A fallen barbarian?

[Gabe the Bard]

At the end of Conan the Barbarian, Conan becomes king of his own land and we see him sitting thoughtfully on his throne... Or perhaps he is brooding because he became a lawful figure of authority and lost all of his barbarian powers.

There are lots of ways for Paladins to become fallen and lose their class abilities, but I wonder if anyone has ever seen a barbarian lose their abilities because they become lawful? It's technically possible, but I just have a hard time imagining a barbarian losing the ability to rage because he suddenly decided to file his taxes properly.

[BrokenChord]

At the end of Conan the Barbarian, Conan becomes king of his own land and we see him sitting thoughtfully on his throne... Or perhaps he is brooding because he became a lawful figure of authority and lost all of his barbarian powers.

There are lots of ways for Paladins to become fallen and lose their class abilities, but I wonder if anyone has ever seen a barbarian lose their abilities because they become lawful? It's technically possible, but I just have a hard time imagining a barbarian losing the ability to rage because he suddenly decided to file his taxes properly.

I'll point out that that is NOT enough to transfer straight to Lawful, but I see where you're coming from.

Nonetheless, I've actually been that Barbarian. The DM was extremely unfair (though admittedly at least logical) about why I became Lawful; my character, having been extremely trusting of an NPC who had traveled with us for a while, was basically completely emotionally broken in half when said NPC betrayed the party and got all the other characters except the wizard and me killed in an ambush that he helped set up. Nonetheless, after brooding for a while and reforming a new party (we were too low level to resurrect our previous allies) we ended up making the wizard the party leader, and my character became intensely loyalist to him. He was still Chaotic in every other way, he rushed in without thinking, he disrespected legitimate authority, he fought for peoples' freedom and disapproved of harsh legal systems... But he treated the wizard the same way a samurai would treat his lord. There were only two lawful things this barbarian did: Never breaking promises, and being utterly loyal to the wizard. It was also even more personal than the usual samurai-lord shtick, since after all, these guys were friends, brothers in arms who had been through a lot together. But yeah... The wizard could stay my Barbarian's blade with words, I went through everything to do what he asked of me rather than the "proper Barbarian" (oxymoron much) way of going against plans and not using your head... And I went into battle one day finding myself without my class features functioning.

It ended up working out alright, because I went into a Homebrew PrC that gave me several boosts and I was able to make use of my lawfulness and the fact that Barbarians thankfully don't have much more than Rage to lose for class features... But I was bitter, or more accurately, raging for the rest of the campaign.

[TuggyNE]

But I was bitter, or more accurately, raging for the rest of the campaign.

Enforced method acting gone wrong?

[Gabe the Bard]

Wow, that's pretty harsh. Your barbarian sounds like he was more neutral than lawful. Either way, that DM should at least have given you a warning before taking away your powers.

I was using an exaggeration, of course. I'm aware that it usually takes more than a single action to change your alignment, unless artifacts are involved. I guess that's where Paladins differ since their abilities also depend on maintaining a Code of Conduct, which isn't the same as maintaining a lawful or nonlawful alignment.

I guess I'm facing a similar alignment crisis with my character who is a barbarian but whose personality is becoming more like a cavalier. He marshals the men against a siege (granted, with Intimidate rather than Diplomacy); he trained the slaves that he freed and had them enroll with the city guard (turned them into the popo!); and he can't seem to hit anything that's prone (it either seems unsporting so he avoids it, or he actually rolls a 1 on the attack roll). Knowing my DM, he probably won't penalize me for it since he's pretty lax about alignment restrictions, but I'm wondering where the invisible line is that I'm not supposed to cross.

[Hurnn]

I'll point out that that is NOT enough to transfer straight to Lawful, but I see where you're coming from.

