Lawful Barbarians?

[Wargamer]

Got to thinking on this and decided to see what others thought.

For a while now my go-to character when I get to be a player as opposed to a DM is my Barbarian build, Haakon. It's not exactly optimised, but I love it; twf with handaxe and longsword with a selection of smaller blades for throwing at people if I get bored.

I also go with a fairly straightforward motivation for being with whatever party I'm in - Haakon has a strong personal code of honour and that code has bound him to one or more party members.

Now, because of how I usually interpret and apply the D&D alignment system I consider him a Lawful Neutral character, and this has never caused problems because the justification has always been accepted; Raging is just a fighting style, and the fact he can send himself into a frenzy like that has nothing to do with his own internal moral code, which is a rigid and highly ordered one.

So I thought I'd see what the forums here thought on that - can you have Lawful barbarians, or for that matter Chaotic monks? Just how important do you think alignment is for classes like that?

[Someonelse]

Having a personal code doesn't make him lawful. The lawful / chaos axis has more to do with authority. You follow your own personal code and you have no concern for local laws. A lawful character would go out of their way to make sure they obey any law they are aware of, whereas I assume your barbarian couldn't care less about obeying the law, unless it happens to coincide with his own personal code purely by coincidence.

Sounds to me like your just playing the chaotic alignment correctly, rather than just playing chaotic stupid as so many do

[infomatic]

That said, you can certainly have lawful raging barbarians. They're fighters with half-orc paragon levels.

[Eonir]

Having a personal code doesn't make him lawful. The lawful / chaos axis has more to do with authority. You follow your own personal code and you have no concern for local laws. A lawful character would go out of their way to make sure they obey any law they are aware of, whereas I assume your barbarian couldn't care less about obeying the law, unless it happens to coincide with his own personal code purely by coincidence.

Sounds to me like your just playing the chaotic alignment correctly, rather than just playing chaotic stupid as so many do


I second this. There is honor among thieves, who are chaotic.

[Red Fel]

Having a personal code doesn't make him lawful. The lawful / chaos axis has more to do with authority. You follow your own personal code and you have no concern for local laws. A lawful character would go out of their way to make sure they obey any law they are aware of, whereas I assume your barbarian couldn't care less about obeying the law, unless it happens to coincide with his own personal code purely by coincidence.

Sounds to me like your just playing the chaotic alignment correctly, rather than just playing chaotic stupid as so many do

... I honestly can't agree with any of that.

Having a personal code does make you lawful. Lawful characters do not blindly obey the laws; they have principles and values that set limits upon their actions. Lawful characters may respect local laws, and the order they create, but that does not obligate them to follow such laws. Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.

That said, I also disagree with something the OP said. Barbarian Rage isn't just a fighting style or a mechanic. There's fluff to it. Specifically, it's giving in to impulse, letting go of restraint, and unleashing one's full fury without hesitation or consideration. It means turning off one's brain and turning on one's violence.

Lawful characters are all about restraint and limits. A Lawful character is defined by his limitations; oaths, personal code, religious obligations or social duties are the hallmarks of Lawfulness. Rage is the total abandonment of limits - a Chaotic notion. Hence why Barbarians are Chaotic.

Are there Lawful Barbarians? There's probably a specialized class. If I recall, Dragon Magazine had a Chaotic Monk class. But that's ignoring the fluff. A Monk is Lawful because he devotes mind, body and spirit to a cause - the cause of perfection of self. A Barbarian is Chaotic because he surrenders to his instincts, abandoning limits.

I don't necessarily like the alignment restrictions - I'm not convinced by them. But they are what they are.

[Ravens_cry]

Do you want to be a Barbarian or a barbarian? Because another class could emulate the latter just fine. A Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariantWilderness Rogue), for example, would make a pretty good at capturing the flavor and crunch for stealthy scout for some tribe, for example.

[Wargamer]

... I honestly can't agree with any of that.

Having a personal code does make you lawful. Lawful characters do not blindly obey the laws; they have principles and values that set limits upon their actions. Lawful characters may respect local laws, and the order they create, but that does not obligate them to follow such laws. Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.

That said, I also disagree with something the OP said. Barbarian Rage isn't just a fighting style or a mechanic. There's fluff to it. Specifically, it's giving in to impulse, letting go of restraint, and unleashing one's full fury without hesitation or consideration. It means turning off one's brain and turning on one's violence.

Lawful characters are all about restraint and limits. A Lawful character is defined by his limitations; oaths, personal code, religious obligations or social duties are the hallmarks of Lawfulness. Rage is the total abandonment of limits - a Chaotic notion. Hence why Barbarians are Chaotic.

Are there Lawful Barbarians? There's probably a specialized class. If I recall, Dragon Magazine had a Chaotic Monk class. But that's ignoring the fluff. A Monk is Lawful because he devotes mind, body and spirit to a cause - the cause of perfection of self. A Barbarian is Chaotic because he surrenders to his instincts, abandoning limits.

I don't necessarily like the alignment restrictions - I'm not convinced by them. But they are what they are.

See, to me this just ties in to what a Barbarian is... which is usually defined inaccurately.

"Barbarian" was essentially a Greek term for "people who are not Greek", and thus inferior in their eyes. Greeks and Romans alike (and other cultures that followed) set out to demonise the 'lesser' cultures, and they did a good job of it.

This thinking transfers to D&D and fantasy in general, and I admit I built Haakon to play on those tropes. Let's just compare the Barbarian to his rival martial classes a moment...

Fighters are generally portrayed as very "western" warriors, and by that I mean someone who wouldn't look out of place in the upper echelons of medieval European society. Paladins, Knights and so on take this further, solidifying the image of martial classes as people who wear shiny, European style armours, adopt chivalric codes and who fight in a formal Western style.

Yet the Barbarian stands apart. Their imagery is of broad swords and bearded axes; of wild, unkempt facial hair and Celtic tattoos; of bestial, primal fighting styles devoid of any grace, poise or planning.

D&D has bit the stereotypes of old hook, line and sinker. The Barbarian class is not a savage, mindless lunatic who lives only to destroy; the Barbarian class is foreign! This is the path I took with Haakon - his "Rage" ability is simply the product of his culture; of being raised in a society where you didn't need to be polite to people before hitting them with a big stick. His fighting style appears savage and bestial because it does not have the formal rules of western culture, nor the squad-based combat mentalities of the rank and file. His people hold the Germanic ideology of heroism in war, the idea that every man fights alone and so must be the best warrior he can be.

This is why I don't agree that Barbarians need to be Chaotic, any more than I would state that all Knights need to be decent people, or all Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid. Stereotypes don't make good characters, they hamstring them. To me, the Barbarian class is ideally suited to a self-sufficient warrior, a man (or woman) who assists the party incidentally and through completion of a shared goal, as opposed to coordinated efforts ad unified strategy.

[Red Fel]

This is why I don't agree that Barbarians need to be Chaotic, any more than I would state that all Knights need to be decent people, or all Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid. Stereotypes don't make good characters, they hamstring them. To me, the Barbarian class is ideally suited to a self-sufficient warrior, a man (or woman) who assists the party incidentally and through completion of a shared goal, as opposed to coordinated efforts ad unified strategy.

Then get your DM to waive the alignment restriction.

What you're describing is a savage warrior, which can be embodied in any number of classes, not all of which have alignment restrictions. You chose to make it a Barbarian, with all attendant benefits and limitations.

