumed to be available.

I can understand the idea if you can't multiclass into barbarian you shouldn't be able to variant multiclass into barbarian. However while most classes with behavior or alignment restrictions have them explicitly included in the VMC (including paladin), they have been notably omitted from the barbarian and monk VMC. In fact, the monk VMC actually specifies "He only ever gains ki pool (lawful) if he is of lawful alignment" which implies that it's possible for a VMC monk not to be of lawful alignment.

Given that, and the fact that none of the other sources of rage in the game require you to be non-lawful, I think it's clear that the intent is for a lawful character to be able to take VMC barbarian.

OP's reasons for wanting this build also sound strongly thematic - wanting to reflect the character's orcish heritage and link to her atavistic twin brother despite her loftier calling and outward appearance. That sounds like a darn good pitch to me.

GM is still free to disallow it, as the GM is free to disallow anything. If they do I suggest a 1-2 level dip in bloodrager (celestial bloodline). It'll slow down paladin advancement a bit but you'd get a few rounds of (blood)rage and a handful of other benefits without loss of BAB or HP.


Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Would you ban all the different ways to get a raging paladin or just VMC barbarian?

If you can find a way to pitch it that I approve of, go wild. I think it's not a raging paladin that I take issue with, it's a barbarian/paladin.

Champion of Gwynharwyf?

Doesn't that have a CG alignment requirement?

Silver Crusade

dragonhunterq wrote:
Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Sorry to be curmudgeonly but you really need to clear this with your GM. There is no way I'd allow this, no matter what RAW is.
Would you ban all the different ways to get a raging paladin or just VMC barbarian?

If you can find a way to pitch it that I approve of, go wild. I think it's not a raging paladin that I take issue with, it's a barbarian/paladin.

Champion of Gwynharwyf?
Doesn't that have a CG alignment requirement?

Yes.


Lady-J wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I wouldn't say as bad as a Fighter without any feats pre-WMH/pre-AMH. Post-WMH/post-AMH (or maybe even just post-WMH but still pre-AMH), I have to rethink this . . . .

it costs them all their immunities and their devine grace so ya its pretty much just a fighter with no bonus feats thats restricted to LN or NG

Pre-WHM/pre-AMH, a Fighter without bonus feats gets strictly Bravery (which isn't nothing but you can't make it better, and can trade it out for something better in some archetypes), and Weapon Training and Armor Training (which are decent, but you can trade them out for better things in a lot of archetypes).

A Gray Paladin gets an expanded class skill list (unfortunately not more skill ranks per level), Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Lay On Hands (which is still good for keeping yourself alive and later removing Fatigue and some other bad conditions), a partial Divine Health, a Smite Evil upgrade that lets you use it against ANYTHING, 4/9 spellcasting, Divine Bond, partial Aura of Courage, partial Aura of Resolve, Aura of Subtlety (which admittedly comes online awfully late for what it does), Aura of Faith, partial Aura of Righteousness, and Holy Champion; immunities are gone, but the remnants of the class features are still useful. I haven't yet gone through the combination of this with other archetypes to see which ones are legal and which ones let you trade out something for something that works better in the Gray Paladin framework. So I'd say a Gray Paladin, although some steps down from a standard Paladin, is definitely a few steps up from a pre-WMH/pre-AMH standard Fighter without bonus feats, although possibly behind a few of the archetypes (I haven't gone back through the ENORMOUS list of these (even excluding the ones that trade out bonus feats, which we're not allowing here) to do a comparison).

Post-WHM, a Fighter without bonus feats can get quite a bit of awesomeness from Advanced Weapon Training, enough to make many Fighter archetypes outright obsolete -- the problem is that without bonus feats, you are severely limited in getting both these and the other combat feats you need. Post-AMH, a Fighter without bonus feats can get more awesomeness from Advanced Armor Training (although not as much as from Advanced Weapon Training, and the feat starvation gets worse).

Lifting the temporary ban on Fighter bonus feats, naturally Gray Paladin falls way behind, and even a regular Paladin can't do a lot of things that a post-WMH/post-AMH Fighter can.

So I wouldn't call Gray Paladin a good archetype, but it's not totally useless. (Also by the way, a Gray Paladin isn't limited to just LN or NG, but could be LG, although it's not a good idea.)

I went back to look at VMC Barbarian again, and Rules As Written, it doesn't say you have to be non-Lawful, which would even let you combine it with regular Paladin, but admittedly this is probably an oversight and moderately likely to get Errata'd if they ever do an Errata for Pathfinder Unchained. But even if they put in the requirement to be non-Lawful to be able to Rage, Rules As Written you can still combine it with Gray Paladin and have it all work, although you will be horribly feat-starved, and the combination doesn't have much synergy, even when using a Rage Power to make up for Gray Paladin's Weakened Grace. So like I said the first time, it would be a rather lousy combination -- although it might be useful for a GM building a tragic (anti-)hero NPC, like some curmudgeonly zealot in the Mendevian Crusades that has partially fallen due to feeling compelled to take increasingly harsh measures to combat the Demonic incursion.

