WHY BARDS (and maybe barbarians) UNABLE TO BE LAWFUL IS JUST SO SILLY

[Cornuto]

Unless we're talking a strange military where not following orders is cool with the command and won't get you court-martialed / executed as an example. Quote is from the Sundren wiki, by the way.

Seriously, if joining the military and obeying your orders is chaotic enough that a barbarian could do it, how do Monks get away with doing anything but arranging paperclips in size order all day just to keep themselves Lawful?

When push comes to shove, you can, with some success, argue that any action fits any given alignment with the right person, circumstances, and variables.

Its a good example, but its not the only example. Arguing that a barbarian can't be lawful because you don't think they'd join the military is a fallacy.

[Cornuto]

Here is a picture of a barbarian.

One does not run at a 45' angle whilst wearing a bear because they respect authority.

Why not?

I could easily see this guy as belonging to a tribe with deeply help superstitions, traditions, and customs. Allegiance amongst the tribe is nearly unbreakable, and to question the wisdom of either their sacred customs or the word of the tribal elder/medicine man/voodoo dude is almost unheard of.

Being a fierce warrior that shows no regard for his own safety when battling the enemies of his tribe wouldn't make him any less lawful.

[DM_Acorn]

The Alignment system is B. B-R. BR OKAY. BROKEN! why not remove alignment restrictions and be done with the silly thing.

*My nonconstructive-two cents

[Maevan2]

A bard is a wanderer so some lands may have different laws and of course he cant adhere to them all and still keep his creative spirit. Just like rauckus dwarven racist bigots tend to be lawful.

Since when does lawfull mean that you adhere to some (external) laws? It can have this meaning. But only if your character'ss own code tells him to adhere to laws. Because else you could not have a lawfull evil character (unless we are talking about things like a society where you are supposed to sacrifice little children as part of some dark ritual to praise your god)

[Waverider10]

I look at the alignment system as a label. Labels and sterotypes are usually a bad thing because its easy for people to break them. You'll always be able to make a claim against the alignment system because it sets rules and boundries (I'm having a Matrix moment)...

So, with the topic of barbarians in armies... Could they be? Sure, acting as skirmishers, vanguard, shocktroops, whatever, but they adhere to their tribal codes and not to the general of the local city. My point was the system of lawful refers to a larger civilized society, not a personal code or even a tribal code. As such, if I DMed, those barbarians would flee once they see they other troops wearing pink because their tribe has never seen pink and think its a doomsday color. Barbarians lack civilized discipline and worldly understanding thus the alignment system labels them non-lawful.

The same arguement could be made with the class system itself. Why can't I use a greatsword as a level 1 cleric without spending a feat? Why couldn't I be a great fighter and wizard casting spells with armor on? This is were the PRCs came from and I think if you felt strongly enough about Barbarians and Bard's alignment then you could always create a PRC to fit this.

Its definitly not a perfect system.

[Cornuto]

My point was the system of lawful refers to a larger civilized society, not a personal code or even a tribal code.

Except it doesn't.

[Waverider10]

Except it doesn't.

Right... that's why I say it isn't perfect aka broken. When the game designers used lawful to be one or the other... it lost its meaning. I'm only saying what it appears to be originally and how I personally treat the class restrictions.

PS. Same agruements can be made about good and evil. Where Mayans evil for sacrificing people? My their tribal code no, but by civilzed code, yes.

[Kaizen]

PS. Same agruements can be made about good and evil. Where Mayans evil for sacrificing people? My their tribal code no, but by civilzed code, yes.

Except not, as D&D is not a 'relative morality' setting. It's an absolute morality setting where there are abilites that only work on one side or the other of the Good/Evil scale. There are living representations in the outer planes that are good/evil given physical manifestation.

There is a good/evil meter somewhere up there in the heavens that shift one way or the other depending on certain good/evil actions, and that's all the Good/Evil gods care about.

And in any case, the Lawful/Chaotic counter is most definitely an introspective quality. A lawful good paladin of Illmater is still a lawful good paladin of Illmater if he breaks the law in Thay to save a few slaves.

[Snowmane]

D&D was not meant to have gray areas. It's a heroic fantasy system where PCs pick one side and the DM makes NPCs from the other side to be antagonists. The alignment system was used to help draw those lines.

As gaming has evolved, people have started wanting to explore characters that defied those strict belief structures. Other game systems loosened alignments or did away with them all together and replaced them with character concepts.

Wizards of the Coast decided to keep alignments, but they are now more of a mechanic than a true idiom. Why can't barbarians be lawful? I'd say because the game designers at wizards didn't want to have barbarian/paladins and barbarian/monks when they designed the system. Since 3rd edition did away with racial limitations to class selections, they needed some mechanic to control multi classing and they chose to use alignment to accomplish that end.

In NWN2, alignment shifts vary from module to module, so on some modules it is very easy to create these oddball combinations of classes, on others they will never happen without DM intervention. Personally, I agree with the alignment restrictions. Of course, I'd like to go back to racial restrictions on classes too (halfling paladin? dwarf wizard? The world went mad with 3rd edition!)

[Waverider10]

Thinking on this more...

If you have personal codes, family/tribal codes, and society/countries codes, does only obeying one of these (or parts) make you 'lawful'? On the flipside does breaking one or more codes make you chaotic?

I look at it as a sum of all. So if one keeps a personal code then he/she is only paritally lawful but the sum makes them nuetral. If they broke any of those rules at whim, they are more chaotic. As such the system labels barbs non-lawful because they'll never go into the larger civilized worlds codes of conduct. They could but risk becoming a fighter while mantaining some of their barb skills... aka a LN level 6 barb\4ftr types. I think the barb following his personal code doesnt give enough of a reason to call him lawful. Thats like saying I believe Im a good/safe driver so I can ignore speed limits and still be okay with my personal code.

All of this depends on your point of view (and your DMs) but like all RPing games you've gotta agree upon how you understand the system together. This issue is undead.

[Waverider10]

Except not, as D&D is not a 'relative morality' setting. It's an absolute morality setting where there are abilites that only work on one side or the other of the Good/Evil scale. There are living representations in the outer planes that are good/evil given physical manifestation.

Very true! but can you then create characters with 'relative morality' and then agrue against alignment restrictions?

[Kaybrie]

Neutral is the grey area.

[Snowmane]

Neutral actually was not gray. It simply could be either white or black depending on the state of the game world.

Pre-3rd edition neutral was the alignment of balance, and it would side with which ever side was "losing" to maintain the balance.

[Doubtful]

Very true! but can you then create characters with 'relative morality' and then agrue against alignment restrictions?

No.

Well, more accurately you can argue, you can also bang your head against a brick wall.

Alignment should reflect the metaphysical position of the character in relation to the great cosmic truths of law, chaos, good.and evil. It's something that the character themselves is unlikely to be aware of (unless they're of a scrutinized divine order who are big on checking out souls).

[Kaybrie]

You're thinking of heroic neutral. ala Mordenkainen, it didn't apply to average people. Though I digress, in 3rd it represents the grey area that most humans (including carreer soldiers and wild folk stand in.

It takes effort to take on an alingment. Dropping your spare change in a donation box doesn't make you good. Nor does obeying the law make you lawful or thinking of how much you want to kill someone make you evil. Its part of why some paladins just outright kill someone with an evil alingnment. having that stain on your soul is irrefutable proof that said character hasn't just done something wrong, but likely cotinues to do so and deserves whats comming to him.