Is Barbarian/Paladin gestalt possible? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is Barbarian/Paladin gestalt possible? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aohd
06-25-04, 03:38 PM can there be a gestalt paladin/barbarian?

Paladins can only be lawful good and barbs have to stay chaotic.
Hand of Vecna
06-25-04, 03:43 PM I'd say "No."
DM Zoc
06-25-04, 03:45 PM As long as it's not a paladin of honor or tyrrany; slaughter and freedom both would work.
Moonstonedragon
06-25-04, 08:14 PM Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that
Aohd
06-26-04, 11:26 AM Originally posted by Moonstonedragon
Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that

why? is the concept a bad one?

He would be the embodyment of rightous fury. His out rage at evil would manifest it self in a furyous display of anger.

I think it would make a great character if it where possible.

The idea of making him a paladin of freedom is a good one though.
General Dorsey
06-26-04, 12:41 PM It is definately possible, but you cannot progress as both at the same time (as I assume you were implying). You would have to progress as one or the other/another class and then when you are ready, take the other class making yourself an ex-barbarian or ex-paladin. Remeber that everytime you gain a level, you get to choose any two classes to add, instead of only one.

Personally, I agree with DM Zoc. However, you could also consider the variant paladins from Dragon magazine (I don't know the issue number off the top of my head) or you go for the Consecrated Harrier.

Sounds like you have a good character concept, good luck.
gbnogkfs
06-26-04, 02:24 PM also remember that a lawful character cannot rage and a non-lawful ex-paladin can't use their special abilities.
strenoth
06-26-04, 06:30 PM using default classes, NO. Pladins are LG, barbarians are non-lawful. youc an;t be both at the same time.

Using the paladin varients with chaotic alignments, yes.
Greyman
06-27-04, 06:53 AM Originally posted by Moonstonedragon
Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that Originally posted by Aohd
why? is the concept a bad one? I have a feeling that Moonstonedragon just does not like the concept of the variant alignment paladin classes themselves, rather than the concept of gestalting either the paladin of slaughter or of freedom with barbarian.   Some do feel pretty strongly about the issue.
Ertai Planeswalker
06-28-04, 07:24 AM I use Paladins of every alignment imc. So as long as you combine it with a Chaotic Good, Neutral, or Evil Paladin that it could go.

However, Paladins of other alignments are still a no no according to the rulebooks.
Salla
06-28-04, 01:47 PM I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful.
Kintara
06-28-04, 04:38 PM Originally posted by Salla
I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful. Well, except for the whole "rage" thing. A "noble savage" might be of any alignment, not just Lawful. But "noble savage" and the Barbarian class are not one and the same. You can just as easily play a Paladin from a "barbarian" culture, or a Ranger or Fighter. A member of the Barbarian class is more like a berserker, anyway. The reason it is Chaotic isn't because of his culture, exactly, it's because his source of power is rage.
Masterful_Norg
06-29-04, 05:21 AM Of course the PHB class descriptions specify that certain abilities possesed by the Paladin and Barbarian are lost if the allignment restrictions aren't adhered to. But try to imagine an ethically nuetral character with powerful mood swings. What then?

I mean its ludicrous to think of law and chaos as opposed forces or to imagine that the powers of good and evil are in ballance. However, for the sake of arguement you could say that DnD doesn't mirror reality, which is a good thing, because in many ways its perspective is very limited.

From an absolute rules standpoint the answer is strictly no, but if your using the taint and honor systems together then absolutely!
Kintara
06-29-04, 06:18 AM Well, I didn't mean to claim that alignment was anything other than a D&D construct. One can ignore alignment all together, if one wanted to. Of course, I like the alignment system. I like the idea of these ideas being elemental forces, and there is an eternal battle going on in the choices of each sentient being.

Anyway, I think the Paladin of Freedom is the best solution. I was thinking of playing a Paladin of Freedom/Bard, in fact. I thought that would be a fun character, really. I can see a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian being just as fun.
Hand of Vecna
06-29-04, 08:28 AM Originally posted by Salla
I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful.

