PDA

View Full Version : Honourable wild man



Wraithy
2007-08-23, 11:50 AM
barbarian prerequisite: non-lawful
the barbarian restriction on alignment (just like that of the bard and one or two others) makes sense on one level, but not on others.
yes you were raised outside of society, that doesn't mean you have to be chaotic, the use of a knife and fork does not dictate alignment.
another argument for these restrictions is that barbarians rage, but so does everyone, I can easily see an LE person beating someone to death over an insult to their mother/father/dog. People can get very angry over loyalty and honour. Recklessness happens in honourable people too.
in the case of Bards it makes even less sense, so you travel around, it doesn't mean you have no personal codes of conduct.
it is true that these traits are uncommon in people of the lawful alignment, but far from unheard of.
-----
this is the start of my reasons for suggesting a houserule to my DM that deletes the bit in the rules restricting alignment on barbarians and bards. are there any holes or contradictions?

Kaelaroth
2007-08-23, 11:54 AM
No. Please don't do this.

Bards live off the land, and though they may value theidea of laws, they shirk from it, adapting their lives to whatever comes to them. Barbarians have no idea of the law, to them, the world is free, and so are they. Nothing can hold them down.

Indon
2007-08-23, 11:55 AM
No. Please don't do this.

Bards live off the land, and though they may value theidea of laws, they shirk from it, adapting their lives to whatever comes to them. Barbarians have no idea of the law, to them, the world is free, and so are they. Nothing can hold them down.

But being lawful is about valuing the idea of law. Alignments detail who you are, not what you do.

kamikasei
2007-08-23, 11:57 AM
barbarian prerequisite: non-lawful
the barbarian restriction on alignment (just like that of the bard and one or two others) makes sense on one level, but not on others.
yes you were raised outside of society, that doesn't mean you have to be chaotic, the use of a knife and fork does not dictate alignment.
another argument for these restrictions is that barbarians rage, but so does everyone, I can easily see an LE person beating someone to death over an insult to their mother/father/dog. People can get very angry over loyalty and honour. Recklessness happens in honourable people too.
in the case of Bards it makes even less sense, so you travel around, it doesn't mean you have no personal codes of conduct.
it is true that these traits are uncommon in people of the lawful alignment, but far from unheard of.
-----
this is the start of my reasons for suggesting a houserule to my DM that deletes the bit in the rules restricting alignment on barbarians and bards. are there any holes or contradictions?

Chaotic != dishonourable. The notion of a "personal code of conduct" is treated inconsistently in alignment but in many ways accords more with a chaotic character than a lawful. The issue is that a barbarian is supposed to exist outside the social framework, so he might say "I won't do that, it's wrong" or "it's dishonourable" but he's unlikely to say "I won't do that because it disrespects the local liege lord's legitimate authority".

Where this runs into trouble is with "barbarians" who respect and suborn themselves to tradition and authority, but it doesn't seem the base class is intended to cater to those.

Wraithy
2007-08-23, 12:01 PM
No. Please don't do this.

Bards live off the land, and though they may value theidea of laws, they shirk from it, adapting their lives to whatever comes to them. Barbarians have no idea of the law, to them, the world is free, and so are they. Nothing can hold them down.

the lawful alignment doesn't mean you obey all laws, it means you have a personal code of conduct, eg: pacivism, not stealing, or not eating shellfish.
you can break the law and still be lawful.

hippie_dwarf
2007-08-23, 12:22 PM
No. Just no.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 12:34 PM
I look at lawful and chaotic more along the lines of organized and chaotic.

A chaotic character would feel uncomfortable with a lot of restrictions on him, whether through laws, traditions or necessity. It doesn't mean that he would not follow laws, but that his comfort level with it might not be high.

Pretty much a chaotic character would make a haoorible cubical dweller with sceduled breaks.

On the lawful side, that character would not understand how a society can get along without more structure. A tribal group with the laws changing with each leader and even without structure would grate against his comfort level.

Now applying it to the barbarian and rage...

Lawful people can get angry, but their inner need for structure is not going to let out the primal self that fuels the barbarian rage. THere is a difference between a person full of rage and a raging person. So lawful is out. Neutral is always a possibility here.

For the bard...

Definitly not lawful. Music is a creative action and that falls more to the chaotic (or right brained side). Lawful people can play music and depending on their degree of lawfulness, is how hte music comes out. Bieng a musician myself, you see differences in people. There are some amazing musicians that I would classify as lawful. THeir music sounds great and everytime it is the same. Perfect even. Yet it is missing something, and it is that creative spark that makes it a bit more different, more personal. In the D&D world, that is represented by the bardic music. When your music taps the primal energy, magic, whatever you want to call it and directly effects a person, it need to be a bit more personal and part of the musician. Otherwise you can replace the bard with Mordenkeinen's Mystical Midi Player.

PlatinumJester
2007-08-23, 12:39 PM
No. Just no.

Yeah. You might as well just remove the barbarian class. Lawful Barbarians indeed. Gary Gygax would be turning in his grave if he was dead.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 12:48 PM
this is the start of my reasons for suggesting a houserule to my DM that deletes the bit in the rules restricting alignment on barbarians and bards. are there any holes or contradictions?

Most of the arguments against here are pretty good. Having a personal code does not make you lawful. To be lawful you have to respect authority outside of yourself. Period.

That said, other than fluffy psychological reasons, I don't see why you couldn't have a lawful barbarian or bard just based upon the class features. Sure, the flavor goes out the window but so what? Personally, I've always disliked the alignement restrictions on classes and would rather open them up to what the players (the people having fun) want to do with the mechanics.

Or is it some way unbalancing mechanically for the game to have a lawful Barbarian or Bard?