Nonetheless, I've actually been that Barbarian. The DM was extremely unfair (though admittedly at least logical) about why I became Lawful; my character, having been extremely trusting of an NPC who had traveled with us for a while, was basically completely emotionally broken in half when said NPC betrayed the party and got all the other characters except the wizard and me killed in an ambush that he helped set up. Nonetheless, after brooding for a while and reforming a new party (we were too low level to resurrect our previous allies) we ended up making the wizard the party leader, and my character became intensely loyalist to him. He was still Chaotic in every other way, he rushed in without thinking, he disrespected legitimate authority, he fought for peoples' freedom and disapproved of harsh legal systems... But he treated the wizard the same way a samurai would treat his lord. There were only two lawful things this barbarian did: Never breaking promises, and being utterly loyal to the wizard. It was also even more personal than the usual samurai-lord shtick, since after all, these guys were friends, brothers in arms who had been through a lot together. But yeah... The wizard could stay my Barbarian's blade with words, I went through everything to do what he asked of me rather than the "proper Barbarian" (oxymoron much) way of going against plans and not using your head... And I went into battle one day finding myself without my class features functioning.

It ended up working out alright, because I went into a Homebrew PrC that gave me several boosts and I was able to make use of my lawfulness and the fact that Barbarians thankfully don't have much more than Rage to lose for class features... But I was bitter, or more accurately, raging for the rest of the campaign.


Your dm was definately pretty unfair in that situation, no way do those two things alone make you lawful. That said your sig makes me sad, you know you could just try to ease up on the optmization go for flavor and fun over mind melting power.

[Tommy2255]

I know someone who played a Lawful Barbarian. He couldn't rage normally. But he had psychological problems and was occasionally able to rage under extreme stress, he just couldn't choose to. He basically had the psychology of a child and occasionally threw tantrums, but still tried to follow the rules and everything.

[Bigbeefie]

There were only two lawful things this barbarian did: Never breaking promises, and being utterly loyal to the wizard

Loyalty does not mean lawful. You had been with this wizard through a life changing experience and learned in that experience to put a little trust in plans and logic. You made the more intelligent person the "leader" of the group. That does not say you are now lawful. Just because your chaotic does not mean you have to be the party leader at all times because you are the biggest brute in the group.

Never breaking a promise can be done even in a chaotic manner. Like saying I will go and rescue the kidnapped girl. You promised to rescue her sure but that doesn't stop you from tying up the captor and burning his hut down while he is in it. Promises do not make you lawful.....The way you carry out your promises via ethics, morals, and local laws makes You lawful.

I think your DM screwed you bad on this call and ruined that said campaign for you.

[Crake]

Loyalty does not mean lawful. You had been with this wizard through a life changing experience and learned in that experience to put a little trust in plans and logic. You made the more intelligent person the "leader" of the group. That does not say you are now lawful. Just because your chaotic does not mean you have to be the party leader at all times because you are the biggest brute in the group.

Never breaking a promise can be done even in a chaotic manner. Like saying I will go and rescue the kidnapped girl. You promised to rescue her sure but that doesn't stop you from tying up the captor and burning his hut down while he is in it. Promises do not make you lawful.....The way you carry out your promises via ethics, morals, and local laws makes You lawful.

I think your DM screwed you bad on this call and ruined that said campaign for you.

yeah, i was basically gonna say this. Neither of those two things are actually particularly lawful in any way.

[BWR]

At the end of Conan the Barbarian, Conan becomes king of his own land and we see him sitting thoughtfully on his throne... Or perhaps he is brooding because he became a lawful figure of authority and lost all of his barbarian powers.


The struggle between the lust for power and fun in battle versus the trappings of civilization. Being true to yourself versus being a king and having to govern. Being weighed down by tradition and consideration of your kingdom and subjects versus your friends and your desires.
This is the point of the Conan story "The Phoenix on the sword", and it's previous (far superior, imo) version "By this axe I rule" and just about all of Kull's stories.

Both struggle with the suppression of their natural habits of resorting to violence or harsh language at provocation, feeling their soul crushed and the danger of losing their edge in combat.
Sounds like a Barbarian in danger of turning lawful to me.

[Hytheter]

yeah, i was basically gonna say this. Neither of those two things are actually particularly lawful in any way.

...and even if they were, it sounds like enough Chaotic stuff was done to keep the Barbarian at least neutral.

[Ashtagon]

At the end of Conan the Barbarian, Conan becomes king of his own land and we see him sitting thoughtfully on his throne... Or perhaps he is brooding because he became a lawful figure of authority and lost all of his barbarian powers.

There are lots of ways for Paladins to become fallen and lose their class abilities, but I wonder if anyone has ever seen a barbarian lose their abilities because they become lawful? It's technically possible, but I just have a hard time imagining a barbarian losing the ability to rage because he suddenly decided to file his taxes properly.

Conan the barbarian was not a D&D barbarian.

ETA: The law/chaos (as well as good/evil) thing should be considered in light of how the character treats the conventionally "good" society of his adventuring region. It should have almost nothing to do with how you treat your close associates.

[Swaoeaeieu]

but I just have a hard time imagining a barbarian losing the ability to rage because he suddenly decided to file his taxes properly.

Filing taxes does not remove barbarism. if anything, filing taxes fills me with more rage then normal...

[ahenobarbi]

At the end of Conan the Barbarian, Conan becomes king of his own land and we see him sitting thoughtfully on his throne... Or perhaps he is brooding because he became a lawful figure of authority and lost all of his barbarian powers.

There are lots of ways for Paladins to become fallen and lose their class abilities, but I wonder if anyone has ever seen a barbarian lose their abilities because they become lawful? It's technically possible, but I just have a hard time imagining a barbarian losing the ability to rage because he suddenly decided to file his taxes properly.

Not really. It's pretty hard to involuntarily become lawful (mayhaps with exception of alignment-changing curses).


Filing taxes does not remove barbarism. if anything, filing taxes fills me with more rage then normal...

:smallbiggrin:


It ended up working out alright, because I went into a Homebrew PrC that gave me several boosts and I was able to make use of my lawfulness and the fact that Barbarians thankfully don't have much more than Rage to lose for class features... But I was bitter, or more accurately, raging for the rest of the campaign.


1) Barbarian don't loose anything other than rage by becoming lawful.
2) "Doesn't occasionally betray one particular friend" is pretty loose definition of "Lawfulness". I wonder if the DM would be ok with a Palladin who limited his (her? its?) lawfulness to that. If not then something surely smells bad.

[Amphetryon]

I'll point out that that is NOT enough to transfer straight to Lawful, but I see where you're coming from.

Nonetheless, I've actually been that Barbarian. The DM was extremely unfair (though admittedly at least logical) about why I became Lawful; my character, having been extremely trusting of an NPC who had traveled with us for a while, was basically completely emotionally broken in half when said NPC betrayed the party and got all the other characters except the wizard and me killed in an ambush that he helped set up. Nonetheless, after brooding for a while and reforming a new party (we were too low level to resurrect our previous allies) we ended up making the wizard the party leader, and my character became intensely loyalist to him. He was still Chaotic in every other way, he rushed in without thinking, he disrespected legitimate authority, he fought for peoples' freedom and disapproved of harsh legal systems... But he treated the wizard the same way a samurai would treat his lord. There were only two lawful things this barbarian did: Never breaking promises, and being utterly loyal to the wizard. It was also even more personal than the usual samurai-lord shtick, since after all, these guys were friends, brothers in arms who had been through a lot together. But yeah... The wizard could stay my Barbarian's blade with words, I went through everything to do what he asked of me rather than the "proper Barbarian" (oxymoron much) way of going against plans and not using your head... And I went into battle one day finding myself without my class features functioning.

It ended up working out alright, because I went into a Homebrew PrC that gave me several boosts and I was able to make use of my lawfulness and the fact that Barbarians thankfully don't have much more than Rage to lose for class features... But I was bitter, or more accurately, raging for the rest of the campaign.

I get the impression that this DM would be one of those arguing that Heath Ledger's Joker was Lawful because he could conceive complex plans and stick to them. That Barbarian's actions were not Lawful on the grand scale, to any degree that would cost Rage.

[Tragak]

I get the impression that this DM would be one of those arguing that Heath Ledger's Joker was Lawful because he could conceive complex plans and stick to them. That Barbarian's actions were not Lawful on the grand scale, to any degree that would cost Rage. That line of thought never made sense to me (Lawfuls want somebody to plan ahead, Chaotics want to act on impulse). I always imagined Law vs. Chaos as being based on loyalty: do you only consider personal friends in your decision making (Chaotic), or do you include strangers in the process (Lawfuls)?

I've always imagined that there are Lawfuls who act on impulse instead of planning ahead*, there are Chaotics who can follow through on brilliant plans**, and planning ahead always struck me as more of an intellectual issue than an ethical.

Chaotics can still follow and/or control other people, they just focus on the person holding authority rather than on their title: "I'm the boss because you obey me" rather than a more Lawful "You obey me because I'm the boss."

*the impulse being to obey somebody else's plan, as he doesn't feel it's his place as a subordinate to make his own
**as long as he and his friends were the only ones making the plan

[Red Fel]

I guess I'm facing a similar alignment crisis with my character who is a barbarian but whose personality is becoming more like a cavalier. He marshals the men against a siege (granted, with Intimidate rather than Diplomacy); he trained the slaves that he freed and had them enroll with the city guard (turned them into the popo!); and he can't seem to hit anything that's prone (it either seems unsporting so he avoids it, or he actually rolls a 1 on the attack roll). Knowing my DM, he probably won't penalize me for it since he's pretty lax about alignment restrictions, but I'm wondering where the invisible line is that I'm not supposed to cross.

I question whether this actually makes the character Lawful. The Lawful-Chaotic spectrum is in many ways far more nuanced than Good-Evil. Let's look at what you're doing, individually, as you've listed.

1. Your Barbarian is a leader of men. Nothing wrong with that. There are Barbarian chieftains, tribal leaders, generals. Chaotic doesn't mean "I won't lead and I won't follow," it means "I'm free."

2. Your Barbarian freed slaves. Perfectly Chaotic - freedom. He trained them. Again, that's neither here nor there - teaching them valuable skills helps them remain self-sufficient, a hallmark of Chaotic alignments. He had them sign up with the local police. Now, that's an interesting point, and goes nicely with the first point you raised.

You suggested that Conan lost his Barbarian powers because he became a legitimate ruler. While I won't go into the "Conan isn't a D&D Barbarian" arguments, I fail to see how becoming a ruler means one instantly becomes Lawful. There is a difference between being "the law" and being Lawful, and it is entirely possible to be a Chaotic ruler. (Don't believe me? Look up Caligula.) Similarly, I believe that a Chaotic character could encourage others to join the police force (even if he wouldn't, himself) because "the law" is not always Lawful. Do you think that savage Barbarian tribes don't have some sort of enforcement mechanism? Guards, punishments? Of course they do.

3. He won't hit prone targets. You could argue that's honor, a Lawful trait. You could also argue that he does it because it's no fun. He likes it when they fight back. It's boring when they're vulnerable. That makes it a little more Chaotic. (Admittedly, this one is debatable.)

Ultimately, Law-Chaos can be debated. Based on this, I'm not convinced that your Barb has become Lawful; at best, he's slipped into Neutral territory.

@BrokenChord: I think that, from what you described, your Barb was still Chaotic. He was simply loyal. There's nothing stopping a Chaotic character from valuing friends, family, even to the death. The question is whether your Barbarian was true to himself. If he didn't allow them to change him, but simply respected their wishes, he was still expressing his own views, his own control over his own life. He was still Chaotic. Now, if he became loyal or obedient to relative strangers, or followed orders from NPCs simply because one of the PCs told him to, that's a different story. But if it was just a question of obeying the PCs? That's just good sense.

[Slipperychicken]

I've heard arguments that Conan was actually a fighter or warblade rather than a Barbarian.

I do enjoy the idea of a barbarian "selling out" and becoming lawful to get power and money.

[Naanomi]

I realize it different but I've had barbarian 'fall to law' in a backstory... A dwarf living savage and alone in the wild is rescued and recultured by his family. Barbaran into dwarven defender