Shadow Lodge

Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

If you can find a way to pitch it that I approve of, go wild. I think it's not a raging paladin that I take issue with, it's a barbarian/paladin.

Champion of Gwynharwyf?
Doesn't that have a CG alignment requirement?
Yes.

To me it looks like "let's make a CG paladin class by crossing it with a barbarian." Which is thematically interesting but not the same thing as "can I cross a LG paladin with a barbarian?"

UnArcaneElection wrote:
I went back to look at VMC Barbarian again, and Rules As Written, it doesn't say you have to be non-Lawful, which would even let you combine it with regular Paladin, but admittedly this is probably an oversight and moderately likely to get Errata'd if they ever do an Errata for Pathfinder Unchained.

I very much doubt it. As I pointed out above, the Monk VMC explicitly is allowed to be non-lawful and the only thing they can't use is the ability to treat their Ki Strikes as if they were lawful weapons. Note they can still use the rest of the ki pool (which is the feature the non-lawful martial artist archetype gives up). Since leaving the alignment requirement off the monk is clearly not an oversight, I don't think that leaving it off the barbarian is an oversight either.

If the devs thought it was important that rage be alignment restricted, they wouldn't have created the bloodrager or the wild stalker ranger without alignment restrictions.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Also by the way, a Gray Paladin isn't limited to just LN or NG, but could be LG, although it's not a good idea.

i know but if they are going to play a LG paladin they might as well play a normal paladin and keep all the goodies(altho there are some groups out there that if a paladin takes an archetype that changes their code they can be what ever alignment they want keeping the restriction to be lawful good when your code is neither very lawful nore very good makes no sence)

i despise alignment restrictions with the heat of 1000 hells as for the vmc barbarian has no alignment restrictions so you could vmc it as anything plus the non-lawful alignment restriction on barbarians makes no sence at all like barbarians are known for following the traditions of their ansestors which is a very lawful act.......


^That's why I said it's not a good idea.

Agreed on the last part -- alignment restrictions other than "must be within X of deity" or weird organization/philosophy/religion-specific archetypes should be restricted to prestige classes. Of course, I also think that Paladin should be a prestige class (or really a set of prestige classes) like in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana or Kirthfinder (the latter gives the Lawful Good version as an example but explicitly encourages the GM or adventure writer to create other types).


Is there a clause stating barbarians lose their powers if they become lawful? If not, you could just start a barbarian, then change alignment and go paladin. I think there used to be in 3.x but skimming I didn't notice it in PF.

Silver Crusade

Ex-Barbarians wrote:
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.


Goblin_Priest wrote:
Is there a clause stating barbarians lose their powers if they become lawful?

A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage. As far as I can tell this applies to only the original barbarian and not the other classes or ways to gain rage as an ability.

For example a bloodrager has no alignment restrictions so can be lawful to start. A celestial bloodline bloodrager would seem to thematically nest well with a Paladin who might have a 'righteous fury' come over them in battle.


UnArcaneElection wrote:


Agreed on the last part -- alignment restrictions other than "must be within X of deity" or weird organization/philosophy/religion-specific archetypes should be restricted to prestige classes. Of course, I also think that Paladin should be a prestige class (or really a set of prestige classes) like in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana or Kirthfinder (the latter gives the Lawful Good version as an example but explicitly encourages the GM or adventure writer to create other types).

Any non-LG version of paladin I have seen has been really ugly and/or really lazy. Just changing all the 'smite evil' to 'smite chaos' does not work for me on any level. Pathfinders Anti-Paladin is just about the most egregious example of this sin.


dragonhunterq wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:


Agreed on the last part -- alignment restrictions other than "must be within X of deity" or weird organization/philosophy/religion-specific archetypes should be restricted to prestige classes. Of course, I also think that Paladin should be a prestige class (or really a set of prestige classes) like in D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana or Kirthfinder (the latter gives the Lawful Good version as an example but explicitly encourages the GM or adventure writer to create other types).
Any non-LG version of paladin I have seen has been really ugly and/or really lazy. Just changing all the 'smite evil' to 'smite chaos' does not work for me on any level. Pathfinders Anti-Paladin is just about the most egregious example of this sin.

to be fair anti paladin shouldn't exist and the paladin should just beable to be what ever alignment they want and then just have an archetype that changes stuff to be more like what the anti paladin is like trading LoH for ToC ect.