True, but those "Noble Savages" weren't Lawful, they were Neutral at best. Most were downright Chaotic, seeing no need for civilization whatsoever (community, yes, but not civilization). Conan was definitely chaotic, and he's pretty much The Archetypal Barbarian (mostly b/c Robert E. Howard himself saw little use in civilization).

Originally posted by Masterful_Norg
I mean its ludicrous to think of law and chaos as opposed forces or to imagine that the powers of good and evil are in ballance. However, for the sake of arguement you could say that DnD doesn't mirror reality, which is a good thing, because in many ways its perspective is very limited.

.... hunh? How are Law & Chaos not opposed to one another?
Draconis V
07-17-04, 05:44 PM Originally posted by Kintara
Anyway, I think the Paladin of Freedom is the best solution. I was thinking of playing a Paladin of Freedom/Bard, in fact. I thought that would be a fun character, really. I can see a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian being just as fun.
I play a gestalt Paladin of Freedom/Bard. He's the coolest ;).

My favorite thing about him is that he is very solid without being a powergaming issue. He's good in combat, has excellent saves, decent skills, a plethora of class abilities, divine and arcane casting, and can heal like nobody's business (especially with the Hands of a Healer feat :D), yet he does not overpower other characters in any specific area.

As for the Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian, I as a DM would accept it as long as the player had a good backstory. It sounds like a very fun combination.
Masterful_Norg
07-17-04, 10:50 PM Hand of Vecna,