Your argument is, "Yes, he's a Barbarian in name, but in my mind 'Barbarian' means something different than what the PHB says." That's fine. But I don't go around saying that Wizards should gain +5 BAB with quarterstaves because clearly they must train with those things; I don't go around saying that Warlocks should have bonuses to dealing with Demons because classically that's what a Warlock was; I don't argue that Clerics have no place wielding weapons and armor and should basically be Monks, but not Monk-the-class but rather a dude in a brown robe who reads scripture, and that Monk-the-class should be completely revised and renamed because a Monk is a dude in a brown robe who reads scripture. I don't make these arguments because regardless of what the name is, the PHB has defined the class as having certain features.

You say, "Barbarians aren't savage berserkers, they're foreign." But the PHB says, "Barbarians aren't foreign, they're savage berserkers." In a dispute between you and the PHB, my money's on the book.

If you want to play a classic, scantily-clad Teutonic warrior with a sense of honor and an ill temper, there are classes for that. (Probably. Safe to assume, anyway.) Barbarian isn't quite it, though; even though a Barbarian may be honorable, he must be Chaotic non-Lawful. The PHB says so. So either find a DM willing to waive that requirement, or find another class.

ADDENDUM: According to the PHB, Barbarian doesn't even have to be Chaotic. He simply has to be non-Lawful. That means Neutral works. That's a lot of people. Neutral simply means self-interested. It's a perfectly functional alignment for a Barbarian. You can be "honorable but willing to cut loose" as a Neutral Barbarian.

[Knaight]

Strictly speaking, this is against the rules. In practice, check with your DM - I personally consider the vast majority of alignment restrictions in D&D incredibly dumb, with maybe the Paladin being justified (and even then I'd be inclined to waive the lawful part). Some DMs consider them warranted.

[infomatic]

To me, the Barbarian class is ideally suited to a self-sufficient warrior, a man (or woman) who assists the party incidentally and through completion of a shared goal, as opposed to coordinated efforts ad unified strategy.

Sounds like Belkar.

[Wargamer]

Your argument is, "Yes, he's a Barbarian in name, but in my mind 'Barbarian' means something different than what the PHB says." That's fine. But I don't go around saying that Wizards should gain +5 BAB with quarterstaves because clearly they must train with those things; I don't go around saying that Warlocks should have bonuses to dealing with Demons because classically that's what a Warlock was; I don't argue that Clerics have no place wielding weapons and armor and should basically be Monks, but not Monk-the-class but rather a dude in a brown robe who reads scripture, and that Monk-the-class should be completely revised and renamed because a Monk is a dude in a brown robe who reads scripture. I don't make these arguments because regardless of what the name is, the PHB has defined the class as having certain features.
Not quite... Wizards spend most of their time studying arcana, not martial fighting. That's why they don't get big BAB boosts.

Clerics? Well, historically men of the cloth have fought in battle. Christian priests liked to use maces because "shedding blood" was not allowed, yet somehow caving someone's skull in didn't count.

Monks... are wrong. I know exactly what stereotype they fill, but they belong in an oriental supplement. An yes, I know the Complete books gave us Ninja, Samurai and Asian themed casters, but just look at the rest of the book...

Bard - Western inspired hero who uses misdirection, subterfuge and a variety of supportive skills.
Barbarian - Western archetypal Celtic / Germanic / Nordic warrior.
Cleric - Western inspired [Christian] warrior-priest.
Druid - Western inspired Celtic / Germanic / Nordic shaman.
Fighter - Western medieval warrior.
Ranger - Western inspired "Ranger of the north".
Rogue - Western themed thief / assassin archetype.
Sorcerer - Western Witch / Warlock archetype.
Wizard - Western inspired "sanitised" Witch / Warlock archetype.

And then we have this one class that is clearly a Shaolin Monk. Odd, don't you think?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh goody, an alignment debate.

[RolkFlameraven]

Maenad's in pathfinder can do this. I've been thinking about it for a while now.

•Ordered Rage: Maenads may take levels in the barbarian class even if they are of the lawful alignment.

[AlchemicalMyst]

Staying out of the Nine Alignment debates...

I would personally allow any Barbarian with the Righteous Wrath feat to be of the Lawful alignment. Ask your GM.

[Telonius]

IMO, alignment is completely unimportant to a Barbarian. A person's beliefs and outlook shouldn't affect class features, unless that class is specifically tied to a power source that cares about alignment (like Cleric or Paladin).

I houserule that there are no alignment restrictions for Barbarians, Bards, or Monks. Lawful Barbarians and Bards - seem perfect for the "noble savage" types, and skalds who care deeply about the laws and traditions of their people. Chaotic Monks - self-discipline is only one part of the martial artist's character. I see no reason an unarmed combatant can't go out of their way to violate society's norms, lie, cheat, fight dirty, or chafe under authority.

[Nihilarian]

You're getting too hung up on names. Would it help if the barbarian was called "Berserker" or "Psychopath"?
Not quite... Wizards spend most of their time studying arcana, not martial fighting. That's why they don't get big BAB boosts.That's what wizard is to you. That's not what wizard means to other people. For example, in The Lord of the Rings movies, Gandalf casts spells more rarely than you'd expect. He also occasionally whacks someone with a stick and/or a sword. So anyone thinking of that incarnation of Gandalf as they're taking a look at 3.5 wizard might be disappointed. If you're going to sit here and complain that the barbarian's stats don't reflect what you think of when you hear "barbarian", it's rather hypocritical of you to dismiss someone else's vision of a wizard.

Would it be unbalanced to let the barbarian be lawful? No. Would it fit the fluff of the class? The fluff of the class is whatever you want it to be, and alignment itself is arbitrary and vague (and stupid). Given the traits you've given, I could reasonably place you as either LN or CG (because alignment is stupid.). But ultimately it's the DM's call whether you can be lawful. (Have I said alignment is stupid? Because it is.)

[hamishspence]

IMO, alignment is completely unimportant to a Barbarian. A person's beliefs and outlook shouldn't affect class features, unless that class is specifically tied to a power source that cares about alignment (like Cleric or Paladin).

I houserule that there are no alignment restrictions for Barbarians, Bards, or Monks.

4E did the same.

WoTC's article on Law & Chaos:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.
...
The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.
...
Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration.



Having a personal code does make you lawful. Lawful characters do not blindly obey the laws; they have principles and values that set limits upon their actions. Lawful characters may respect local laws, and the order they create, but that does not obligate them to follow such laws. Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.
The Giant on "Personal Code" Lawfulness:



In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[nedz]

I thought the Barbarian was based on Fafhrd ?
Obviously there are other characters who fit this archetype, but Fafhrd was the original.

[Rubik]

Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil Lawful, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.Slavery is all about taking away freedoms -- which are Chaotic -- and imposing your will upon others -- which is Lawful.

Very small children are basically slaves. They have no real freedom to do what they want, and their parents enforce their will upon them. That doesn't make being a strict parent Evil.

[Elderand]

I'd go and have a look at the d20 conan book for an exemple of "proper" barbarian with code of conduct rules.

[hamishspence]

Very small children are basically slaves. They have no real freedom to do what they want, and their parents enforce their will upon them.

Parents can't sell them though - and they have the same legal protections as adults.

"Slavery" usually involves persons being property, and having significantly less legal protections than "free people".

