I thought I understood the alignment system pretty well, but I was thinking on this one specific character, and it got me a little stumped.
Barbarians are stereotypically 'savage', free spirited tribal folk with little regard for (or knowledge of) civilised land's laws and customs - in that way, I'd say they're certainly of a chaotic nature. However, one can also imagine (without much of a stretch) that they may be fiercely 'honourable', with perhaps a strongmoral compass, or a 'tribal code' they would live and die for - and if you look at it that way, I'd say that makes them seem pretty lawful.
If we put together those opposing views, would that make this 'honourable barbarian' neutral? I'm not sure!
Obviously, I'm not going in to loads of detail here - I don't think anyone needs a specific character backstory to imagine the sort of archetype I'm thinking of. But anyway! So, leaving aside good and evil, what are your views on the matter? It is bugging me a little!
Both Chaotic Good and Neutral Good alignments would work just fine. If your barbarian is from a much more rigidly spiritual or social society that uses their rages an an outlet for the stifling culture, then maybe a Lawful alignment isn't out of the question. For the most part, alignment is a vestigial relic of older editions anyway, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it as it very rarely matter in-game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Any alignment - honour like morality is dependant on the social group that develops it. Some may honour fallen warriors by placing their bodies on display, others may believe it right to eat the dead. Decide what your barbarians background is and how much of what he thinks is honourable is based on that or in opposition to it. (running away from your cannibal hill folk family a-la the hills have eyes because its not for you is a lifestyle choice you have to respect)
Barbarians and savagery - savage is a term most often used to serve as a point for outsiders to commit atrocities on a group in the name of civilising them. The Mongol Horde was 'savage' but it had rules and strictures. What you can take away from 'savage' is that the people usually live off the land, migrate through seasons to follow hunting cycles to avoid depleting any one areas resources, build few permanent structures and groups usually rely on strong leaders (although strength may be in terms of hunting prowess, physical, magical etc) If Chaotic then this is especially true, it does not mean they are lawless (think robin hood = chaotic good) dut they dont respond well to some stranger telling them they should pay a tithe to some far away ruler who they never see and that guy will pay other guys to build a road through the hunting grounds with the cash, build churches on their holy shrines and otherwise give them 'a better life'.
Bottom line Conan, Kull the conqueror, both are great muscle thewed barbarians of fantasy. Aztec / Mayan cultures 'could' be considered barbarian if the viewer is a conquistador. The American Indian Nations could be used as your template for both honour warriors with deep spiritual cores, loyalty to a tribal group and baffling to outsiders ways of life (look up counting coup *and if I spelt that right I will be amazed) Vikings had villages and they had one thing going for them: They bred people so desperate to escape from them they were terrors to the surrounding regions, these 'barbarians' didn't migrate for hunting, they turned raiding into an economic art form. The vikings had an honour system that included a term for 'non citizens' - slaves and slave children that were not 'seen'.
Have fun making your barbarians background and don't start with alignment - start with what they believe in, mix it all together and see what the result looks like for yourself.
Currently in one game I am involved with the surrounding foreign culture is steeped in voluntary human sacrifice and refuses to bury the dead. It causes great unrest and is reviled by newcomers until they learn the hard way the land is cursed, the buried dead return with a hatred for the living. Even the souls of those buried are gone forever. But to the outside world? The practices are barbaric. (Most of the party have promised that if they die the others will try to get them eaten by wild animals or cremate them to avoid this fate)
*Gets popcorn and drink, sits back to watch the fun*
Seriously, if you ask this question of five D&D players, you'll get five (or more) answers.
I think I can definitely understand this now. As I've read more about alignment in the past few hours, I've just become increasingly more confused. It seems very difficult to encompass the vast spectrum of, well, uh, 'humanity' in any number of categories, let alone only nine.
I mean, is alignment referring to our character's internal monologue, or external actions? If Abbie's Orc character thinks night and day about murder and mayhem, and yet never acts on those thoughts - is that character evil? I mean, they're restrained for sure - but subtleties like 'restraint' don't exist in this system, from what I can see.