MisterSaturnine
2007-08-23, 12:51 PM
In a campaign I'm planning (my first, and I've played little, so it might not go so well), I'm planning on removing that restriction. Often, the way of the Barbarian is just the way people learn to fight in more tribal communities (or could be). Perhaps the leader of the tribe is the strongest, or wisest, barbarian.

I'm having some difficulty explaining my point, but I agree with the OP. Lawful Barbarians should be able to exist. He could be an enforcer of the law of the land--and of all lands--he can simply whip himself into a fury when he wants to hurt someone very, very badly.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 12:54 PM
Some fo the restrictions are there to prevent class stacking.

Barbarian monks for example.

Or Paladin Barabrians

Manave_E_Sulanul
2007-08-23, 01:03 PM
But Paladinic Barbarians are awesome.

MisterSaturnine
2007-08-23, 01:07 PM
Besides, couldn't a Barbarian, following RAW, just become a Barbarian/Paladin of Freedom?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 01:09 PM
Some fo the restrictions are there to prevent class stacking.

Barbarian monks for example.

Or Paladin Barabrians

I'm having trouble seeing what would actually be unbalancing about letting those two sets of classes stack... you can already do Monk/Barbarian mechanically so long as you do the monk first and don't plan to raise your monk level again.


Besides, couldn't a Barbarian, following RAW, just become a Barbarian/Paladin of Freedom?

Well, yes. Sort of. Paladin's of Freedom aren't CORE though.

Wraithy
2007-08-23, 01:12 PM
Music is a creative action and that falls more to the chaotic (or right brained side)

I never really see creativity as having an alignment, it seems like a thing that cannot be quantified, and each thing that causes the creativity influences its outcome it is purely subjective.
Individual musicians probably benefit from a chaotic thought process, but a wandering band of minstrels would need a certain level of discepline to prevent going off and making a mess with no harmony, and if that happens you get improvisational jazz! and no-one likes that! not even improvisational jazz players!
I'm not saying that our perceptions of bards and barbarians should change, just that there are exceptions to the norms. for example a troop of bards or a pitfighting barbarian who never fights outside the ring (though the latter wouldn't really work in a game where you kill regularly).

most alignment restriction on class seem unfair to me, monks also, because although martial artists need the discepline to train regularly, they also need to be unpredictable in a fight, if someone hits you in the face you don't do a kata in front of them. that said, it has no bearing on motivation or philosophy, rendering my argument for dropping Monk alignment restrictions inconclusive.

the point is that classes shouldn't really have alignment restrictions unless the class doesn't work without it (paladins need their alignment, otherwise the class wouldn't work). classes should ideally say "class tend very strongly towards alignment". exeptions should allways be possible.

cody.burton
2007-08-23, 01:17 PM
Some fo the restrictions are there to prevent class stacking.

Barbarian monks for example.

Or Paladin Barabrians

Why is barbarian/monk or paladin/barbarian bad or unbalancing?

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 01:23 PM
The problem is really in the class name; replace the class name barbarian with "berserker" and the alignment restriction makes more sense.

I personally see nothing wrong with a lawful barbarian, or even a lawful barbarian tribe... they just should be slightly different than the current barbarian class.

And given that the word bard refers to the people who kept an oral tradition of laws, traditions, history, and other records (especially lineage/genealogy), and who were often called on to act as mediators, it seems silly that bards can't be lawful.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 01:39 PM
I have always seen Law vs chaos as a left brain - right brain thing.

A group of musicians needs some structure in order to achieve music instead of noise, and generally a more organized (lawful) person is the one to do it.

Quite often the leader fo the band is not the most creative one, and successful ones find someone else to handle the organizational things.

As for class stacking... Well alot of that is personal taste.

My thoughts on the monk barbarian kind of go this way:

You studied to become a monk and became proficient. You practiced long and hard and honed your body to perfection and your concentration to such an egde you can see the pulse in someone's neck when you fight them.

Then you decided to become a barbarian. You throw away the calmness and conceentration and turn into a whirling mass of rage and energy. You can't see much in battle other then the red of rage in your eyes.

First. How do you decide to become a barbarian? TO me it's something you were raised with. Can you practice the skills? Go to barbarian school? No books you can't read! :smallbiggrin:

Second: A monk depends on concentration, do the monk abilities go away when the barbarian rages.

The other difference is that I strongly resist power gaming in my campaigns. Taking classes without reasons is generally not allowed. Now if you were trained as a monk and then spent a long time as a member of a triabal society then maybe I'd make an exception, but there would be trade offs.

Thats plenty of rambling...

MisterSaturnine
2007-08-23, 01:44 PM
Generally, I find there's exception to almost every alignment restriction. Monks should be able to chaotic--perhaps there's a monk who was very disciplined when it came to training, but found most city laws arbitrary and pointless, and used his discipline and training to undermine them. Barbarians, for reasons already addressed, should be able to be Lawful. Bards should be able to be Lawful for reasons also lightly touched upon--you can be a Lawful wanderer, and creativity doesn't mean chaos. Hell, on the Lawful wanderer note, look at several anime/mangas (I know, I know), such as Rurouni Kenshin. I'm sure there are other examples, many of which are not in anime/manga, but my brain is tired and I'm lazy. Generally, I feel the only classes that should have alignment requirements, instead of suggestions pertaining to the norm should be those with codes of conduct, like Paladins or Knights, as they tend to be personifications of a certain alignment.