[Morty]

There's no logical or narrative reason to keep the alignment restriction for barbarians. Monks have a slightly better reasoning for being restricted to the lawful alignment, but only slightly, and allowing them to be of other alignments also has no downsides. For the most part, alignment restrictions have no place unless gods, ideals and other divine magic is involved, like in the case of clerics and paladins. So toss them out and your games will only be better for it.

[Rubik]

Parents can't sell them though - and they have the same legal protections as adults.

"Slavery" usually involves persons being property, and having significantly less legal protections than "free people".I won't argue with the property part, but parents can send their children to orphanages, and the protections slaves and children retain are entirely based upon the society in question. Some societies imposed very harsh standards for the upkeep of slaves. Some didn't. It's all about societal norms and how much importance they placed on property and property owners. Hell, in many pre-20th century cultures, children had no legal protections whatsoever, even fewer than, say, Roman slaves retained.

[Elderand]

Parents can't sell them though - and they have the same legal protections as adults.

"Slavery" usually involves persons being property, and having significantly less legal protections than "free people".

Of course parent can't sell them, they can however pay to get rid of them in several different fashions.

Children, slaves as seen through a mirror of opposition.

[Knaight]

Slavery is all about taking away freedoms -- which are Chaotic -- and imposing your will upon others -- which is Lawful.

If you trim out all of the abuses involved and then spin the essence of it to not sound terrible, sure. Otherwise, let's see the rules on this:

Evil:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is pretty much slavery in a nutshell. The system is inherently highly oppressive, and everywhere it has existed it has been full of hurting and killing. Sure, there have been individual slave owners with qualms against hurting and killing, but it's still been there at a systematic level. It would also be fair to describe various mid level positions that have cropped up in some systems of slavery (e.g. overseers in plantation slavery in the modern era) as actively pursuing evil out of duty to some evil master - which can include killing.

Lawful Evil:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
Methodically taking what one wants from others is also slavery in a nutshell. Condemning others according to social rank (that of a slave) is also a necessity, and race, religion, and homeland are also all things that have been used to justify enslaving people.

[Rubik]

I don't recall which societies it was talking about, but several years ago I read an article stating that numerous pre-20th century societies had stricter laws for the rights of slaves than for free citizens. They received better care and more protections from the law than actual citizens did. Harming a slave in any way was a severely punishable offense, while free citizens could get away with quite a lot to other citizens.

Oddly backwards, honestly, but humans are contrary creatures in the extreme.

[theIrkin]

Wargamer: A non-sequitter, but little pieces of frivolous information are fun. Clerics could use blunt weapons (and axes too, although less frequently and it was harder for them to justify) because the technical wording for their prescription against violence was a line (i can't remember the verse) from the Bible saying they shall not wield the sword. So, being literalists because it was convenient (no moral judgement, I think they should have taken it in spirit, not literally, thereby wielding swords in they had to fight), they wielded other weapons.

[Manly Man]

I thought the Barbarian was based on Fafhrd ?
Obviously there are other characters who fit this archetype, but Fafhrd was the original.

What's saddening about this statement is the sheer amount of people I know who have absolutely no idea who Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are, let alone creepy alien guys like Ningauble or Sheelba.

[Sam K]

... I honestly can't agree with any of that.

Having a personal code does make you lawful. Lawful characters do not blindly obey the laws; they have principles and values that set limits upon their actions. Lawful characters may respect local laws, and the order they create, but that does not obligate them to follow such laws. Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.

That said, I also disagree with something the OP said. Barbarian Rage isn't just a fighting style or a mechanic. There's fluff to it. Specifically, it's giving in to impulse, letting go of restraint, and unleashing one's full fury without hesitation or consideration. It means turning off one's brain and turning on one's violence.

Lawful characters are all about restraint and limits. A Lawful character is defined by his limitations; oaths, personal code, religious obligations or social duties are the hallmarks of Lawfulness. Rage is the total abandonment of limits - a Chaotic notion. Hence why Barbarians are Chaotic.

Are there Lawful Barbarians? There's probably a specialized class. If I recall, Dragon Magazine had a Chaotic Monk class. But that's ignoring the fluff. A Monk is Lawful because he devotes mind, body and spirit to a cause - the cause of perfection of self. A Barbarian is Chaotic because he surrenders to his instincts, abandoning limits.

I don't necessarily like the alignment restrictions - I'm not convinced by them. But they are what they are.

I agree with your interpretation of barbarians, but I'm not sure about your definition of Lawfulness.

Lawfulness is more than following strict rules, just like being Good is more than giving money to chairity. Following a PERSONAL code of honor above the local law means putting your own preferences above those of society, which is chaotic behaviour. At the very least, a Lawful character would have to try and integrate their code with whatever local laws and customs that may exist. Being Lawful means you're "pro-law", in the D&D cosmology sense: a Lawful character is concerned about laws, rules and traditions. They respect authority. This does not mean they OBEY authority; just like a good character isn't expected to give away all their worldly goods to the poor, fight every injustice or right every wrong, lawful characters aren't expected to slavishly obey every minor authority figure that crosses their path. But a lawful character will treat the authority figure with whatever respect their relative rank entitles them to (in the case of LE characters with status of their own, this may be very little indeed).

When I have questions about a characters alignment, I look at it like this: if a character were to die, what kind of afterlife would they get. In this case, would the LN outsiders and gods approve? Would Wee Jas and St Cuthbert approve of your approach to authority? Should Helm consider that you have done your duty and served well? Likewise, would your character FIT in a LN realm? Would mechanus be a realm where he felt at home? Does he belong with Modrons and Formians?

If not, the character is probably not Lawful Neutral.

IMO, alignment restrictions on classes are usually arbitrary and make little sense. Unless a class draws upon divine energy, which could be "shut off" if they stray from the path, I would just ignore them.

[Wargamer]

I agree with your interpretation of barbarians, but I'm not sure about your definition of Lawfulness.

Lawfulness is more than following strict rules, just like being Good is more than giving money to chairity. Following a PERSONAL code of honor above the local law means putting your own preferences above those of society, which is chaotic behaviour. At the very least, a Lawful character would have to try and integrate their code with whatever local laws and customs that may exist. Being Lawful means you're "pro-law", in the D&D cosmology sense: a Lawful character is concerned about laws, rules and traditions. They respect authority. This does not mean they OBEY authority; just like a good character isn't expected to give away all their worldly goods to the poor, fight every injustice or right every wrong, lawful characters aren't expected to slavishly obey every minor authority figure that crosses their path. But a lawful character will treat the authority figure with whatever respect their relative rank entitles them to (in the case of LE characters with status of their own, this may be very little indeed).

When I have questions about a characters alignment, I look at it like this: if a character were to die, what kind of afterlife would they get. In this case, would the LN outsiders and gods approve? Would Wee Jas and St Cuthbert approve of your approach to authority? Should Helm consider that you have done your duty and served well? Likewise, would your character FIT in a LN realm? Would mechanus be a realm where he felt at home? Does he belong with Modrons and Formians?

If not, the character is probably not Lawful Neutral.

IMO, alignment restrictions on classes are usually arbitrary and make little sense. Unless a class draws upon divine energy, which could be "shut off" if they stray from the path, I would just ignore them.

I'm afraid that is clearly, self-evidently wrong.