Does the character's perception of him/herself contribute to their alignment? Say Jo is playing a completely evil character, but, much as in lots of real life circumstances, they don't believe themselves to be evil at all - and what's more, they could probably justify it, in their own logic anyway. Would we still label them as evil? I'm assuming we would, and that alignment is strictly objective.. but.. it's confusing.
Does the reason contribute to the action? I mean, is viciously over-reacting 'evil'? I don't know, if, for example, your character broke a pickpocket's hands because they stole a loaf of bread from them. Does the character's race and upbringing effect this? Is it more evil for an impeccably raised elf to break this guy's hands than for tribal raised Orc who doesn't know better to do so? I'd probably say the elf is committing a more evil action, that begs the question, if Orcs never know better, are they still evil?
From what, uh, 'culture' is alignment seen from? Ours, I imagine? And our perspective now or what our perspective would be living in the D&D world? I mean, I imagine the orcs don't see murder as necessarily evil, perhaps they see it as a show of strength, or simply an unfortunate necessity come from living a hard life. So taking that into account, are Orcs evil? To me, they don't seem that more evil than The Vikings for example. This is more so relevant to my problem, because I'm contemplating making an Orc Barbarian. Really, a stereotypical Orc. But from what I have read, they are still bound by honour and are not wholly evil (preferring to fight armed foes and not blindly murdering innocents for no reason at all, etc.) - So to me, at least from my understanding, 'chaotic evil' didn't seem very fitting. But then.. none of the alignments did.
Argh, my brain.
These are kind of rhetorical questions, I'm just typing on the spot as I'm thinking, and it's pretty late at night here. Plus I'm absurdly simplifying things here just for the sake of, well, not writing an essay.
But overall, sheesh, yeah, it's not an easy subject is it.
*Gets popcorn and drink, sits back to watch the fun*
Seriously, if you ask this question of five D&D players, you'll get five (or more) answers.
I think I can definitely understand this now. As I've read more about alignment in the past few hours, I've just become increasingly more confused. It seems very difficult to encompass the vast spectrum of, well, uh, 'humanity' in any number of categories, let alone only nine.
I mean, is alignment referring to our character's internal monologue, or external actions? If Abbie's Orc character thinks night and day about murder and mayhem, and yet never acts on those thoughts - is that character evil? I mean, they're restrained for sure - but subtleties like 'restraint' don't exist in this system, from what I can see.
My $0.02
An alignment is a guideline of how a character normally acts, and really nothing more. Its not meant to be a straightjacket. Characters who are lawful, can act chaotic. Evil characters can do good acts. But over a long period of time, and large number of actions it will trend towards one...and perhaps it DOES change over time; the freewheeling human in youth, is now much more lawful now he has kids.
I personally use it for external actions; internal monologues is only for debating what the action is going to be and perhaps why. And again, characters are reflections of what we see and desire to see in people; with all the flaws and consistencies you can find in the real world. The actions define the character and what the gods/people/monsters/villains think about them more than alignment anyway.
Earlier editions were more hardcore on this (mostly on paladins and certain gear items/spells) but now, not much is left.
To explain alignments (simply, not accurately) replace them as follows.
Evil = selfish, (how does this benefit me)
Chaotic = bucks against authority, (thrives in dynamic changing situations)
Lawful = structured, ordered rule follower (doesnt react well to change)
Neutral = Urgh, Liberal? these types are the worst - they believe in a balance that can only be found in books and theories. They never finish a job whether its exterminating orc tribes (we cant kill everyone - think of their role in the ecosystem!) Or removing corruption from the city (there will always be crime, excising this completely will just cause more damage when new challengers fight to become the new master of the city)
Good = The kind of people who can put there needs after others and will go out of the way to help out for no reason other than 'I can'
Some notes here:
Chaotic neutral is usually an indicator of insanity, it doesnt have to be murderous insanity but insanity where they try to maintain a balance even as they disrupt everything, imagine any rioter protesting against something whilst burning up the streets they live on.
Neutral evil is someone who believes in a balance but wishes to apply the negatives elswhere so others suffer whilst they benefit.
Lawful Neutral is someone that will obey the law regardless - be wary of crossing borders into the legally held land of evil, these types will turn you in to the monsters for trespassing. Never let a LN person become the lawmaker - they obey the law and if they write it? Inquisition is around the corner.
Chaotic good (the barbarian staple) are people who do not do well in meetings, they chafe under regimented restrictions but are the best kind of rebellion leaders - they will fight oppresive rulers for the good of others and attempt to put someone worthy in there place when successful, then they fade or are squeezed out of the political landscape not having the tools or the temperament to navigate politics.
You are often better off ignoring alignments when making a character, instead play it and see how they develop and that will determine it much more effectively. Remember that even the worst villain may act 'out of character' and do a good deed for a reason of its own (love, honour, friendship, messing with a heroes head, amusement) and an otherwise good person can in the heat of the moment do something that they will always regret and never take back. (PTSD triggering an attack on someone they care about, or indeed a verbal argument that incites them to violence with a friend)
This is why, especially in 5th edition alignment is almost considered an afterthought as far as player characters are involved. It's a nice touch, to be able to say "i'm neutral good" or whatever you may be, but it is not necessary, and is in fact limiting in what you may want to do with a character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
One way to view alignment in these fantasy worlds would be: what side would this person choose in a cosmic war? If the heavens and all things good took up arms in war against all the hordes of hell, then an evil character would likely join the side of hell because the resulting dystopia will favour those who spilled blood for it, while good characters would sacrifice everything to avoid that dystopia; neutral folk would rather this whole war went away please. If forces of pure chaos coalesced in the world and sought to shatter all chains and hierarchies while the old powers of order sought to conserve and constrain, then a lawful character would fight to maintain order against the uncertainty of change, while a chaotic character would welcome this grand shakeup; again neutral would rather everyone just chilled out.
Back to the original question though, what alignment is a barbarian? I think the first thing to do is to separate the concept of the class, Barbarian, and the concept of barbarous wild people. The only "chaotic" mechanic in the class is the rage concept, but that could be just a small facet of their personality. A barbarian could be a perfectly trained, disciplined and loyal soldier who discovers and exploits the beserker blood rage within themselves. Or an evil, fanatical cult member, so unchangeably devoted to the ancient laws of their sect that all the wayward blasphemers must be violently cleansed. Or a silent, stoic tribal elder, connected intimately to their spirit ancestors and the traditions they represent. Any of those could be strongly lawful, just with an internal rage that they hope to only release when it meets their own chosen goals.
Strictly speaking, this is against the rules. In practice, check with your DM - I personally consider the vast majority of alignment restrictions in D&D incredibly dumb, with maybe the Paladin being justified (and even then I'd be inclined to waive the lawful part). Some DMs consider them warranted.
I don't think there are any rules at all restricting alignment by class. Even Paladins are free to be chaotic whatever with no restriction. The only restrictions are DM-Imposed. Any rules you might be thinking of are probably from other editions...
Chaotic = bucks against authority, (thrives in dynamic changing situations)
Lawful = structured, ordered rule follower (doesnt react well to change)
Anarchist propaganda up in here. :P
Lawful doesn't mean unchangeable, it means most change happens within certain boundaries, and for extreme cases there is an established bureaucracy/hiearchy/tradition for that too. Opposed to that, a chaotic person might "thrive in dynamic situations", but can just as well rebel needlessly against an established system just to be contrarian, because they refuse to be told what to do.
Lawful doesnt mean unchangeable - but when the law changes the law will be enforced by the lawful with the same zeal as before its amendment.
Chaos - a contrarian who bucks for the sake of bucking is usually not just chaotic but another alignment. Welcome to chaotic evil or neutral where we appreciate your attention seeking and / or your pyschosis.
:) Less propaganda more manifesto, and like all philososphic schools of governance Anarchy is a failure in practice. Unless your a hivemind, are you a hivemind?
If you are worried about the alignment, use two ideals that aren't of the (any) variety. Then figure out which would take precedence if they came in conflict with each other. Understand that personality traits don't mean that a person has to act that way all of the time, but they will react that way the majority of the time. An evil character would be ok helping people if it meant he had more followers to help accomplish his goals. A good character would kill someone if they believed it was for the common good.
With the following, "I mean, is alignment referring to our character's internal monologue, or external actions? If Abbie's Orc character thinks night and day about murder and mayhem, and yet never acts on those thoughts - is that character evil? I mean, they're restrained for sure - but subtleties like 'restraint' don't exist in this system, from what I can see." I would say what is the motivation that prevents the orc from playing out his thoughts? How does he feel about his thoughts, is he disgusted by them? If he doesn't act because he'll be arrested if caught and he's fine living the letter of the law, I'd say he's lawful. If he bristles at the law, but still adheres to it, he's closer to neutral. If his honor is derived from a personal code that isn't influenced by society, he's likely still chaotic. If he's disgusted by his thoughts he likely isn't evil: but if he indulges in those fantasies because his mind is the only place he feels safe living it, he's likely evil (or neutral if those thoughts are only directed at someone bullying him).
Strictly speaking, this is against the rules. In practice, check with your DM - I personally consider the vast majority of alignment restrictions in D&D incredibly dumb, with maybe the Paladin being justified (and even then I'd be inclined to waive the lawful part). Some DMs consider them warranted.
I don't think there are any rules at all restricting alignment by class. Even Paladins are free to be chaotic whatever with no restriction. The only restrictions are DM-Imposed. Any rules you might be thinking of are probably from other editions...
There are some rules about clerics and perhaps Paladins only being one alignment away on one scale but exact on the other. Ie if your deity is LG, you could be LG, LN, or NG, but anything else wouldn't work. I don't remember where I read that, but I suspect SCAG. That being said, your DM would be the one to enforce that if you had no interest in it.
I would take an honor structure as similar to a set of laws the guardian feels obligated to abide by. For that reason, I think any lawful alignment would make sense, though I can see the case for a neutral alignment.
Several changes might make the alignment system easier to grok: change "good" and "evil" to "selfless" and "selfish", change "lawful" to "orderly", and emphasize that while your alignment is typically composed of two parts (adherence to order/chaos, adherence to selflessness/selfishness), they don't really work that way.
"Good/evil" becoming "selfless/selfish" is less subjective, less open to debate, and is generally agreed-upon as the standard. "Evil" characters don't necessarily want to do "bad things", they just don't care about others as much as themselves.
"Lawful" becoming "orderly" points out that it's not that they're concerned with laws, but rather the concept of order. A Lawful character will gladly break laws if they understand it will result in a more orderly world.
And finally... a "Lawful Neutral" character isn't a less-good-but-not-quite-evil Lawful Good; they're a character who holds the concept of order above all else, including their, and others', wellbeing. A "Neutral Good" character isn't a more-law-abiding-but-not-quite-saintly Chaotic Good; they're a character who believes helping others is paramount, and that order and chaos are secondary concerns. "True Neutral", or "Neutral Neutral", characters are mostly concerned with finding balance in everything (which is tricky, since that sounds suspiciously like "order"!), and not simply "not evil, but not good, either... not lawful, but not chaotic, either".
Beware of extremes when considering alignment, too. Chaotic Evil doesn't need to mean a raging, psychotic criminal who will stop at nothing to wreak the most havoc and kill the most creatures possible. Sure, such a character is probably Chaotic Evil, but so is the neighborhood store manager who cheats on his taxes and overcharges for a loaf of bread. Similarly, while Chaotic Neutral is often portrayed as "madness, taking random actions with no logic reasoning behind them", it doesn't have to be. It can simply be a freedom loving, routine hating, happy-go-lucky adventurer whose primary drive is to experience the world. They'll help others if the whim strikes them (especially if it can lead to adventure!), might lay traps for unsuspecting innocents ("hey, I've never seen how rot grubs affect a Warforged!"), but they won't impale themselves on a sword willingly, or try to fight the ancient red dragon, in its lair, with no weapons or magic. They can be perfectly logical in their decisions, as long as they lead them to new experiences. A Lawful Good character doesn't have to be a good-natured, well-behaved, polite pushover. They can be a fierce, gruff, thick-headed warrior, horrible to be around, or they can be a fun-loving, beer-drinking joker: alignment doesn't dictate personality.
Edit: oops, forgot the whole point.
In short, an "honorable barbarian" can be any alignment whatsoever. They could be a Chaotic Evil, sadistic barbarian who enjoys killing, but who adheres to a strict personal code, and will slay anyone who slights them, and likewise would avoid insulting others. Or a Lawful Good tribal leader, who has led their community to never before seen heights, beloved by their entire nation, a paragon of honor, who will gladly put themselves at risk by standing in harm's way, going into a mindless rage to defend their extended family against their ancient foes. Or, really, anything in between. =D
Good/Evil is about what lines you are willing to cross.
Imagine a personal honour code of "I don't let foes escape from my rage."
A good barbarian might chase foes, but abandon the chase when it gets dangerous for onlookers and innocents. An evil barbarian might continue chasing, not caring about collateral damage.
Both of them can justifiably describe themselves as "honourable".
Lawful = adhering to a common order, as defined by the society. This isn't just the codified laws, but also social convention - so a Barbarian tribe might not have so-called civilized law ( whatever that is - I think that's a cultural bias ) but they would definitely have cultural traditions and mores'. They have a code of conduct. Someone who accepts the moral authority of the group is lawful.
Chaotic = making one's own choices about what rules to follow. They may - or may not - look the same as a Lawful person. It all depends on whether they agree with the society, but the moral authority is personal. They don't care what the group has decided is right, they'll make up their own mind. If they and the group agree, then that's just a happy accident. However, people being what they are, I think a Chaotic individual who personally evaluates all the laws/traditions of the culture and never deviates is rare.
To Tonio's point above, I think wanting structure vs. personal freedom might be a separate axis. I was struck by the quote "A Lawful character will gladly break laws if they understand it will result in a more orderly world" which I don't think is always the case. This might be another alignment dimension entirely. I think you can accept the moral authority of the group, but not want it to be overly restrictive - and still be lawful. I likewise think you can be chaotic ( be willing to break the social rules / law ) in order to create a more structured society. Isn't this what happens in the rise of totalitarian governments? You can be transitionally chaotic to get to rigid rule of law, I guess. It's an interesting nuance.
Good is considering the well-being of others, on a par with your own. This means that you might view your survival on par with someone else's - but you won't put your luxury or your convenience over the survival of others. You don't have to put the well-being of others above yours to be "good". In cases where it's gain-against-gain, a good person would try and have everyone benefit equally, or at least proportionally to effort, risk, or contributed resources. They try and be fair.
Evil is the devaluation of others. You would consider your gain, or your luxury, over the well-being or even the survival of others. You're in it for what you want to get out of it; you don't care nearly as much as to what others' get out of it.
I also think that morality is about choices and behavior - so it's not what you think, or say, it's about what you do.
Honor on the other hand, is not the same as morality - it's about the public perception of your adherence to social morality, not about your actual adherence to that moral code. You can break the social code of conduct, but if you're not caught, you don't lose honor. On the flip side, the public perception that you did something that you did not actually do can cause you to lose honor, without having committed a moral breach.
And that leads us to shame - which is what you incur externally from loss of honor - and guilt which is what you incur internally when you breach a moral code.
Whew ....
Put that all together, and there's no reason a Barbarian can't be any alignment. They have a tribe, with a moral code, or at least a set of traditions. They can abide by it, or not. They can abide by it because "it's the way we do things", or they can abide by it because they personally agree with the rules in place. They can view their tribe members as of equal consideration in moral and social affairs, or they can be in it for personal gain.
Whether or not they are honorable depends on their reputation within the tribe. So an "honorable Barbarian" merely has a good reputation for being a good member of society. They could be any moral alignment they can get away with, so long as they can deceive the group.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Lawful = adhering to a common order, as defined by the society. This isn't just the codified laws, but also social convention - so a Barbarian tribe might not have so-called civilized law ( whatever that is - I think that's a cultural bias ) but they would definitely have cultural traditions and mores'. They have a code of conduct. Someone who accepts the moral authority of the group is lawful.
Chaotic = making one's own choices about what rules to follow. They may - or may not - look the same as a Lawful person. It all depends on whether they agree with the society, but the moral authority is personal. They don't care what the group has decided is right, they'll make up their own mind. If they and the group agree, then that's just a happy accident. However, people being what they are, I think a Chaotic individual who personally evaluates all the laws/traditions of the culture and never deviates is rare.
To Tonio's point above, I think wanting structure vs. personal freedom might be a separate axis. I was struck by the quote "A Lawful character will gladly break laws if they understand it will result in a more orderly world" which I don't think is always the case. This might be another alignment dimension entirely. I think you can accept the moral authority of the group, but not want it to be overly restrictive - and still be lawful. I likewise think you can be chaotic ( be willing to break the social rules / law ) in order to create a more structured society. Isn't this what happens in the rise of totalitarian governments? You can be transitionally chaotic to get to rigid rule of law, I guess. It's an interesting nuance.
Good is considering the well-being of others, on a par with your own. This means that you might view your survival on par with someone else's - but you won't put your luxury or your convenience over the survival of others. You don't have to put the well-being of others above yours to be "good". In cases where it's gain-against-gain, a good person would try and have everyone benefit equally, or at least proportionally to effort, risk, or contributed resources. They try and be fair.
Evil is the devaluation of others. You would consider your gain, or your luxury, over the well-being or even the survival of others. You're in it for what you want to get out of it; you don't care nearly as much as to what others' get out of it.
I also think that morality is about choices and behavior - so it's not what you think, or say, it's about what you do.
Honor on the other hand, is not the same as morality - it's about the public perception of your adherence to social morality, not about your actual adherence to that moral code. You can break the social code of conduct, but if you're not caught, you don't lose honor. On the flip side, the public perception that you did something that you did not actually do can cause you to lose honor, without having committed a moral breach.
And that leads us to shame - which is what you incur externally from loss of honor - and guilt which is what you incur internally when you breach a moral code.
Whew ....
Put that all together, and there's no reason a Barbarian can't be any alignment. They have a tribe, with a moral code, or at least a set of traditions. They can abide by it, or not. They can abide by it because "it's the way we do things", or they can abide by it because they personally agree with the rules in place. They can view their tribe members as of equal consideration in moral and social affairs, or they can be in it for personal gain.
Whether or not they are honorable depends on their reputation within the tribe. So an "honorable Barbarian" merely has a good reputation for being a good member of society. They could be any moral alignment they can get away with, so long as they can deceive the group.
I think this sums it up pretty well. The honor as the outward perception only is the only part that disagree with and only because I think some people are so tied up with their honor that there is no difference between public shame and private guilt to them.
I think this sums it up pretty well. The honor as the outward perception only is the only part that disagree with and only because I think some people are so tied up with their honor that there is no difference between public shame and private guilt to them.
Thanks,
I don't disagree with your thesis that some people have internalized their cultures honor system that their personal moral evaluation is "an act is moral if and only if it is honorable". I think this is essentially a Lawful approach in an honor based society, whereas a Chaotic approach to an honor based society has the wiggle-room to take the approach "if I don't get caught, it's not dishonorable - therefore I will do this thing according to my own morality".
I don't think that negates the "honor is external / shame internal" approach - but as you point out, it's more nuanced than a purely binary split.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey y'all,
So, the question is pretty much in the title!
I thought I understood the alignment system pretty well, but I was thinking on this one specific character, and it got me a little stumped.
Barbarians are stereotypically 'savage', free spirited tribal folk with little regard for (or knowledge of) civilised land's laws and customs - in that way, I'd say they're certainly of a chaotic nature. However, one can also imagine (without much of a stretch) that they may be fiercely 'honourable', with perhaps a strong moral compass, or a 'tribal code' they would live and die for - and if you look at it that way, I'd say that makes them seem pretty lawful.
If we put together those opposing views, would that make this 'honourable barbarian' neutral? I'm not sure!
Obviously, I'm not going in to loads of detail here - I don't think anyone needs a specific character backstory to imagine the sort of archetype I'm thinking of. But anyway! So, leaving aside good and evil, what are your views on the matter? It is bugging me a little!
Both Chaotic Good and Neutral Good alignments would work just fine. If your barbarian is from a much more rigidly spiritual or social society that uses their rages an an outlet for the stifling culture, then maybe a Lawful alignment isn't out of the question. For the most part, alignment is a vestigial relic of older editions anyway, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it as it very rarely matter in-game.
Any alignment - honour like morality is dependant on the social group that develops it. Some may honour fallen warriors by placing their bodies on display, others may believe it right to eat the dead. Decide what your barbarians background is and how much of what he thinks is honourable is based on that or in opposition to it. (running away from your cannibal hill folk family a-la the hills have eyes because its not for you is a lifestyle choice you have to respect)
Barbarians and savagery - savage is a term most often used to serve as a point for outsiders to commit atrocities on a group in the name of civilising them. The Mongol Horde was 'savage' but it had rules and strictures. What you can take away from 'savage' is that the people usually live off the land, migrate through seasons to follow hunting cycles to avoid depleting any one areas resources, build few permanent structures and groups usually rely on strong leaders (although strength may be in terms of hunting prowess, physical, magical etc) If Chaotic then this is especially true, it does not mean they are lawless (think robin hood = chaotic good) dut they dont respond well to some stranger telling them they should pay a tithe to some far away ruler who they never see and that guy will pay other guys to build a road through the hunting grounds with the cash, build churches on their holy shrines and otherwise give them 'a better life'.
Bottom line Conan, Kull the conqueror, both are great muscle thewed barbarians of fantasy. Aztec / Mayan cultures 'could' be considered barbarian if the viewer is a conquistador. The American Indian Nations could be used as your template for both honour warriors with deep spiritual cores, loyalty to a tribal group and baffling to outsiders ways of life (look up counting coup *and if I spelt that right I will be amazed) Vikings had villages and they had one thing going for them: They bred people so desperate to escape from them they were terrors to the surrounding regions, these 'barbarians' didn't migrate for hunting, they turned raiding into an economic art form. The vikings had an honour system that included a term for 'non citizens' - slaves and slave children that were not 'seen'.
Have fun making your barbarians background and don't start with alignment - start with what they believe in, mix it all together and see what the result looks like for yourself.
Currently in one game I am involved with the surrounding foreign culture is steeped in voluntary human sacrifice and refuses to bury the dead. It causes great unrest and is reviled by newcomers until they learn the hard way the land is cursed, the buried dead return with a hatred for the living. Even the souls of those buried are gone forever. But to the outside world? The practices are barbaric. (Most of the party have promised that if they die the others will try to get them eaten by wild animals or cremate them to avoid this fate)
*Gets popcorn and drink, sits back to watch the fun*
Seriously, if you ask this question of five D&D players, you'll get five (or more) answers.
I think I can definitely understand this now. As I've read more about alignment in the past few hours, I've just become increasingly more confused. It seems very difficult to encompass the vast spectrum of, well, uh, 'humanity' in any number of categories, let alone only nine.
I mean, is alignment referring to our character's internal monologue, or external actions? If Abbie's Orc character thinks night and day about murder and mayhem, and yet never acts on those thoughts - is that character evil? I mean, they're restrained for sure - but subtleties like 'restraint' don't exist in this system, from what I can see.
Does the character's perception of him/herself contribute to their alignment? Say Jo is playing a completely evil character, but, much as in lots of real life circumstances, they don't believe themselves to be evil at all - and what's more, they could probably justify it, in their own logic anyway. Would we still label them as evil? I'm assuming we would, and that alignment is strictly objective.. but.. it's confusing.