If you want an explanation read this (http://www.halexandria.org/dward165.htm).
The Colonel
07-18-04, 01:50 PM Chaos theory is a damned silly name for it though, isn't it?
Infinite complexity giving the illusiuon of complexity theory would probably be better, but admittedly less catchy.
Chaos is really something a bit different - and less complicated - in the (admittedly clunky) D&D ethical system.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aohd 06-25-04, 03:38 PM	can there be a gestalt paladin/barbarian? Paladins can only be lawful good and barbs have to stay chaotic.
Hand of Vecna 06-25-04, 03:43 PM	I'd say "No."
DM Zoc 06-25-04, 03:45 PM	As long as it's not a paladin of honor or tyrrany; slaughter and freedom both would work.
Moonstonedragon 06-25-04, 08:14 PM	Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that
Aohd 06-26-04, 11:26 AM	Originally posted by Moonstonedragon Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that why? is the concept a bad one? He would be the embodyment of rightous fury. His out rage at evil would manifest it self in a furyous display of anger. I think it would make a great character if it where possible. The idea of making him a paladin of freedom is a good one though.
General Dorsey 06-26-04, 12:41 PM	It is definately possible, but you cannot progress as both at the same time (as I assume you were implying). You would have to progress as one or the other/another class and then when you are ready, take the other class making yourself an ex-barbarian or ex-paladin. Remeber that everytime you gain a level, you get to choose any two classes to add, instead of only one. Personally, I agree with DM Zoc. However, you could also consider the variant paladins from Dragon magazine (I don't know the issue number off the top of my head) or you go for the Consecrated Harrier. Sounds like you have a good character concept, good luck.
gbnogkfs 06-26-04, 02:24 PM	also remember that a lawful character cannot rage and a non-lawful ex-paladin can't use their special abilities.
strenoth 06-26-04, 06:30 PM	using default classes, NO. Pladins are LG, barbarians are non-lawful. youc an;t be both at the same time. Using the paladin varients with chaotic alignments, yes.
Greyman 06-27-04, 06:53 AM	Originally posted by Moonstonedragon Id tie up and torture anyone that tryied to do that Originally posted by Aohd why? is the concept a bad one? I have a feeling that Moonstonedragon just does not like the concept of the variant alignment paladin classes themselves, rather than the concept of gestalting either the paladin of slaughter or of freedom with barbarian.   Some do feel pretty strongly about the issue.
Ertai Planeswalker 06-28-04, 07:24 AM	I use Paladins of every alignment imc. So as long as you combine it with a Chaotic Good, Neutral, or Evil Paladin that it could go. However, Paladins of other alignments are still a no no according to the rulebooks.
Salla 06-28-04, 01:47 PM	I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful.
Kintara 06-28-04, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by Salla I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful. Well, except for the whole "rage" thing. A "noble savage" might be of any alignment, not just Lawful. But "noble savage" and the Barbarian class are not one and the same. You can just as easily play a Paladin from a "barbarian" culture, or a Ranger or Fighter. A member of the Barbarian class is more like a berserker, anyway. The reason it is Chaotic isn't because of his culture, exactly, it's because his source of power is rage.
Masterful_Norg 06-29-04, 05:21 AM	Of course the PHB class descriptions specify that certain abilities possesed by the Paladin and Barbarian are lost if the allignment restrictions aren't adhered to. But try to imagine an ethically nuetral character with powerful mood swings. What then? I mean its ludicrous to think of law and chaos as opposed forces or to imagine that the powers of good and evil are in ballance. However, for the sake of arguement you could say that DnD doesn't mirror reality, which is a good thing, because in many ways its perspective is very limited. From an absolute rules standpoint the answer is strictly no, but if your using the taint and honor systems together then absolutely!
Kintara 06-29-04, 06:18 AM	Well, I didn't mean to claim that alignment was anything other than a D&D construct. One can ignore alignment all together, if one wanted to. Of course, I like the alignment system. I like the idea of these ideas being elemental forces, and there is an eternal battle going on in the choices of each sentient being. Anyway, I think the Paladin of Freedom is the best solution. I was thinking of playing a Paladin of Freedom/Bard, in fact. I thought that would be a fun character, really. I can see a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian being just as fun.
Hand of Vecna 06-29-04, 08:28 AM	Originally posted by Salla I'd think the better solution would simply be to house-rule away the ridiculous alignment restriction on the Barbarian, myself. The 'noble savage' archetype is a fantasy classic, and such a character would be lawful. True, but those "Noble Savages" weren't Lawful, they were Neutral at best. Most were downright Chaotic, seeing no need for civilization whatsoever (community, yes, but not civilization). Conan was definitely chaotic, and he's pretty much The Archetypal Barbarian (mostly b/c Robert E. Howard himself saw little use in civilization). Originally posted by Masterful_Norg I mean its ludicrous to think of law and chaos as opposed forces or to imagine that the powers of good and evil are in ballance. However, for the sake of arguement you could say that DnD doesn't mirror reality, which is a good thing, because in many ways its perspective is very limited. .... hunh? How are Law & Chaos not opposed to one another?
Draconis V 07-17-04, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by Kintara Anyway, I think the Paladin of Freedom is the best solution. I was thinking of playing a Paladin of Freedom/Bard, in fact. I thought that would be a fun character, really. I can see a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian being just as fun. I play a gestalt Paladin of Freedom/Bard. He's the coolest ;). My favorite thing about him is that he is very solid without being a powergaming issue. He's good in combat, has excellent saves, decent skills, a plethora of class abilities, divine and arcane casting, and can heal like nobody's business (especially with the Hands of a Healer feat :D), yet he does not overpower other characters in any specific area. As for the Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian, I as a DM would accept it as long as the player had a good backstory. It sounds like a very fun combination.
Masterful_Norg 07-17-04, 10:50 PM	Hand of Vecna, If you want an explanation read this (http://www.halexandria.org/dward165.htm).
The Colonel 07-18-04, 01:50 PM	Chaos theory is a damned silly name for it though, isn't it? Infinite complexity giving the illusiuon of complexity theory would probably be better, but admittedly less catchy. Chaos is really something a bit different - and less complicated - in the (admittedly clunky) D&D ethical system.