If Lawful characters had to obey all laws, then you would get a lot of catch 22s, especially for Paladins. I mean, just imagine the following:

"I'm a Lawful Good Paladin!"
"Okay. By the way, the local law says you have to nail a baby to your front door at dawn. It's the most important law in the land."
"... well, I guess I just fell!"

That is not how Lawful works. That's how Lawful Stupid works. You can argue that a Lawful character should respect just laws (if Good), or laws imposed by their deity, or even the laws of their homeland (alignment permitting), but no Lawful character would ever be expected to adhere to a law outside of their own moral framework.

Likewise, you can make arguments about how they deal with local laws. I would say that just flat-out ignoring the law is Chaotic. Trying to change the law within an existing legal framework is Lawful, but so is flat-out saying "Nope! My divine code trumps your mortal stupidity!" A Paladin is under no obligation to obey Evil Laws once she has established they are evil. Nor are any Good characters for that matter.

Really, the issue is as much about how lazily "Chaotic" is defined as anything. It seems like the "Chaotic" alignment is a catch-all term for everyone from free -thinkers and pro-liberals to bat-**** crazies who would soon as burn your house down as shake your hand. Chaotic needs to be a little more clearly defined than "is technically crazy to some degree".

[Ravens_cry]

Getting away from the alignment debate (oh can we, can we please!? :smalleek:) I, as a DM, would ask such a player WHY they want to play a lawful barbarian?

[Rubik]

Getting away from the alignment debate (oh can we, can we please!? :smalleek:) I, as a DM, would ask such a player WHY they want to play a lawful barbarian?Because it makes sense, and restricting alignments places a stranglehold on creativity and roleplaying?

And tribal cultures are (in cliches, if nothing else) all about tradition and rules of personal honor and respecting elders and whatnot. What about that screams unLawful? To anyone?

[Invader]

I've always thought alignment restriction on classes were a terrible idea and they're not enforced at my table.

It's a needless rule that really serves no purpose other than to pigeon hole people.

[Ravens_cry]

Because it makes sense, and restricting alignments places a stranglehold on creativity and roleplaying?

Perhaps, but I want their reason.


And tribal cultures are (in cliches, if nothing else) all about tradition and rules of personal honor and respecting elders and whatnot. What about that screams unLawful? To anyone?
A Barbarian, the class, is not necessarily a barbarian, the concept, and vise verse. Heck, my latest character is a Barbarian and is based on coureur des bois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coureur_des_bois) more than anything. A better name for Barbarian, the class, is Berserker.

[Telonius]

What's saddening about this statement is the sheer amount of people I know who have absolutely no idea who Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are, let alone creepy alien guys like Ningauble or Sheelba.

It's sad, but copies of the Swords series are kind of hard to come by. I've never seen a library that has any, and it's been out of print for decades. (Though hey, didn't realize that - there is a Kindle version now! I'll have to check that out).

[Invader]

Perhaps, but I want their reason.

A Barbarian, the class, is not necessarily a barbarian, the concept, and vise verse. Heck, my latest character is a Barbarian and is based on coureur des bois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coureur_des_bois) more than anything. A better name for Barbarian, the class, is Berserker.

I'd say the description in the PHB would lead you believe otherwise.

[Brookshw]

Personally if one of my players came to me saying they wanted to be a barbarian with a personal code I'd say "sure, describe it to me". Seems like a good roleplay bit.

Just because someone can fly into a murderous rage doesn't mean they can't be more than that. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/07/10/episode-440-berserkers-want-what-we-all-want-civilization/)

[Ravens_cry]

I'd say the description in the PHB would lead you believe otherwise.
I's not the only way to play a barbarian, the concept.
Druid, Wilderness Rogue, Ranger would all fit the idea of a 'barbarian' fairly closely.
Conversely, the concept of a farmer whose family was murdered and now they are after bloody, personal revenge, would be well served by Barbarian, the class.

[Wargamer]

I's not the only way to play a barbarian, the concept.
Druid, Wilderness Rogue, Ranger would all fit the idea of a 'barbarian' fairly closely.
Conversely, the concept of a farmer whose family was murdered and now they are after bloody, personal revenge, would be well served by Barbarian, the class.

The former, yes, but the latter? You are way off! A farmer seeking revenge is represented by the COMMONER class!

I think this is where D&D went catastrophically wrong; they stopped emphasising how heroes were heroic. A level 1 Fighter is a professional soldier who has spent years honing his fighting skills. A Wizard has mastered the art of reshaping reality. A Barbarian has honed his inner rage to the point where he can weaponise it.

By your logic, a Fighter is someone who can use a sword. A Wizard is someone who owns a spellbook. A Barbarian is someone who gets angry. This dilution of Class removes any sense that they are meant to be exceptional individuals. There is a place for mundane characters; they are called "NPC classes".

[Morty]

Perhaps, but I want their reason.

A Barbarian, the class, is not necessarily a barbarian, the concept, and vise verse. Heck, my latest character is a Barbarian and is based on coureur des bois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coureur_des_bois) more than anything. A better name for Barbarian, the class, is Berserker.

It's a purely academic question, really, given that there's nothing whatsoever in the skillset of the Barbarian class that precludes a Lawful alignment.

[Ravens_cry]

The former, yes, but the latter? You are way off! A farmer seeking revenge is represented by the COMMONER class!

I think this is where D&D went catastrophically wrong; they stopped emphasising how heroes were heroic. A level 1 Fighter is a professional soldier who has spent years honing his fighting skills. A Wizard has mastered the art of reshaping reality. A Barbarian has honed his inner rage to the point where he can weaponise it.

By your logic, a Fighter is someone who can use a sword. A Wizard is someone who owns a spellbook. A Barbarian is someone who gets angry. This dilution of Class removes any sense that they are meant to be exceptional individuals. There is a place for mundane characters; they are called "NPC classes".
A farmer who got his family murdered and is after revenge, fueled by the power of their rage, is certainly an exceptional individual. Maybe a wizard was taught in a prestigious acadmy, maybe they were taught by a lone mentor or were largely self taught, experimenting with magic on their own time. All those could easily be wizards, the class. I don't see why one has to be quite that restrictive as you seem to say, any more than they must have a pointy hat and beard. Now, I don't think fluff is quite as mutable as some people, but it s is variable to a degree.

[nedz]

It's sad, but copies of the Swords series are kind of hard to come by. I've never seen a library that has any, and it's been out of print for decades. (Though hey, didn't realize that - there is a Kindle version now! I'll have to check that out).

The were reprinted as part of the Fantasy Masterworks series back in 2001

[Sam K]

I'm afraid that is clearly, self-evidently wrong.

If Lawful characters had to obey all laws, then you would get a lot of catch 22s, especially for Paladins.

If we ignore the fact that your example is pretty lawful stupid as well (I mean, where would they get enough babies? They take 9 months to grow!), I did specifically say that a Lawful character doesn't have to obey every authority (I suppose I should have added or follow EVERY law). But being Lawful does mean you should respect law and authority. Ofcourse, in many cases, a Lawful character (even one with alignment restrictions) can ignore some authority because they are acting on behalf of a superior authority. If a paladin is charged by the king to complete a mission, and a barony has laws that would forbid the completition of said mission, the paladin could point to higher authority and ignore the local law. King trumphs baron.

You could argue that for some characters, "Personal code trumphs everything", and I realise that's a possible interpretation, although not one I agree with.