Porthos
2007-08-23, 02:10 PM
From the link in my sig (which really is a great read on the whole Law/Chaos debate):


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. 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 is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

So could you have a Lawful Bard from that description? Sure. Oh he'd be fairly predictible, but it could easily happen. A Lawful person can be struck by wanderlust just as much as a Chaotic Person can be. The Lawful Barbarian is a bit more tricky, but I can see it. Especially if it's one that has a very rigid code of conduct.

Let's face it, there are plenty of Archetypical Bards that could be considered Lawful as well as Archetypical Barbarians. Are they the norm? Absolutely not. But they do exist.

And let's also not forget that the Non-Lawful restriction on Bards is a 3.0/3.5 restriction, and a pretty silly one at that. :smallwink: (In 2nd Edition, the restriction was Some Sort of Neutral... Which was also pretty silly, when you think about it :smallwink: )

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 02:59 PM
I have always seen Law vs chaos as a left brain - right brain thing.

You do know that current neurology has debunked the left brain right brain thing right? ;-)

Seriously though, pretty much everything is scattered throughout the brain.



My thoughts on the monk barbarian kind of go this way:

You studied to become a monk and became proficient. You practiced long and hard and honed your body to perfection and your concentration to such an egde you can see the pulse in someone's neck when you fight them.

Then you decided to become a barbarian. You throw away the calmness and conceentration and turn into a whirling mass of rage and energy. You can't see much in battle other then the red of rage in your eyes.

First. How do you decide to become a barbarian? TO me it's something you were raised with. Can you practice the skills? Go to barbarian school? No books you can't read! :smallbiggrin:

How about this one? You were given up by your parents and raised at the charity of the monks in the monistary. Like everyone there you studied the ways of concentration and learned the way of the monk. You are capable of incredible calm in reaction to danger. However, this life began to chafe as the older you grew it seemed you still remained a child in the eyes of the older monks. Eventually, you left, taking your training with you.

Not knowing where to go you found yourself with the nearest human community to your isolated monastary. A rather lawless and barbaric one. There you realized that along with intense concentration there was also stregnth in utterly letting go and allowing the anger and fear that the monks had taught you to supress explode in a furious attack against your enemy.

After time, the tribe itself seemed too small a place with too little freedom to hold you and you set off on your own; a warrior who knows all emotions have value and that there is a time for release and a time for control.


Second: A monk depends on concentration, do the monk abilities go away when the barbarian rages.

I don't think that crunch wise the monk abilities rely on the concentration skill. Even if they did, and went away when the character raged, is that some reason to prohibit a player from using the combonation? I'm perfectly happy to let my players use suboptimal builds.


The other difference is that I strongly resist power gaming in my campaigns. Taking classes without reasons is generally not allowed. Now if you were trained as a monk and then spent a long time as a member of a triabal society then maybe I'd make an exception, but there would be trade offs.


Well, I think that's what we are talking about. I'm not sure what sorts of tradeoff's, crunch wise, would be fair. I mean, the monk/barbarian would still not even come close to the power level of the casters by the time they had many levels in either.

RAGE KING!
2007-08-23, 03:19 PM
meh, i play barbarians quite a bit, and i'd say a lawful barbarian would work. The barbarian would channel his rage and power to bring wrongdoers to justice, while he himself would not act in a thoroughly lawful way, he would be very close. He would also fight chaos over evil (or good if he was evil or neutral-against-good).

Sebastian
2007-08-23, 05:24 PM
the lawful alignment doesn't mean you obey all laws, it means you have a personal code of conduct, eg: pacivism, not stealing, or not eating shellfish.

No. Being chaotic mean, between other things that you are against limitations that other put upon you, but I can be chaotic and have limitations that I choose to have, I.E. a personal code of honour.

A lawful instead accept limitation put upon him by the society, he actually think that, all considered, these limitations make his life better and that "the need of the many outweight the need of the few".

Oh, and the way I see it, the moment a barbarian society have laws for its members it stop to be barbarian and start to become "civilized", in that sense you can't have lawful barbarians, so if you choose to have a member of that class lawful you should rename the class and change its flavour, it is not a uncivilized man of the wild, it is just someone that can enter into a battle frenzy. IMHO, of course.

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-08-23, 05:32 PM
I look at lawful and chaotic more along the lines of organized and chaotic.

A chaotic character would feel uncomfortable with a lot of restrictions on him, whether through laws, traditions or necessity. It doesn't mean that he would not follow laws, but that his comfort level with it might not be high.

Pretty much a chaotic character would make a haoorible cubical dweller with sceduled breaks.

On the lawful side, that character would not understand how a society can get along without more structure. A tribal group with the laws changing with each leader and even without structure would grate against his comfort level.



10,000 points for you

Captain van der Decken
2007-08-23, 05:35 PM
Name one society that had no laws. That worked, anyway.

Take, say, the Celts. Or the Gauls. Or the Goths. Typical examples of 'barbarian' tribes. I expect they obeyed their own laws. I'd think they had lasting traditions and religion, too.

Fhaolan
2007-08-23, 06:10 PM
Name one society that had no laws. That worked, anyway.

Take, say, the Celts. Or the Gauls. Or the Goths. Typical examples of 'barbarian' tribes. I expect they obeyed their own laws. I'd think they had lasting traditions and religion, too.

Dear lord, you have no idea. Bards, scalds, and similar concepts in other cultures like weren't just musicians and tale-tellers. They were also responsible for reciting and arguing the laws and traditions. Yes, that's right, bards were also lawyers. And in many cultures were part of the priesthood.

Of course, those cultures were mostly illiterate, so rote memorization of history, laws, etc. was highly regarded. And that's what bards did best, rote memorization.