RAW, this would appear to be allowed, but I think it violates the spirit of the restrictions.

I don't think that I would allow this combination in my game, unless you had a very convincing story. I see the rage ability as an inherently chaotic act: When you rage, you're letting your emotions (primarily anger) control your actions rather than your reason or sense of right-and-wrong. I have a hard time jibing that with a paladin's code of honor.

If I were the GM, it would really depend on the god you serve. For instance, I might give a paladin of Ragathiel a pass on this... but certainly not a paladin of Iomedae! Looking over Lymnieris' entry in Chronicle of the Righteous, I don't see that anger or vengeance is in any part of his portfolio, so if I were your GM, I'd say "no."

(Oh... and I don't allow the Gray Paladin archetype.)


Lady-J wrote:
to be fair anti paladin shouldn't exist

Very much agreed.

Quote:
and the paladin should just beable to be what ever alignment they want and then just have an archetype that changes stuff to be more like what the anti paladin is like trading LoH for ToC ect.

But this is something we will never agree on I'm afraid - even if you found a good way to do it without the lazy switchouts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
I see the rage ability as an inherently chaotic act

Funny. I see rage as one of the greatest expressions of discipline in the CRB. You're able to perfectly unshackle your inner reserves of strength and power, unleashing it on your foes without ever running the risk of losing control. It's the perfect sort of battle trance that makes your typical monk look confused by comparison.

If anything when you have abilities like that Barbarians should be lawful only, not anything but lawful.


Rysky wrote:
Ex-Barbarians wrote:
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 see. Then the solution is simple: take the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, that greatly diminishes Rage and exchanges rage powers.

The gimp from being an "ex-barbarian" gets reduced to very little.


dragonhunterq wrote:


But this is something we will never agree on I'm afraid - even if you found a good way to do it without the lazy switchouts.

paladins are just soposta be a crusader for a cause (any cause in which they belive in) so its not fair that they are pigion holed into just fighting for the ritious good causes just look at 5th edition they did paladins right no alignment restrictions and they get to keep all their nice abilities

Shadow Lodge

Goblin_Priest wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ex-Barbarians wrote:
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 see. Then the solution is simple: take the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, that greatly diminishes Rage and exchanges rage powers.

The gimp from being an "ex-barbarian" gets reduced to very little.

Except the point isn't to be a barbarian/paladin, the point is to be a paladin who can rage.


Weirdo wrote:
Goblin_Priest wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ex-Barbarians wrote:
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 see. Then the solution is simple: take the Mad Dog barbarian archetype, that greatly diminishes Rage and exchanges rage powers.

The gimp from being an "ex-barbarian" gets reduced to very little.

Except the point isn't to be a barbarian/paladin, the point is to be a paladin who can rage.

Oh... well... barbarian/antipaladin, then? :P

Shadow Lodge

Bloodrager/Paladin is the next best option as I pointed out upthread.

The only issue is that there isn't a VMC Bloodrager so you'd have to do it through class dipping instead of giving up feats.

Unless the GM went for a homebrew bloodrager VMC (add the bloodline feature, grant the 1st level bloodline power with bloodrage Con+level rds/day at level 3 and the 4th level power at level 11 instead of the rage power) but I doubt they'd do that if they had a thematic beef with the barbarian VMC.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to everyone that answered the question without personal bias. No offense, but whether you would allow it or not doesn't really matter to the question, is it legal by the rules? I say this because anything has to be run past the GM first, the GM could say straight up no paladins allowed if he/she wanted... and things having to do with the deity not being about vengeance doesn't matter because that's all still up to myself and/or the GM based on the character's background and reasons for having the 'rage'. It could have nothing to do with her deity choice. Not to mention that you are assuming that this isn't a case where *I* am the GM and just wish to clarify rules.

Dark Archive

Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Thanks to everyone that answered the question without personal bias. No offense, but whether you would allow it or not doesn't really matter to the question, is it legal by the rules? I say this because anything has to be run past the GM first, the GM could say straight up no paladins allowed if he/she wanted... and things having to do with the deity not being about vengeance doesn't matter because that's all still up to myself and/or the GM based on the character's background and reasons for having the 'rage'. It could have nothing to do with her deity choice.

Yes, as long as one of the archetypes changes the Alignment requirement on either class (such as the Grey Paladin) there is no reason you can not make a Paladin/Barbarian from the rules standpoint.