But to get back to the original question; I would def. allow a Lawful barb (leaving the definition of Lawful out of this :)) as long as there was an explanation for the rage. Lawful creatures are quite capable of fighting without a though for their own safety; look at bees or ants when their colony is attacked, or the trekkie rage when you ask if Spoc was the little green guy who taught Luke Skywalker. Might need some explanation on what "triggers" the rage, but the fluff for rage is pretty vauge as it is ("He is savage so he can get REALLY mad"), so I wouldn't be too strict about it.

[Scow2]

The most famous barbarian/berzerker in contemporary fantasy literature is Lawful.

Hello, Mr. Samuel Vimes.

The lawful alignment requires propagation of law, order, and consistency through the world.

[BWR]

In most cases I treat alignment restrictions as tendencies and guidelines, not hard rules, paladins generally being an exception unless I allow the 'holy warrior of god/philosophy' type of paladin, in which case 'paladins' can come in all flavors and colors.

Barbarians tend to be less interested in society and laws impacting on their freedoms, even if they can be fiercly devoted to their family and tribe, following every edict and decision from the leader. However, there are probably people who can rage who are devoted to spreading the light of civilization to the wild lands.
Monks tend to be devoted to esoteric ideals and are often withdrawn from society at large but support the ideals of civilization and lawful conduct in accordance with multiversal laws and regulations. But there are tons of examples in monk stories (read: kung fu movies) of some acolyte turning evil and just murdering people all over the place. breaking laws and being a general nuisance.
Bards needing to be chaotic never made sense to me.

And I've wanted to play a monk/barbarian/berserker ever since I saw this (http://www.playccg.com/catalog/l5r_singles-samurai_arc-words_and_deeds/hida_nichie_experienced/90028).

[AlchemicalMyst]

Personally I've never understood why people get hung up so much on alignments. Is being a Neutral Barbarian really such a bad concept that some feel the need to ditch alignments all together? Law and Chaos is not just Order vs Anarchy. It's so much more than that.

A Knight and a Barbarian for example fight very differently in Combat. One is Merciful chivalrous, always fights with honour, etc while the other allows himself to slip into a rage, showing no mercy, and fights savagely to his dying breath. That is what makes the Barbarian not fit to the 3.5 Lawful Alignment.

Does this mean that a Barbarian can't follow societal norms? Of course not. When combat ends s/he may be the most level headed and law abiding citizen around. A Neutral Barbarian would be a perfect example of such; daily activities balancing out the savage combat style. Even a Chaotic Barbarian won't necessarily be some wild child; it just means that if push came to shove they always put their own morals and codes above the societal ones.

I actually use the alignment system as a core part of my roleplaying experience and when I am the GM I make sure my players do the same. I've never known anyone who's had an issue with it being restrictive at all even with the cheesiest players around.


But there are tons of examples in monk stories (read: kung fu movies) of some acolyte turning evil and just murdering people all over the place. breaking laws and being a general nuisance.
You just described a Lawful Evil Monk to a tee.

Lawful doesn't mean following all laws. It has more to do with respecting authority. Someone who is Lawful Evil won't respect someone they don't believe is strong enough to deserve authority.

However if they are just willy nilly breaking laws left and right for the sheer purpose of being a nuisance then yeah you have a NE or CE Ex-Monk on your hands. Still that doesn't stop them from using what they've already learned as a monk.


Bards needing to be chaotic never made sense to me. Probably because they don't need to be... they just can't be lawful. The reasoning is that they are too free spirited to be constantly held down by society.
"Bards are wanderers, guided by whim and intuition rather than by tradition or law."


And I've wanted to play a monk/barbarian/berserker ever since I saw this (http://www.playccg.com/catalog/l5r_singles-samurai_arc-words_and_deeds/hida_nichie_experienced/90028).
Why not do it? There's nothing stopping you. :smallwink:

[Rubik]

Personally I've never understood why people get hung up so much on alignments. Is being a Neutral Barbarian really such a bad concept that some feel the need to ditch alignments all together? Law and Chaos is not just Order vs Anarchy. It's so much more than that.

A Knight and a Barbarian for example fight very differently in Combat. One is Merciful, always fights with honour, etc while the other allows himself to slip into a rage, showing no mercy, and fights savagely to his dying breath. That is what makes the Barbarian not fit to the 3.5 Lawful Alignment.Um... Isn't mercy Good, not Law? I could swear that it is, given that it's in basically every definition of Good alignment in the game.

[AlchemicalMyst]

Um... Isn't mercy Good, not Law? I could swear that it is, given that it's in basically every definition of Good alignment in the game.

Always nice having people ignore 99% of a post to nitpick one word :smallwink:

I meant more of the fact of not striking unarmed opponents, never taking advantage of flat-footed opponents, etc. Perhaps mercy is the wrong term for that, but my point stands.

[Ravens_cry]

Always nice having people ignore 99% of a post to nitpick one word :smallwink:

I meant more of the fact of not striking unarmed opponents, never taking advantage of flat-footed opponents, etc. Perhaps mercy is the wrong term for that, but my point stands.
That, in a quasi-medieval context, would be honorable and chivalrous.

[AlchemicalMyst]

That, in a quasi-medieval context, would be honorable and chivalrous.
So glad that we could fix the one word. Phew that was close.

[Invader]

Nothing in the barbarian's description says he turns into a blood thirsty mindless ball of killing doom. Who's to say that a barbarian can't show mercy or honor or even be chivalrous if he's raging.

[AlchemicalMyst]

Nothing in the barbarian's description says he turns into a blood thirsty mindless ball of killing doom. Who's to say that a barbarian can't show mercy or honor or even be chivalrous if he's raging.
"A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy..."
"...becomes reckless and less able to defend himself..."
that and the actual definition of rage being, "violent and uncontrollable anger."

Honestly if you believe that a Barbarian is fitting as a level headed thinker in combat there's no use in discussing further.

The original concept of the Barbarian was that they could only deal lethal damage, would attack friend or foe, and couldn't show mercy as evident by playtests and Book of Exalted Deeds. This was of course scrapped for fear of disrupting party dynamics and pissing off fellow players (some of it was transferred to the Frenzied Berserker PrC's Frenzy later on) but most of the fluff remains.

[Bakeru]

Fun fact: I once did a re-fluff of a barbarian, replacing "rage" with "focus" (e.g. "Single-minded focus on defeating the enemy so that she doesn't even notice her own injuries"), and suddenly, it was a perfectly lawful (or at least alignment-neutral) class. (The premise came from the manga Arachnid, by the way.)


Anyway, in the campaign I'm in, "Lawful"/"Chaotic" is basically the scale how reliable vs. flexible you are.
A (strongly) lawful character will do things in a specific way, follow specific rules, but will stick to these rules (personal or whatever) under all circumstances (unless another alignment overrides it - a lawful good character will try to be lawful *and* good, but might still decide that one is more important than the other). If they're in a situation where some of their rules are mutually exclusive? Well, they'll have a lot to think about (like one guy who would instantly track down even the hint of a demon, and never break his word... who swore to return to some noble as soon as he finished with some task, but then heard of a demon. He went after the demon fist).
A (strongly) chaotic character has no such absolute rules - they decide what they're going to do when they get to it. They aren't random, but you won't catch them in a conundrum, because they'd just go "Whatever, I like this option better" and won't care if it's inconsistent with what they usually do (like a huge strong fighter guy who doesn't like it when the strong beat up the weak... but when someone weak keeps angering him, he'll beat him up like anyone else).

(Of course, we also apparently have the rule that evil is what evil does, so a person who would be evil, but refrains from doing anything evil out of fear of punishment would be considered neutral, but... oh, well, whatever.)

/Edit:
The original concept of the Barbarian was that they [...] would attack friend or foe, [...]Fun fact: From what I've read, the Berserker myths come from a germanic tribe who, allegedly, were the worst allies ever, because once a battle started, they would attack anyone who wasn't one of their own, ally or not.

[Kudaku]

Add me to the list of GMs who removed the alignment restrictions for monks and barbarians.

Monks can be any alignment. Monks choose what alignment (Good, Evil, Chaotic, Lawful) to align their unarmed strike with at level 10 - the damage reduction granted at level 20 will be the opposite of their aligned strike. IE a neutral good monk chooses Good aligned unarmed strike, at level 20 he gets DR 10/Evil.

I added that houserule about two years back and I've had no issues with it.

[kardar233]

I define Law and Chaos as deontological and utilitarian ethics, personally. Clearer than the book definitions that way.

[Wargamer]

"A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy..."
"...becomes reckless and less able to defend himself..."
that and the actual definition of rage being, "violent and uncontrollable anger."

Honestly if you believe that a Barbarian is fitting as a level headed thinker in combat there's no use in discussing further.

The original concept of the Barbarian was that they could only deal lethal damage, would attack friend or foe, and couldn't show mercy as evident by playtests and Book of Exalted Deeds. This was of course scrapped for fear of disrupting party dynamics and pissing off fellow players (some of it was transferred to the Frenzied Berserker PrC's Frenzy later on) but most of the fluff remains.

Recklessness has nothing to do with your alignment - it arguably has something to do with your Wisdom score, but not alignment.

Likewise, Lawful characters are allowed to be angry people. Lawful suggests a degree of self control, but does not require it. Imagine a Knight Errant character - a noble youth who is hell bent on proving his honour and virtue. That desire to prove himself a 'true' Knight could easily override his common sense, causing him to perform actions that are not particularly well planned, yet still Lawful because, in his mind if nothing else, they fall within his code of conduct.

Nowhere does the Lawful alignment state that level headedness is a prerequisite. If it was, the Lawful Stupid stereotype couldn't exist. In fact, I think Lawful Stupid is a brilliant example of how you can be Lawful and a total and utter moron - a Lawful Stupid is someone who applies the letter of the law unthinkingly. For example, a Lawful Stupid Paladin or Cleric just blindly approaches every situation by using vaguely defined rules. "Oh, my God hates Drow, so I can't possibly have an alignment shift if I decide to drown Drow babies!"

[Hiro Protagonest]

Honestly, I'd require a better explanation of how barbarians (as a label, not a class) can be Chaotic. Negative attitudes, especially rebellious attitudes, are very much an allowance of our structured society. In a hunter-gatherer tribe, you worked for the tribe, or else you would all die, because if people only worked for themselves then nobody would pick up the slack when someone becomes sick or wounded.

[Zaydos]

On the Lawful Barbarian issue: I'd say that Barbarian makes more sense than Bard, or Monk to have their alignment restriction, but that Barbarians should not have it.

On the Law v Chaos aspect: I'm going to agree with hamishspence for the most part here and leave it at that.

On the Chaotic barbarians issue: Yeah D&D writers had some odd ideas about primitive society.

[Teapot Salty]

... I honestly can't agree with any of that.

Having a personal code does make you lawful. Lawful characters do not blindly obey the laws; they have principles and values that set limits upon their actions. Lawful characters may respect local laws, and the order they create, but that does not obligate them to follow such laws. Otherwise, an LG Paladin would have to respect the concept of slave ownership in a society that endorses such practices - and slavery is generally Evil, and thus intolerable to a Paladin.

That said, I also disagree with something the OP said. Barbarian Rage isn't just a fighting style or a mechanic. There's fluff to it. Specifically, it's giving in to impulse, letting go of restraint, and unleashing one's full fury without hesitation or consideration. It means turning off one's brain and turning on one's violence.

Lawful characters are all about restraint and limits. A Lawful character is defined by his limitations; oaths, personal code, religious obligations or social duties are the hallmarks of Lawfulness. Rage is the total abandonment of limits - a Chaotic notion. Hence why Barbarians are Chaotic.

Are there Lawful Barbarians? There's probably a specialized class. If I recall, Dragon Magazine had a Chaotic Monk class. But that's ignoring the fluff. A Monk is Lawful because he devotes mind, body and spirit to a cause - the cause of perfection of self. A Barbarian is Chaotic because he surrenders to his instincts, abandoning limits.

I don't necessarily like the alignment restrictions - I'm not convinced by them. But they are what they are.
But what if your personal code does not effect rage, or is built around it?

[Red Fel]

But what if your personal code does not effect rage, or is built around it?

It's a fair point. But the ultimate concept-

Let me put it differently.

Lawful: "We are defined by that which limits us. Our traditions. Our principles. Our faith. Those things that enclose our actions are what give our lives structure and meaning. These are the pillars that suspend and sustain our lives."

Chaotic: We are defined by our freedoms. Our ability to express ourselves without limits is what gives us significance. An individual only exists if he is a free agent; to rob a person of his ability to choose is to rob him of personhood."

The Lawful person is defined by limits. Rage is all about exceeding those limits, abandoning them in favor of adrenaline-fueled destructive fury. That is more Chaotic in nature.

Again, the Barbarian doesn't have to be Chaotic. Merely non-Lawful. A person can be principled and have a code, but as soon as he enters a Rage, he is accepting the idea that something takes precedence over the rules. That is, at best, a difficult and situational decision for a Lawful person to make. A person who does so on a regular basis can say goodbye to the L on his alignment.

A personal code that embraces abandoning a personal code is not Lawful.

Caveat: As I said, I don't particularly like the idea that the mechanic can be alignment-restricted. Not a fan. But the rules being what they are, that's simply the status quo.

[Invader]

"A barbarian can fly into a screaming bloothey're zy..."
"...becomes reckless and less able to defend himself..."
that and the actual definition rage being, "violent and uncontrollable anger."

Honestly if you believe that a Barbarian is fitting as a level headed thinker in combat there's no use in discussing further.

The original concept of the Barbarian was that they could only deal lethal damage, would attack friend or foe, and couldn't show mercy as evident by playtests and Book of Exalted Deeds. This was of course scrapped for fear of disrupting party dynamics and pissing off fellow players (some of it was transferred to the Frenzied Berserker PrC's Frenzy later on) but most of the fluff remains.

I'm not saying they're a ball of steely resolve but the argument that they're completely mindless in combat is just as ridiculous. There's a distinct difference between a barbarian and a frenzied berserker for a reason. There's nothing in the barbarian's description that insinuates they can't still be lawful while they're raging.

[Red Fel]

Well, let's go to the original text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#rage):


While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.

So, in other words, while in a Rage, a Barbarian cannot do anything that involves using his brain, his force of personality, or his tricky fingers - he just wants to smash. He can't focus on things, he can't use magic, he just wants to smash. He can use feats, except for that one defensive one or feats that craft things or weave spells, he just wants to smash.

About the only things he gets to decide are "I don't want to smash that" and "I don't want to smash anymore." (Respectively, choosing targets and ending Rage prematurely.)

Is he different from a Frenzied Berserker? Yes. The Frenzied Berserker can't stop himself from slaughtering everything and everyone. The Barbarian can. But it's a difference of scale, not of kind. Rage is a more controllable version of Frenzy.

Let's also look at the fluff of the class.


Barbarians are never lawful. They may be honorable, but at heart they are wild. This wildness is their strength, and it could not live in a lawful soul.

Regardless of whether you agree with it, this is explicit in the class description. Barbarians are non-Lawful because they are "wild" inside. They are fundamentally uncivilized. They cannot have rules imposed upon them for long.

You can disagree with it. You can think it's stupid. You might even be right. Doesn't matter.

This is how the class is written. Get your DM to waive the alignment requirement (as some have), or deal with it. Alternatively, find another class.

[Grayson01]

You're getting too hung up on names. Would it help if the barbarian was called "Berserker" or "Psychopath"?That's what wizard is to you. That's not what wizard means to other people. For example, in The Lord of the Rings movies, Gandalf casts spells more rarely than you'd expect. He also occasionally whacks someone with a stick and/or a sword. So anyone thinking of that incarnation of Gandalf as they're taking a look at 3.5 wizard might be disappointed. If you're going to sit here and complain that the barbarian's stats don't reflect what you think of when you hear "barbarian", it's rather hypocritical of you to dismiss someone else's vision of a wizard.

Would it be unbalanced to let the barbarian be lawful? No. Would it fit the fluff of the class? The fluff of the class is whatever you want it to be, and alignment itself is arbitrary and vague (and stupid). Given the traits you've given, I could reasonably place you as either LN or CG (because alignment is stupid.). But ultimately it's the DM's call whether you can be lawful. (Have I said alignment is stupid? Because it is.)

Occasionally He was tarring Stuff Up inthe Movies and a bit in the book lol

[Invader]

Well, let's go to the original text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#rage):



So, in other words, while in a Rage, a Barbarian cannot do anything that involves using his brain, his force of personality, or his tricky fingers - he just wants to smash. He can't focus on things, he can't use magic, he just wants to smash. He can use feats, except for that one defensive one or feats that craft things or weave spells, he just wants to smash.

About the only things he gets to decide are "I don't want to smash that" and "I don't want to smash anymore." (Respectively, choosing targets and ending Rage prematurely.)

Is he different from a Frenzied Berserker? Yes. The Frenzied Berserker can't stop himself from slaughtering everything and everyone. The Barbarian can. But it's a difference of scale, not of kind. Rage is a more controllable version of Frenzy.

Let's also look at the fluff of the class.



Regardless of whether you agree with it, this is explicit in the class description. Barbarians are non-Lawful because they are "wild" inside. They are fundamentally uncivilized. They cannot have rules imposed upon them for long.

You can disagree with it. You can think it's stupid. You might even be right. Doesn't matter.

This is how the class is written. Get your DM to waive the alignment requirement (as some have), or deal with it. Alternatively, find another class.

That's the whole point of the debate, we know what the restriction is but just the fact that it's there isn't justification that it should be. Look at the lawful alignment description, nothing in suggests that a barbarian, even one that's raging, could t follow that alignment.

[Duke of Urrel]

A completely rules-obsessed barbarian isn't impossible to imagine. In fact, I believe Weird Al Yankovic already did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHoHaAYHq8).

[magwaaf]

I second this. There is honor among thieves, who are chaotic.

my current character is chaotic good who has plenty of honor. the chaotic side allows a little leeway in handling things.

[BWR]

You just described a Lawful Evil Monk to a tee.

Lawful doesn't mean following all laws. It has more to do with respecting authority. Someone who is Lawful Evil won't respect someone they don't believe is strong enough to deserve authority.

However if they are just willy nilly breaking laws left and right for the sheer purpose of being a nuisance then yeah you have a NE or CE Ex-Monk on your hands. Still that doesn't stop them from using what they've already learned as a monk.

Um, no, that's pretty much chaotic. Running around and exerting your power over others 'because I can' is pretty damn chaotic. They don't respect tradition or authority, they respect strength.

[Telonius]

Regardless of whether you agree with it, this is explicit in the class description. Barbarians are non-Lawful because they are "wild" inside. They are fundamentally uncivilized. They cannot have rules imposed upon them for long.

You can disagree with it. You can think it's stupid. You might even be right. Doesn't matter.

This is how the class is written. Get your DM to waive the alignment requirement (as some have), or deal with it. Alternatively, find another class.

Meanwhile, the Druid "gains her power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it," and has no trouble at all in being Lawful Neutral.

The debate is happening at all because quite a few people think that the Barbarian rule is stupid and inconsistent. Nobody's arguing that the words aren't there in the PHB, just whether or not the DM should waive it.

[RegalKain]

The debate of alignment is always a rather furious one, because everyone has a different ideal of how the words are meant to be taken, everyone has a different ideal of what is and is not "Lawful" or "Chaotic", I often joke with my group that when I play a Lawful Good paladin, I'm Lawful Retribution instead. I understand that by RAW Barbarians are incapable of being Lawful, this is where I'd say that an entire kingdom made of barbarians with codes to follow and "laws of the land" (The you break them, the king beheads you publically type of laws.) can create "Lawful" barbarians, as to them, that is the Law, this is where the PHB RAW Alignment system falls apart completely in my opinion.

Much better and something I'd suggest most people use, is the Real Alignments Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) it gives a much better take on Alignments in general in my opinion. I described it elsewhere when a Cleric was forced Evil by a DM, I'll re-type it here, again this is my interpretation of the ruling "lawful".

A lawful character has a set of codes they must follow to maintain the Lawful alignment, this is regardless of personal danger in doing so IMO it goes down the list as such.

Deific Law- This is a big one for Clerics and Paladins, if your god says you must do X, and you are a devout religious follower of that god, then you do X, even if it means breaking all others laws, because in this regard, your Laws come from what you consider the highest and truest source of information. A Deity's rules and laws are always top priority for characters that channel Divine power from a Deity, other characters it falls into second place.

Church of X- The second one in this list, is more often then not, the Church of your given god/deity, these people are usually more intouch with the deity and can give mandates of their will etc, their laws are to followed expressly, unless they directly defy or go against the law of a deity, in which case I would imagine most LG Clerics/Paladins would seek to destroy the corruption in the church, in the name of their god.

Personal Code- Things your character has a hard time, or will not do, such as kill an innocent, burn a village etc, these are to be followed at all times, breaking them is shifting away from the Lawful alignment, however if the Laws of the Church (For Cleric/Paladin types.) conflict, you choose to follow the church, if the laws of your chosen god conflict (For Cleric/Paladin types.) then you do as your god decrees, otherwise you are no longer Lawful. Now the question may arise, what if they have changed beliefs, and instead of god X they are now loyal to god Z, this in my opinion shows instability in faith, and the Laws that their god (That most trained for years to become a part of that sect) set forth, characters that stray in such a manner, are Neutrals, not Lawfuls, though they may again become Lawful.

Law of the Land- These are laws set forth by the Kings/Lords of the various places one might travel to. If a Law is set in place that says do not eat meat within the city limits, the character may find it odd, but they WILL obey the Law, the exception to these laws, is when it directly conflicts with the laws of their Deity, their Church or their Personal Code, in that order of importance. If your Deity says you must eat meat once a day, you do so regardless of what the law in the land says, this does not mean you must change this land as being un pure (That's Lawful Stupid territory.) it means you follow a different path then these people, if they refuse to understand, you do not kill them for denying you the right to eat meat, you leave the area, pray to your god forgiveness for being unable to complete the task, ask for atonement and continue on your way, making note to avoid this town in the future.

So to re-cap Lawful people follow it in this such manner. Deity-Church of Deity- Personal Code- Law of the Land, it can be furthered depending on your Campaign and world size, for Laws of the Nation. So after this huge rant, what does all that mean? It means IMO (Other then the fact RAW dictates it cannot be so.) A Barbarian who follows the above rules in his every day life, and does not slip up often or frequently can be lawful, that said, I find it very, very hard to believe except in serious homebrewing, you'll find a Lawful Good deity whose requests upon their followers would mesh well with a Barbarian, and generally if you're in town and the order of the town is do not destroy X and you wind up getting into a fight and raging, there's a good chance you're breaking more laws. I'd allow the character to play a Lawful Barbarian, but I'd watch them very, very closely.

[Wargamer]

~snip~

I like this model, though I would personally allow characters to assume their own order to some degree. Specifically, I would say Paladins have to be Deity-driven first and foremost, as do Clerics. Everyone else... it depends. I would say that non-religious characters like Knights or "ordered" Fighters would be Personal Code first. I would also say my Barbarian straddles Personal and National (his nation, not the nations he visits) as priority.

Also, rather than simply "falling" out of alignment, these models also allow us to do some interesting things with alignment. For example...

Failing Divine Codes: A character whose actions take him out of Divine Alignment (ie: a Cleric or Paladin acting against the laws of their God) cause them to lose their Divine power. Depending on the infraction, this may be temporary or permanent. No spell or medicine may remove this affect - only by communing with the Deity in question, actively requesting their forgiveness and, if required by the Deity, performing suitable penance is the character's Divine power restored. The DM should decide what action is required to atone, based on the deity and the severity of the fall.

A Character who fails to atone within one month is disowned by their deity. They permanently loses all Divine power bestowed by their former deity and cannot advance further in their chosen class unless they can become a patron of a new God or Goddess. The character also moves one step out of alignment from their deity (example: a Fallen Paladin may become Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, depending on the nature of the transgression).

Failing Personal Codes: A character who knowingly violates his own personal code of conduct suffers a -1 Morale penalty to Int, Wis and Cha. The player may take a Will Save (after modification) to attempt to negate this. A second will save is required D6x10 minutes later, even if the first save passes. If this Will save is passed there are no further ill effects. If the save is failed the morale penalty applies for D6x10 days. The DM should choose the DC based on the severity of the violation. Repeat violations cause more difficult DC checks, and the duration stacks with any ongoing Code Failure penalty, though successful Will Saves do not remove existing afflictions - they merely prevent its extension.

This Morale Penalty cannot be removed by arcane or conventional means. Only by atoning in a suitable manner, such as seeking forgiveness from an authority figure, long periods of meditation or paying some other personal penance (the DM should choose a suitable way to atone) can this penalty be removed.

A player who is afflicted by morale penalties from code violation for one unbroken month, or for more than three cumulative months in a year, suffer a permanent -1 Morale penalty to Int, Wis and Cha and cease to be Lawful.


...Damn it! Now I want this in a campaign! :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

"A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy..."
"...becomes reckless and less able to defend himself..."
that and the actual definition of rage being, "violent and uncontrollable anger."



Rage (Ex)A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (-2 penalty to Strength, -2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian, at which point this limitation no longer applies).
The important parts are bolded, and possibly colored.

Gray 1: The character gets higher strength (extra to hit, extra damage, athletic skills), higher constitution (Fort Save, Endurance checks), better will saves, and an armor class penalty. Mechanically, they are less defensive but a bit tougher in a number of ways and stronger.

Black: In the middle of combat fervor, they can't use non combat skills for the most part. The vast majority of these aren't applicable anyways.

Gray 2: All combat feats other than Combat Expertise are still usable. This includes things like the precise archery feats. In a multiclass scenario, this includes precision damage enhancement feats - it's also noted that precision damage isn't banned.

Sure, the ability is called rage. But the mechanics work just as well for a particularly focused archer, who carries around a bow they can only use once effectively the adrenaline rush of combat kicks in. They still get to pick their shots, they still get to choose to display mercy or honor or whatever, and they can even choose to spend a round not shooting anybody. The actual mechanics make just as much sense for someone who focuses tightly while remaining level headed.

[Bakeru]

Actually, from the list of dex/cha-skills still allowed, "Intimidate" is the only one where a mindless rage wouldn't at least cause problems.
Ride? Try to control a horse while only thinking about hitting things. I doubt it would go well.
Escape Artist? Well, "wild struggling" could be a fluff-explanation, but it should at least be penalised.
Balance? Sorry, nope, you need to be very focused for that.

Also, raging barbarians can still use archery, unoptimised as that might be, without any penalties. That's definitely not "only thinking about hitting things".


Really, my "total focus"-refluff suddenly makes more sense to me then the PHB explanation.

[Wargamer]

The Str boost could be useful if you equip yourself especially to take advantage of it. Give your character a "Rage Bow" with a draw strength equal to your rage strength!

[AlchemicalMyst]

This is why I tend to stay out of alignment debates (as well as keep far away from the WoTC boards without RavingDork). It's a whole lot of RAI and opinions. We can quote the same exact text word for word and get completely opposite results. Neither one of us is wrong but we'll argue why ours is better until lock. D&D, in summary, has always been (let's ignore 4e and Next) about player structure to follow rules and GM freedoms to bend them to fit a play style.

Many see the alignment as a less strict roleplay tool while many others see it as shackles and roleplay limitation. I've played my share of unique rule bending characters and as many strictly RAW campaign characters. Neither time have I ever felt that I've been severely limited or bound and I've almost always had fun as long as the GM wasn't all about getting a nice TPK at the end.

I believe that there is plenty of balance as long as you don't go full a-hole mode and try to purposely cheese things up (I'm looking at you Feral half-minotaur, half-ogre, were-bear, orc dungeon crasher) and plenty of leeway for groups that don't like RAW. Maybe that's just me though.

[Fortinbro]

I created a lawful evil devil disciple class for my game which is basically taking a barbarian and having them focus their rage into a calculating hatred.

[shylocke]

Alignment is 50/50 how you think and how others perceive you. We had a lawful neutral dragon shaman that kept spitting acid on peoples faces, torturing people and eating sentient beings for no explained reason. Except for the torture. That had a goal. He refused to accept that he was now chaotic evil. He is now locked in a chest at the bottom of the ocean with a ring of sustenance on.

[Philistine]

I created a lawful evil devil disciple class for my game which is basically taking a barbarian and having them focus their rage into a calculating hatred.

I took a Barbarian (mechanically) and rewrote and re-fluffed its class abilities in order to play a less craptastic Monk. The illiteracy made me pause to think about how to explain it, but not the alignment requirement: "spending long years pursuing individual achievement" is often cited as the reason Elves are Usually Chaotic, after all, which just goes to show what D&D's alignment system as written is really worth in the end. :smallamused:

[Particle_Man]

Dwarven Defender in 3.5 (or Devoted Defender in Pathfinder) might give you a place to start, as they are lawful, have a "state" they go into, and are fatigued afterwards.