The Bard in D&D however, does not model that form of bard, but the more modern form from the Victorian & Elizabethan eras.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, while bards were lawyers, the Celts also has judges, called Brehons. Both of which may or may not be types of druid, or specific ranks of druid, or somehow separate from druids, depending on who you read. Our knowledge of Celtic culture is fairly well mangled, as they were composed of many different tribes, each of which had different ways of doing business and didn't write anything down until it was long after the period that this kind of stuff was actually happening. So, we do a lot of educated guessing. :smallsmile:

Wraithy
2007-08-23, 06:23 PM
(I genuinely don't know what I'm talking about in this spoiler, I'm not even sure it makes sense or if I'm even saying anything in it, I should probably stop posting after midnight)



Name one society that had no laws. That worked, anyway.

Take, say, the Celts. Or the Gauls. Or the Goths. Typical examples of 'barbarian' tribes. I expect they obeyed their own laws. I'd think they had lasting traditions and religion, too.

if only D&D was realistic, thankfully its not (I consider the challenge rating of house cats to be hilarious). any vaiguely historical classes are given the representations of the people who create them, thus ninjas are mercenary pyjama wearing ghosts, and barbarians are lawless hotheads who thing that "smash" is a battle strategie. in history the "barbarians" were alot smarter than we represent them to be, using strategies and having laws which kept order and kept things right for the people who created them (if not keeping things right for others), the laws concerning injury were a good example of a developing judicial system, this much money for taking off a mans finger, it worked for the people concerned because the society was used to combat, and what we consider crippling injury now was more common back then, whearas money wasn't as readily available, a fine was a good incentive not to commit crimes, of course given a chance the law would have changed gradually to encompass different situations and problems. however as the society was never given a chance to evolve further, we view it from the perspective of recorded events: a less developed socety that was a potential threat, this leads to the demonising of the society to diminish guilt or public loss of face for its destruction.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 06:26 PM
I always found the Bard and Monk alignment restrictions a bit arbitrary. The Monk's keeps people from having an otherwise perfectly viable "bar-room brawler" concept - because, as stated, the Monk's fluff and crunch have nothing to do with discipline, but with physical perfection, which can be as Chaotic as it can be Lawful. The Bard's already been explained to death.

But the Barbarian? He's not a "Barbarian" in the Roman sense, or even the traditional sense. He is very much a Berserker, who explicitly hones a fighting style reliant on losing control in battle. That's explicitly non-Lawful, it not outright Chaotic - evidenced by the fact that the only thing Lawful ex-Barbarians lose is their Rage. It's the Rage that makes the Barbarian class non-Lawful, and nothing else.

Monks, of course, lose nothing for being non-Lawful, which makes me wonder why they heck they had to be Lawful in the first place. So I got rid of that rule in my world. :smallbiggrin:

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 06:28 PM
I can see a Barbarian switching to Monk as well. It was already mentioned with a Barbarian that becomes aclimated to city life. He could "decide that having someone behind stone walls determine whats normal and abnormal is fine by me." "Ooo, pretty! This monestary calms me, let the rage form into righteous points of fury!" (explaining increased unarmed combat damage).

puppyavenger
2007-08-23, 06:47 PM
for lawful barbarians

an indirect quote from dragonshards

bugber berserker
their barbarian rage is not an instance of loosing control in battle but is infact a carefully cultivated battle rage(qoute/)

This is what I see lawful barbarians as.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 06:52 PM
their barbarian rage is not an instance of loosing control in battle but is infact a carefully cultivated battle rage(qoute/)
No matter how carefully cultivated, I just can't see a "Battle Rage" as anything but inherently Chaotic. You're purposefully trying to make yourself so angry that you trigger the "flight or fight" (in this case fight) instinct, which is, at its very core, instinct, which is not predictable or reliable in any way. Thus the mechanic of being unable to stop fighting until it stops.

puppyavenger
2007-08-23, 07:02 PM
okay how about a complex fighting of seemily moves and feints put together to form an unstopable whirlwind of death

after all what is D&D but reflavoring classes?
note the above is a retorical question

Wraithy
2007-08-24, 06:05 AM
You're purposefully trying to make yourself so angry that you trigger the "flight or fight" (in this case fight) instinct, which is, at its very core, instinct, which is not predictable or reliable in any way. Thus the mechanic of being unable to stop fighting until it stops.

instinct is reffered to in certain rulebooks as neutral aligned, in other words when you rage you are unable to use foresight and will probably become amoral, unable to judge the situation beyond an instinctual level. you basically become an animal and as a result neutral. If rage is when you succumb to pure instinct, then when you rage you lose your alignment.

Neon Knight
2007-08-24, 06:29 AM
No matter how carefully cultivated, I just can't see a "Battle Rage" as anything but inherently Chaotic. You're purposefully trying to make yourself so angry that you trigger the "flight or fight" (in this case fight) instinct, which is, at its very core, instinct, which is not predictable or reliable in any way. Thus the mechanic of being unable to stop fighting until it stops.

A Half Orc Paragon can be lawful and have rage.

Your explanation of this, Mr. Krellen?


No. Being chaotic mean, between other things that you are against limitations that other put upon you, but I can be chaotic and have limitations that I choose to have, I.E. a personal code of honour.

NOTE: The following probably strays off of the PHB handbook's definition of Law-Chaos. I find this definition so pathetic and inadequate that I have created an alternate one. The following is from the viewpoint of this alternate definition. Thus, it is most probably defined as a house rule. I do not claim that this is RAW. I claim that the RAW is pretty stupid in this instance.

May I respond with a NO as well?

What is pure chaos? Complete and total randomness. This goes against any sort of framework, logic, or structure, like a personal code of honor. Now, human beings can never reach that pure level of chaos, but the more chaotic you are, the more random and illogical you become.

I absolutely despise the definitions of law and chaos that depend on society. In my mind you can be chaotic without being a libertarian or anarchist, and you can be lawful while being a libertarian or anarchist.

I mean, what happens if you get a man alone in a wild? There is no authority for him to either submit to or resist. How can you say he is lawful and chaotic by your definition that requires the framework of society?

The definition I use looks at the personality of the individual. A man tended towards self discipline, self regimentation, and self control is very lawful. That is what law is about, being structured, orderly, and restrained. The man who does things on a whim, doesn't keep his promises even to himself, and changes his routine and patterns from day to day is chaotic. That is what chaos is about, being random, disorderly, and illogical.

Gnorosch
2007-08-24, 07:45 AM
Most of the arguments against here are pretty good. Having a personal code does not make you lawful. To be lawful you have to respect authority outside of yourself. Period.Well, most real-world "barbarian" tribes have very strict (and harsh) laws which govern their actions and are not to be questioned: that is the way the world is ordered and thus we have to obey. That approach sounds very lawful neutral to me.

The bard can be more than just a wandering minstrel, I could fully imagine a dwarven bard who is trained as keeper of the ancient dwarven songs and stands as personification for the forefathers virtues. And there are plenty other examples of a lawful bard, I remember an argument in which there was an excellent reason for playing a paladin/bard what---according to the rules---is simply not possible.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 10:02 AM
A Half Orc Paragon can be lawful and have rage.

Your explanation of this, Mr. Krellen?
A stupid oversight by a designer that didn't think that people would be ridiculous enough as to want to be a paragon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paragon) of a race whose favoured class is non-Lawful while being Lawful themselves.


instinct is reffered to in certain rulebooks as neutral aligned,
Really? Like what?

Instinct is Neutral when you lack sapience, certainly, because everything lacking sapience is Neutral. However, following your conscience - which is an aspect of instinct - is explicitly Chaotic. Acting on impulse - also instinct - is also Chaotic. How is it not Chaotic, then?

Wraithy
2007-08-24, 10:44 AM
Instinct is Neutral when you lack sapience, certainly, because everything lacking sapience is Neutral. However, following your conscience - which is an aspect of instinct - is explicitly Chaotic. Acting on impulse - also instinct - is also Chaotic. How is it not Chaotic, then?

instinct is unbound by alignment because instinct is non motivated, you act, period. when you rage you separate yourself from your sapience, you become an animal.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 10:59 AM
instinct is unbound by alignment because instinct is non motivated, you act, period. when you rage you separate yourself from your sapience, you become an animal.
Perhaps that's true. It's still non-Lawful, even if it's not explicitly Chaotic, and Barbarians still lose the ability to do it if they become Lawful.

Wraithy
2007-08-24, 11:48 AM
and why should they lose that ability if they become lawful?
rageing represents a drastic change in the character's body and mind (increases to physical stats and certain will saves), rage is non lawful and non chaotic, as I have said before it has no alignment.
this thread isn't saying that barbarians should all be lawful (even if historically they were), this is saying that no alignment should be banned for barbarians and other classes (once again excluding paladins and their multiple variants).

Telonius
2007-08-24, 12:01 PM
Barbarian, Monk, and Bard restrictions have always been a sticking point with me. Particularly Bards: music is math, so why in the world can't a class based on music be lawful? "Court musician" is a perfectly valid archetype, as is something like a drum-and-bugle corps within the army. Both of those strike me as pretty lawful characters

The Barbarian makes a little bit more sense. After all, he's supposed to fly into an unthinking rage in battle. That doesn't strike me as being particularly lawful. On the other hand, he might have a great deal of respect for his tribe's customs and traditions when he's not in battle. So while I think that a lawful barbarian might be a little bit of a stretch, a neutral one shouldn't be that hard to imagine. (That's also what's allowed by the rules).

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 04:52 PM
When I hear the phrase Barbarian-Monk, various things spring to mind. Including, on the topic of a Monk's abilities being in some way incompatible with Anger, this old chesnut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdlCNF-F5oI

I'm not calling Bruce a Barbarian, mind, but the idea of a Monk being some kind of light-side Jedi, a passion denying, fist-fighting vulcan doesn't really stick, with me.

Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side. ;)

Barbarian Monk, for me, is a pretty good archetype of the concept of Channeled Rage. A barbarian does not have to be Uncontrollable when using his class feature, that is what the Frenzied Berserker is for. It would also make plenty of sense, as what better example of primal, barbaric self-reliance than the warrior who's fierce dedication to his own prowess leaves his most deadly weapons as his own two hands?

Alignment restrictions only really make sense on the paladin, really, and that's mostly because the core idea of the class is, frankly, ridiculously specific.

Jayabalard
2007-08-24, 04:55 PM
A Half Orc Paragon can be lawful and have rage.

Your explanation of this, Mr. Krellen?Bad design; it's not uncommon in D&D.


instinct is unbound by alignment because instinct is non motivated, you act, period. when you rage you separate yourself from your sapience, you become an animal.That has nothing to do with whether raging is lawful or chaotic. Animals are neutral strictly because they aren't capable of acting in a moral fashion; this has nothing to do with whether their actions are lawful or chaotic.

Raging is fighting in an uncontrolled rage; as an individual who is capable of making moral choicem you give up your up control, your sapience, your lawfulness. It's very much a chaotic act.

Lawful individuals cannot give their self control in order to tap into that rage.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 05:19 PM
I draw the line on saying that Raging is fighting in an uncontrollable rage/anger. It very much isn't, infact.

Not only does the Barbarian retain his full cognitive ability, as in he remains in full control of what he does for the duration, (if limited by a sudden lack of patience) he can also, at any time, freely end his rage.

Raging as an Uncontrollable thing, is very much a better description of a Frenzied Berserker.
Sure, you can roleplay your barbarian in such a way, and that could be quite cool in itself (especially if you are intending to later go FB).

but it isn't (as a strict requirement) a part of RAW, far as i'm concerned.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 05:27 PM
Not only does the Barbarian retain his full cognitive ability

"While raging, a barbarian cannot use [...] any abilities that require patience or concentration"

He quite explicitly loses control, and is unable to use any skill whose use is not automatic (essentially part of movement). There's also the rather blatant fact that "A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage" - clearly defining Rage as a non-lawful thing.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 05:42 PM
"While raging, a barbarian cannot use [...] any abilities that require patience or concentration"

He quite explicitly loses control, and is unable to use any skill whose use is not automatic (essentially part of movement). There's also the rather blatant fact that "A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage" - clearly defining Rage as a non-lawful thing.

No, he loses Patience, quite specifically. that is quite different from losing Control of himself. He retains his ability to tell friend from foe, for example, and generally remains, essentially, master of his own passions. For the other way around, see Frenzied Berserker.

Rage, quite simply, always sounded like the ability to basically flood your own body with a stupid amount of Adrenaline. Even down to the come-down period after the fact.

As for the losing-rage when becomign non-lawful, that is transparently just to enforce the "Barbarians are never lawful" thing, and as such really isn't relevant when discussing how that same restriction doesn't make any sense. :)

Wraithy
2007-08-24, 05:56 PM
No, he loses Patience, quite specifically. that is quite different from losing Control of himself. He retains his ability to tell friend from foe, for example, and generally remains, essentially, master of his own passions. For the other way around, see Frenzied Berserker.


after taking anothe look at the descriptionin the players handbood, your description makes alot more sense, and still doesn't seem to deny the possibility of lawful barbarians.
I shall call the lawful barbarian... The Tribesman, it shall be the same in all but name! (my DM has approved it too)

Krellen
2007-08-24, 06:46 PM
No, he loses Patience, quite specifically. that is quite different from losing Control of himself.
You honestly think someone that can't concentrate is in full control of himself? Just because the player can still direct the character and he doesn't randomly attack allies doesn't mean he's in control.

ETA: Also, someone with no patience is very unlikely to be Lawful in my book. Lack of patience is a very non-Lawful aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I really wonder why you think otherwise. (And by the way, the fact that your "Barbaric" society has laws doesn't make it Lawful. Read the freaking alignment descriptions!)

We're talking about a state basically akin to extreme drunkenness, coupled with anger. A drunk man doesn't suddenly see his friends as a threat, but he likely views that guy he doesn't like at work as deserving of a good punch. The same is true for the Barbarian.

Those of you trying to justify the Lawful Barbarian are grasping at feeble straws - I rather gather not a one of you has ever actually experienced an adrenaline rush, or even known someone prone to "rages". As someone who personally used to be prone to rages, I speak from personal experience when I say it was an ordering of thoughts and actions - becoming Lawful, in other words - that calmed the rage, and a disorder of thought and actions that fuelled it.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 07:08 PM
You honestly think someone that can't concentrate is in full control of himself? Just because the player can still direct the character and he doesn't randomly attack allies doesn't mean he's in control.

ETA: Also, someone with no patience is very unlikely to be Lawful in my book. Lack of patience is a very non-Lawful aspect as far as I'm concerned, and I really wonder why you think otherwise. (And by the way, the fact that your "Barbaric" society has laws doesn't make it Lawful. Read the freaking alignment descriptions!)

We're talking about a state basically akin to extreme drunkenness, coupled with anger. A drunk man doesn't suddenly see his friends as a threat, but he likely views that guy he doesn't like at work as deserving of a good punch. The same is true for the Barbarian.

Those of you trying to justify the Lawful Barbarian are grasping at feeble straws - I rather gather not a one of you has ever actually experienced an adrenaline rush, or even known someone prone to "rages". As someone who personally used to be prone to rages, I speak from personal experience when I say it was an ordering of thoughts and actions - becoming Lawful, in other words - that calmed the rage, and a disorder of thought and actions that fuelled it.

The barbarian, When Raging, cannot concentrate, indeed. He would, as such, be dreadful at sudoku. He could attempt to, in his rage, complete the sudoku, but would be unable to. His is still in control, as he could quite simply decide that he is now calm, and could order those numbers as good as anyone.

No-where does it say that Rage is in any-way similar to drunkness. Unless I'm very much missing something, it doesn't affect his judgement one iota.

If the Barbarian didn't already view his working colleage as deserving of a punch, there is nothing in the description of the ability that dictates that he must, whilst raging, wish to punch him upside his head. It doesn't even say that if the barbarian thought that he deserved a punch, but that he didn't normally wish to punch him personally, that during a rage he is any more likely to. all it does say, infact, is that if he did, he would hit him a significant amount harder than if he chose to ordinarily.

It may, or may not, to roleplay your barbarian in such situations so that he would, infact, act more rashly or uncontrollably. but you are not Required to, by any means.

Also, barbarians can be incredibly patient. There's nothing in their class descriptions that say they are impatient, really. they are impatient, specifically whilst raging. An state they alone have the ability to decide when to enter (except in such roleplay driven depictions where you decide that your particular character is set off by some trigger. I myself am currently playing a rogue/barbarian who uses his Anger and the ensuing boost to strength and stamina as a defence mechanism, essentially using Rage to cover his fear.)

Rage is not necessarily the same thing as any real life anger management issues, remember.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 07:13 PM
Separating the game term "Rage" from the real word "Rage" is ridiculous. The reason why certain words are chosen to describe abilities is because of the associations they invoke - and the associations invoked by "Rage" are wild, uncontrolled, overwhelming, powerful, violent. That's why they called it Rage. If they didn't mean for one to connect the Barbarian's Rage ability with what the word rage means to everyday people, they would have picked some other name - Surge of Strength, for instance.

But they didn't, and you trying to divorce the two just makes you look desperate.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 07:34 PM
Separating the game term "Rage" from the real word "Rage" is ridiculous. The reason why certain words are chosen to describe abilities is because of the associations they invoke - and the associations invoked by "Rage" are wild, uncontrolled, overwhelming, powerful, violent. That's why they called it Rage. If they didn't mean for one to connect the Barbarian's Rage ability with what the word rage means to everyday people, they would have picked some other name - Surge of Strength, for instance.

But they didn't, and you trying to divorce the two just makes you look desperate.

Do you, when you get Angry, become something like 20% stronger, significantly tougher, and even feel your mind strengthen?

Sure, the Ability RAGE is named after the real world phenomenon of being really angry, and people who are really angry are at times "wild" and "uncontrolled". Even in the real world, not everyone who gets angry is uncontrolled, or in some way fundementally opposed to rule by law!

More importantly, just because the name of the mechanical ability Suggests something, doesn't mean that that everything it could possibly suggest is a part of the core, raw interpretation of the rules.

The name of the ability may to some suggest that when used, it sends the person who uses said ability into a wild, primal frenzy where anyone who isn't immediately attacked by the barbarian/half-orc paragon or whatever, should thank their lucky stars because that Barbarian or however is in the mad throws of an inherantly chaotic act, and could in theory do absolutely anything!
You can play it that way, sure. That can even be quite fun.

But the only class I heard of that, when using such an ability, explicitly has their self control somehow eroded, is the Frenzied Berserker.

Taking a level of barbarian is not the same as developing an anger management issue. That is a real world condition (or probably several similar ones). The Rage ability is an extra-ordinary allows the user to become quantifyably and significantly stronger and tougher, by harnessing their anger.

There is a world of difference between the two things. If your Sorcerer flies into a wild, uncontrollable rage, frothing at the mouth and lashing out at his enemies or all around him, he does not get +4 to his strength and constitution, nor a +2 to his will save, by moral bonus or otherwise!

Also, I really don't appreciate the rather derogatory quips. There's no need to be uncivil.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 07:57 PM
Do you, when you get Angry, become something like 20% stronger, significantly tougher, and even feel your mind strengthen?
I don't rage any more - but when I did, yes, yes I did. I Raged - as the class feature - and I think I know what I'm talking about.

And please stop arguing about the definition of words. That's what irritates me so - you're coming close to "depends on what your definition of 'is' is". Rage means something, and trying to dissociate the word from the described mechanics of what the class flying into the rage gives you is nonsensical - you get those bonuses as a side effect of the rage.

I suggest you go pick up a Player's Handbook and read the description of the Rage class feature there, rather than depending on the SRD, which provides nothing but mechanics. I reference especially the second sentence, which says "In a rage, a barbarian gains phenomenal strength and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself."

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 08:03 PM
I don't rage any more - but when I did, yes, yes I did. I Raged - as the class feature - and I think I know what I'm talking about.

How much can you bench-press, when you are completely calm? Let's assume you have the equivalent of 12str, which means you could lift 87-130 lb, clear over your head.

When you get a bit worked up, can you lift aprox. 100lbs more? (154-230 lb.)

Raging is an Extraordinary ability that in some way mimicks and resembles real world phenomenon. It is not, however, the same thing.

edit- Less able to defend himself? Yes, as accurately modelled by the -2 to AC, nothing more. hardly makes any dent on his attitude to the abstract concept of order vs disorder, or his stance on the role of government in daily life.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 08:10 PM
For someone to be Lawful, they are far too ordered by nature to ever become reckless and unable to defend himself in combat. Being Lawful is all the time, not just outside of combat. Also, I really don't think the "role of government" has anything to do with the Law/Chaos divide. What definition of "Lawful" are you reading?

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 08:27 PM
For someone to be Lawful, they are far too ordered by nature to ever become reckless and unable to defend himself in combat. Being Lawful is all the time, not just outside of combat. Also, I really don't think the "role of government" has anything to do with the Law/Chaos divide. What definition of "Lawful" are you reading?

Lawful means, funnily enough, a respect for the rule of law. It's hardly a leap to say a lawful character believes that legislation is a good and positive thing for society. Good, evil, or neutral, they believe in the very essence of law. Laws are Right.

Chaotic means, one might say, quite the opposite, in as much as they do not believe that laws themselves help anyone. (specifically society, or themselves depending on good/evil perhaps). They may resent or simply fail to understand how what some group of musty old politicians decide has any bearing on their life. They may go so far as to view the ordering of society through laws and ordinances as a bad, destructive thing, impinging not just on personal freedom but upon their inaliable rights, or simply that such stupid measures are irrelevant; the refuge of petty 'civilization'.

This, of course, is not the total of my take on lawful vs chaos, it is infact just a fraction of a single interpretation of what is at best a slightly too subjective system.

Your view on Law Vs Chaos is, if I might say so, a little extreme, and frankly lacking in subtlety. Any lawful character would never, ever get worked up about something enough that he would make mistakes, or be a little reckless? Can a lawful character never become passionately angry? you have, yourself, made a very good case that Anger makes one a little wild, a little uncontrolled at times. So a lawful character never gets angry, then?

Also, if nothing else, the Barbarian's ability to Rage is not an involentary thing. If your decision that a Lawful character would never be so reckless as to take a penalty of -2 to their AC by letting their temper get to them, it is STILL possible for a Barbarian to be portrayed as a perfectly lawful character.