RSX Raver wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Thanks to everyone that answered the question without personal bias. No offense, but whether you would allow it or not doesn't really matter to the question, is it legal by the rules? I say this because anything has to be run past the GM first, the GM could say straight up no paladins allowed if he/she wanted... and things having to do with the deity not being about vengeance doesn't matter because that's all still up to myself and/or the GM based on the character's background and reasons for having the 'rage'. It could have nothing to do with her deity choice.
Yes, as long as one of the archetypes changes the Alignment requirement on either class (such as the Grey Paladin) there is no reason you can not make a Paladin/Barbarian from the rules standpoint.

they are looking at paladin with vmc barbarian though so no need to be a gray paladin as by raw and by rai paladins can use vmc barbarian

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:

RAW, this would appear to be allowed, but I think it violates the spirit of the restrictions.

I don't think that I would allow this combination in my game, unless you had a very convincing story. I see the rage ability as an inherently chaotic act: When you rage, you're letting your emotions (primarily anger) control your actions rather than your reason or sense of right-and-wrong. I have a hard time jibing that with a paladin's code of honor.

If I were the GM, it would really depend on the god you serve. For instance, I might give a paladin of Ragathiel a pass on this... but certainly not a paladin of Iomedae! Looking over Lymnieris' entry in Chronicle of the Righteous, I don't see that anger or vengeance is in any part of his portfolio, so if I were your GM, I'd say "no."

(Oh... and I don't allow the Gray Paladin archetype.)

Um, Iomedae is the listed example deity for Oath of Vengeance :3


Lady-J wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


But this is something we will never agree on I'm afraid - even if you found a good way to do it without the lazy switchouts.
paladins are just soposta be a crusader for a cause (any cause in which they belive in) so its not fair that they are pigion holed into just fighting for the ritious good causes just look at 5th edition they did paladins right no alignment restrictions and they get to keep all their nice abilities

No, Paladins were created specifically to be the Lawful Good hero vs hordes of Chaotic Evil minions. On the gygaxian idea that evil uses numbers and good uses quality instead of quantity. Paladins are specifically modeled on the Companions of Charlemagne which were held to be exemplars of virtue and loyalty.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


But this is something we will never agree on I'm afraid - even if you found a good way to do it without the lazy switchouts.
paladins are just soposta be a crusader for a cause (any cause in which they belive in) so its not fair that they are pigion holed into just fighting for the ritious good causes just look at 5th edition they did paladins right no alignment restrictions and they get to keep all their nice abilities
No, Paladins were created specifically to be the Lawful Good hero vs hordes of Chaotic Evil minions. On the gygaxian idea that evil uses numbers and good uses quality instead of quantity. Paladins are specifically modeled on the Companions of Charlemagne which were held to be exemplars of virtue and loyalty.

when paladins were 1st introduced they were sort of(based on their own belief system)virtueous and loyal people exept that they are based on warriors from the crusades who litterally just went arround killing those who didnt worship the same deiaty and they were loyal to their god and their king and may have been civalrous to their own people but to the lands they went to they did very bad things that i wont give spesifics on lest my coment be deleted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


But this is something we will never agree on I'm afraid - even if you found a good way to do it without the lazy switchouts.
paladins are just soposta be a crusader for a cause (any cause in which they belive in) so its not fair that they are pigion holed into just fighting for the ritious good causes just look at 5th edition they did paladins right no alignment restrictions and they get to keep all their nice abilities
No, Paladins were created specifically to be the Lawful Good hero vs hordes of Chaotic Evil minions. On the gygaxian idea that evil uses numbers and good uses quality instead of quantity. Paladins are specifically modeled on the Companions of Charlemagne which were held to be exemplars of virtue and loyalty.
when paladins were 1st introduced they were sort of(based on their own belief system)virtueous and loyal people exept that they are based on warriors from the crusades who litterally just went arround killing those who didnt worship the same deiaty and they were loyal to their god and their king and may have been civalrous to their own people but to the lands they went to they did very bad things that i wont give spesifics on lest my coment be deleted.

Not quite as I understand it. They were based off of a (primarily Victorian) romanticised and idealised version of that, where chivalry and courtesy was offered to all, even the basest of knaves and unbelievers.

I happen to like that mythology and purity of vision despite the history behind it. Aspiring to an ideal that never really existed appeals to me, I guess.


You want a paladin that can rage, dip fighter with the Viking archetype.

No alignment restrictions and full BAB.


Viking Fighter requires a 4 level dip, which is an awful lot of levels taken away from your Paladin advancement. Bloodrager just requires a 1 level dip, although depending upon what archetype you pick, a 2 level dip could make it significantly better; in some cases (like Blood Conduit) it might even give you a bonus feat. VMC Barbarian requires no dip but really hoses you on feats.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Paladin with Barbarian Variant Multiclass: Is it legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions