Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Daeri Maer'jiir 08-17-03, 08:30 AM	Is there anyway you could make a half-orc/Barbarian/paladin. I have an idea for this guy to be a knight in dirty armour, a la shrek. What do you guys think?
Leap 08-17-03, 10:44 AM	Paladins - pedants in armor ;) Well, actually, that is not far off. Look up "low context communication" on the net and you get a pretty good picture of the whole "Lawful" attitude. These folks are into lots of laws saying what can, cannot, should, should not, must, must not be done, going into detail and creating contracts to guide the process. Think of you average professor who thinks you cannot discuss anything properly unless you go into an excrutiating level of detail....... For a good example look at German culture (which is more low context biased). Barbarians - Well, just look up "high context communcation" on the net to get the basics of "Chaotic" (Barbies cannot be lawful and most are chaotic). These folks are into just a few general principles to guide folks and have a highly marked preference for life being guided by personal relationships (developed trust, honesty amongst friends) rather than detailed laws. Think of a couple who have been (happily!) married a long time (or even lovers) and you will see a high context relationship (one where explicit detail is low but where context and imbedded (!) knowledge and awareness is far more important).......for a good example here go visit Morocco or many Arab countries (or France and Italy even). The 2 just do not blend........... Or are you just trying to get a paladin that can rage? ;)
krunchyfrogg 08-17-03, 10:50 AM	Just make him a pure paladin. Just because you're from a barbarian tribe doesn't mean you need to take levels of the barbarian class.
Kethka 08-17-03, 12:40 PM	You could always have an ex-barbarian paladin (Actually, that's what you would have to do). He would lose his ability to rage, but keep all his other barbarian abilities. If you wanna be a half-orc barbarian/paladin so you can smite and rage, it won't work. But if you wanna be a half-orc barbarian/paladin for some interesting role-play... well... one quote comes to mind: "You evil. KRUSK SMITE!"
Alrunic Silverfyre 08-17-03, 12:42 PM	It's basically the same thing with a barbarian/monk. If you really just want a reason to rage while having a lawful background, check in the Sohei class in Oriental Adventures. They get a ki frenzy ability that is similiar to the rage ability and must be lawful to take the class.
Dougan Axehammer 08-17-03, 02:18 PM	By the book, a barbarian/paladin is not allowed. You could house rule it, but IMO the house rule would be little more than a wretched attempt to alter the rules just so you can get an unnecessary all-too-powerful character. If you want to go for a "knight in not-so-shiny armor" there are lots of other class combos you can get. Fighter/paladin is a good combo for such a concept. So is a Paladin/Ranger. But if you're looking for something a little more "Shrek-like", a Paladin is not the class you're looking for (Shrek is so not LG.) A straight fighter would be more suited for that concept.
Willie the Duck 08-19-03, 12:17 PM	Frankly, in the real world, "barbaric" cultures are alot more like what leap described as lawful than Germans or anyone else. They have more rules for what can and cannot be done and how it must be done than anything we "westerners" have. I would say that Barbarians appear chaotic, but act lawful within the construct of their societies. Paladin is back on the barganing table.:D
Leap 08-19-03, 01:38 PM	Hiya Willy, All societies have rules, it is a matter of degree though. Northern European society (German/UK/US/Norse) tends to promote a great number of highly and explicitly detailed laws and contracts to guide society, whilst southern European / Arabian tends to promote a few general principles and the concept of personal honor / friendship / community spirit.
aleshandre 08-19-03, 03:48 PM	Hey Leap, long time no see. In the US, the extent of detail in laws varies greatly from state to state ane even from National to Local levels. It even varies within the National government (Compare the 289+ tax code to the 12 page Constitution) or compare the Texas Constitution with over 300 amendments to the US Constitution with only 27 ammendments since the original ratification. The difference: broad interpretation of less detailed law vs narrow interpretation of highly detailed law. In the case of the detail of law, it really is a question of how detailed the society believes laws should be. For example: True Anarchy operates on the principle that people are naturally good and concerned for their mutual welfare, thus laws are not needed to uphold the natural equality of the community. The only law: All people are equal. This is a Lawful society. Democracy operates on the principle that people are rationally self-interested, thus require some law to protect others from individuals who gain power more abundantly than others. This is a Lawful society. Tyrany operates on the principle that the masses are incapable of determining what is best for themselves as individuals or as a group, thus laws are broad in scope and specific in every detail. This is a Lawful society. Three radically different systems of governance, all with a lawful result.
Daeri Maer'jiir 08-19-03, 04:04 PM	When I say Shrek like I mean less Ettiquette more smite. I had the whole picking someone up by the color idea, and was wondering how to do it, my first though was a barbarian multiclass but perhaps not...
PhaedrusXY 08-19-03, 04:17 PM	There are Prestige Classes that will allow you to pull this off. Holy Liberator can give you the Palladin feel while still being chaotic. The Witch Hunter from Oriental Adventures also has some Palladin-like abilities. Singh Rager is one of my favorite Prestige Classes. It's in Oriental Adventures and is a Lawful-required PrC that has a rage ability. I have several builds that I've came up with using it, some including levels of palladin and weapon master. I could post them if you'd like, but then that might be better on the Character Optimization board. :D
Leap 08-20-03, 06:32 AM	Hey Leap, long time no see. Heya Ale-shandy! ;) I was beginning to wonder where everyone had gone! ;) In the US, the extent of detail in laws varies greatly from state to state ane even from National to Local levels. But the principle remains true; lots of laws with lots of explicit detail. Think of the “it kind of depends what you mean by Sex” defence of Clinty ;) The whole system thrives on small-print and exacting detail rather than a general set of principles. Lawful pays more attention to detail and the “letter” of the law, whilst chaotic is more concerned with “the spirit of things”. Generally, the Lawful’s answer to a “legislative problem” is to add more laws with more detail. The Chaotic’s answer is to loosen up the whole system and rely more on adhering to the spirit than the exacting letter of the law :) For example: True Anarchy operates on the principle that people are naturally good and concerned for their mutual welfare, thus laws are not needed to uphold the natural equality of the community. The only law: All people are equal. This is a Lawful society. Not so. A lawful culture has lots of laws that rigidly define and compartmentalise in explicit detail. Think of a typical contract today, or a master’s level academic paper. The demand is for all the data to be included, for every angle to be explicitly covered. THAT’S lawful. Very subject specific, highly detailed. A chaotic culture has a few general principles with a marked degree of ‘give’ in them. They do not demand that all angles be explicitly covered but rely far more on implicit messages and the context of the situation than the brutally rigid and explicit letter of the law. This is why I used the high context communication / low context communication descriptions; they are very good at describing lawful and chaotic. Also, anarchy is about govt, not laws. You can have a lawful anarchy that creates lots of arcane laws that are enforced by all citizens being effectively “deputised”. But we digress ;)
aleshandre 08-20-03, 11:21 AM	Not much in the indepth board has piqued my interest lately, so I haven't posted. ;) In our argument regarding what constitutes Lawful, it comes down to definition. In a manner of speaking, a set of principles are laws in that the members of a society which is governed by those principles are expected to obey those principles (look at the principles of Christianity as an example. Principles by definition, but laws to those who follow them). It can be said that a Utpoian community that has no law to govern them are still acting lawfully if they obey the tenants or principles to which the community is committed as a whole. To take the principles and try to make a set of laws from them is a Saducean attempt to make more from what is already successful, as is taking existing laws and breaking them down to try and redefine what the law "really" means. You are right, anarchy is about government, but government is about law (who gets what when and how).
Leap 08-21-03, 05:56 AM	Apologies to others for “thread rot” :) but we’ve not had a good “alignment chat” for a while now ;) It can be said that a Utpoian community that has no law to govern them are still acting lawfully if they obey the tenants or principles to which the community is committed as a whole Ah, those pesky Ut-poians ;) Actually, Utopia is a VERY lawful creation if I remember right; think “Celebration” (the ‘Disney’ town)! The way I see it is that ‘Lawful’ is FULL of LAW. They embody the “low context bias” cultures in the real world; cultures that have lots of laws going into lots of specific and explicit detail over what can / cannot, should / should not, must / must not, be done. Small print and the letter of the law are of the essence in lawful society – everything must be carefully codified and defined in great specificity. Chaotic meanwhile embodies the “high context bias” cultures in our world; cultures that have only a few general guiding principles that have a marked degree of ‘give’ in them. Where the lawful relies on detailed and specific contract adhered to the letter, Chaotics rely on personal relationships (developed trust, mutual respect). Lawfulness is more compartmentalised whilst chaos is more integrative. You often find nepotism is a crime in lawful societies (they are more meritocratic) whilst what Lawfuls call nepotism Chaotics call family loyalty (they look down on meritocracies as ‘machine like’). Barbarians are more ‘chaotic’ (at least in dnd – in real life, the barbarian is actually based on Germanic tribes, and modern Germany is highly lawful…….) whilst Paladins are more lawful, and so not only are “not allowed” to blend in the dnd rules but actually make a poor choice for role-playing a consistent character…… Of course this is all my interpretation of it all; but it is difficult to get a solid view on alignment as WOTC change their definitions between products……………. The paladin, being lawful, holds a distinct bias for low context communication (everything must be explicitly and comprehensively defined) and the society that is born of such compartmentalisation and linearity (valuing industry, productivity, rule of law/contract). The barbarian, being generally chaotic, holds a distinct bias for high context communication (where much of what is being communicated is in the context and/or relies on imbedded knowledge rather than being explicitly stated and in great detail) and the society born of such integration (valuing personal relationships before productivity, relying on developed trust and such relationships rather than detailed explicit contract). The paladin follows the letter of the law, the barbarian embodies the spirit of his principles. They are HIGHLY incompatible. Of course the whole alignment system is a mish mash any way so it is kind of difficult to state anything with anything like authority on it :)
aleshandre 08-21-03, 08:59 AM	I definitely agree that the alignments are incompatible. The only thing that I really disagree on here is the definition of lawful. I'm afraid I am not familiar with high and low context communication, so on those points I am unable to discuss the topic logically.
Trydan 08-21-03, 09:07 AM	Sounds like you need Barbarian/Fighter. Barbarian for the rage and fighter for access to all the heavy arms/armour. If you want a raging paladin, then multiclass with sorcerer/wizard and cast emotion (rage) on yourself.
Leap 08-21-03, 10:43 AM	Aleshandre - Check out "high context communication" and "Edward T Hall" on the net............
QaPlah 09-05-03, 02:09 PM	boy, did this topic stray off or what? :D
Morka 09-05-03, 02:47 PM	Start as a barbarian, then become a Soldier of Light (NG) or an Holy liberator (CG). Or you can play a paladin, just be sure to keep no point in skill knowledge(noblesse). I think you can play a charismatic paladin in a dirty armour, because the barbarian culture don't care too much about the clean equipment. But in other country, you should suffer a penalty on your diplomacy, as a lack of knowledge(specific region). This is the same way a paladin from the south should look a bit weird with a camel as mount. While I think about it, your bonded mount should be a dire wolf!
HammerFist 09-06-03, 09:10 AM	If you want to play a raging Paladin, I think I finally figured out how you can do it (without OA). Take 3 levels of "Half-Orc" in your build. Monte Cook has put out an optional racial levels rule. (http://www.montecook.com/images/Racial_levels.pdf) Each race can advance 3 levels. The 3rd level ability of "Half-Orc" is to Rage, 1/Day. Work that into your build somehow, and you have a raging Paladin. If all you want is a dirty, grungy Paladin, then go Paladin for 20 levels. Stereotypical Paladins are knights in shining armor, but PC's tend to be anything but typical. :D
Mr. VanderMeer 09-09-03, 09:24 AM	Hey, this is not adding to the discussion, but thanks for that link. That is pretty interesting.
Daeri Maer'jiir 09-09-03, 02:16 PM	Those levels are cool, I'm, going to try and wangly them in next time I play.
HammerFist 09-09-03, 04:42 PM	Thanks guys, I'm glad you like the rules. I like them too. I generally don't think they're all that useful, but in this case they really are.