Because a barbarian need never, EVER according to the pure RAW, Core rules, ever use his ability to Rage. He need never, infact, in all his life fly into an adrenaline-fueled anger, should he decide not to, and there's not a word anywhere to say he is not perfectly able and allowed to do exactly so.

UserClone
2007-08-24, 08:35 PM
As far as the limited multiclassing goes:
You are in charge of the aligment restrictions in your game, and also which books are allowed. The Dragon mag comp. has the Battle Dancer, a chaotic take on a similar class to the monk. I believe Paladin of Freedom has been mentioned. With a reasonable DM, that part is a non-issue.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 08:35 PM
This, of course, is not the total of my take on lawful vs chaos, it is infact just a fraction of a single interpretation of what is at best a slightly too subjective system.
It's not subjective. There are definitions - and "laws are good" are not part of the definition of Lawful. It's not an uncommon error, but it's a disheartening one, because all it takes is a few seconds of reading to get the definitions.

Lawful (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos):

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaotic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos):

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

I've bolded a few key bits - those in lawful that are the antithesis of Rage, and those in chaotic that are the epitome of Rage. Please note the use of the same word in both the description of Rage and the definition of Chaos.

And even if a Barbarian never uses his Rage, he can, and the capability to do so makes him unreliable and adaptable - two very unLawful attributes.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 08:54 PM
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.



"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Can != Always Does

Consider this, perhaps; When raging, a barbarian becomes reckless. But a barbarian chooses when to rage. A barbarian, therefor, is quite likely to Choose to Become Reckless when it is either safe to do so, (which is not a reckless act) or when it is necessary to do so, which is infact prudent, and neither is it a reckless act.

Really, you are quibbling over the fine print here. On the strictest possible interpretation of the limited amount of fluff put out on the alignment system by WotC, you can very nearly make something aproaching an argument towards the idea that Raging is an inherantly incompatable action with lawfulness, and come within a million miles of arguing that Barbarians are likewise incompatable therefor. Just about.

Considering there are no two descriptions of the alignments that entirely agree, an argument that relies on the fine print of a single, restrictive definition of a system widely criticized for being incredibly subjective and at times presented in stifling over-simplicity by the Core rules, I'm sorry to say that I'm just not convinced.

You are quite right, though. Law does not equal good. But the lawful alignment can be interpreted, for some people/characters as embracing law and the concept of law, as a good thing. Either for society at large, in the case of Lawful Good people, or for more selfish reasons in the case of Lawful Evil, where 'Good' could essentially mean that they protect said individual from the actions of his enemies, or allow him to manipulate others within the framework of power, or heaven knows how many interpretations.


edit;

If you really want to be pendantic things could get silly quite quickly.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
Therefor chaotic characters are always without honor, disobedient, untrustworthy and utterly unreliable. :smalleek:

Krellen
2007-08-24, 09:07 PM
Considering there are no two descriptions of the alignments that entirely agree
Which is precisely why they wrote it down - the SRD/PH description is the only one that's valid. All others are house rules.


[T]he lawful alignment can be interpreted, for some people/characters as embracing law and the concept of law, as a good thing.
I suppose it could. It wouldn't be a correct interpretation, but incorrect interpretations are wholly within the realm of possibility.


If you really want to be pendantic things could get silly quite quickly.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.Therefor chaotic characters are always without honor, disobedient, untrustworthy and utterly unreliable. :smalleek:
While it is true that "Law" will show honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability, it is untrue to therefore conclude "Chaos" never will. As the definition of Chaos never says it is the opposite of Law, you're making an assumption with no basis in the RAW. "Chaos" demonstrates freedom, adaptability, and flexibility - none of those are the opposite of honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability - although I'll admit that "obedience to authority" and "freedom" will come into conflict far more than any of those other attributes.

Wraithy
2007-08-25, 12:25 PM
I've bolded a few key bits - those in lawful that are the antithesis of Rage, and those in chaotic that are the epitome of Rage. Please note the use of the same word in both the description of Rage and the definition of Chaos.

And even if a Barbarian never uses his Rage, he can, and the capability to do so makes him unreliable and adaptable - two very unLawful attributes.



While it is true that "Law" will show honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability, it is untrue to therefore conclude "Chaos" never will. As the definition of Chaos never says it is the opposite of Law, you're making an assumption with no basis in the RAW. "Chaos" demonstrates freedom, adaptability, and flexibility - none of those are the opposite of honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability - although I'll admit that "obedience to authority" and "freedom" will come into conflict far more than any of those other attributes.

Well that seems rather contradictory

Krellen
2007-08-25, 07:55 PM
Well that seems rather contradictory
"Unreliable" is explicitly unLawful. And I didn't mention adherence to tradition, but that does tend to be at odds with adaptability, about as much as "freedom" and "obedience to authority" are.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-25, 08:13 PM
Alignment restrictions are provided largely as a guideline for newer players on how to structure Archetypal fantasy heroes in the D&D system; which are mostly ignored by older players.


Generally they're a mistake, but D&D is largely built so that mistakes have little impact, because it's easy to nerf a restriction when it disrupts a game.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 03:11 PM
Alignment restrictions are provided largely as a guideline for newer players on how to structure Archetypal fantasy heroes in the D&D system; which are mostly ignored by older players.


Generally they're a mistake, but D&D is largely built so that mistakes have little impact, because it's easy to nerf a restriction when it disrupts a game.

I almost completely agree. The only exception I would make is for a Class like Paladin, which is tightly tied to it's Alignment in a similar manner as a Cleric of a Lawful Good Cause.