Does the reason contribute to the action? I mean, is viciously over-reacting 'evil'? I don't know, if, for example, your character broke a pickpocket's hands because they stole a loaf of bread from them. Does the character's race and upbringing effect this? Is it more evil for an impeccably raised elf to break this guy's hands than for tribal raised Orc who doesn't know better to do so? I'd probably say the elf is committing a more evil action, that begs the question, if Orcs never know better, are they still evil?
From what, uh, 'culture' is alignment seen from? Ours, I imagine? And our perspective now or what our perspective would be living in the D&D world? I mean, I imagine the orcs don't see murder as necessarily evil, perhaps they see it as a show of strength, or simply an unfortunate necessity come from living a hard life. So taking that into account, are Orcs evil? To me, they don't seem that more evil than The Vikings for example. This is more so relevant to my problem, because I'm contemplating making an Orc Barbarian. Really, a stereotypical Orc. But from what I have read, they are still bound by honour and are not wholly evil (preferring to fight armed foes and not blindly murdering innocents for no reason at all, etc.) - So to me, at least from my understanding, 'chaotic evil' didn't seem very fitting. But then.. none of the alignments did.
Argh, my brain.
These are kind of rhetorical questions, I'm just typing on the spot as I'm thinking, and it's pretty late at night here. Plus I'm absurdly simplifying things here just for the sake of, well, not writing an essay.
But overall, sheesh, yeah, it's not an easy subject is it.
My $0.02
An alignment is a guideline of how a character normally acts, and really nothing more. Its not meant to be a straightjacket. Characters who are lawful, can act chaotic. Evil characters can do good acts. But over a long period of time, and large number of actions it will trend towards one...and perhaps it DOES change over time; the freewheeling human in youth, is now much more lawful now he has kids.
I personally use it for external actions; internal monologues is only for debating what the action is going to be and perhaps why. And again, characters are reflections of what we see and desire to see in people; with all the flaws and consistencies you can find in the real world. The actions define the character and what the gods/people/monsters/villains think about them more than alignment anyway.
Earlier editions were more hardcore on this (mostly on paladins and certain gear items/spells) but now, not much is left.
To explain alignments (simply, not accurately) replace them as follows.
Evil = selfish, (how does this benefit me)
Chaotic = bucks against authority, (thrives in dynamic changing situations)
Lawful = structured, ordered rule follower (doesnt react well to change)
Neutral = Urgh, Liberal? these types are the worst - they believe in a balance that can only be found in books and theories. They never finish a job whether its exterminating orc tribes (we cant kill everyone - think of their role in the ecosystem!) Or removing corruption from the city (there will always be crime, excising this completely will just cause more damage when new challengers fight to become the new master of the city)
Good = The kind of people who can put there needs after others and will go out of the way to help out for no reason other than 'I can'
Some notes here:
Chaotic neutral is usually an indicator of insanity, it doesnt have to be murderous insanity but insanity where they try to maintain a balance even as they disrupt everything, imagine any rioter protesting against something whilst burning up the streets they live on.
Neutral evil is someone who believes in a balance but wishes to apply the negatives elswhere so others suffer whilst they benefit.
Lawful Neutral is someone that will obey the law regardless - be wary of crossing borders into the legally held land of evil, these types will turn you in to the monsters for trespassing. Never let a LN person become the lawmaker - they obey the law and if they write it? Inquisition is around the corner.
Chaotic good (the barbarian staple) are people who do not do well in meetings, they chafe under regimented restrictions but are the best kind of rebellion leaders - they will fight oppresive rulers for the good of others and attempt to put someone worthy in there place when successful, then they fade or are squeezed out of the political landscape not having the tools or the temperament to navigate politics.
You are often better off ignoring alignments when making a character, instead play it and see how they develop and that will determine it much more effectively. Remember that even the worst villain may act 'out of character' and do a good deed for a reason of its own (love, honour, friendship, messing with a heroes head, amusement) and an otherwise good person can in the heat of the moment do something that they will always regret and never take back. (PTSD triggering an attack on someone they care about, or indeed a verbal argument that incites them to violence with a friend)
This is why, especially in 5th edition alignment is almost considered an afterthought as far as player characters are involved. It's a nice touch, to be able to say "i'm neutral good" or whatever you may be, but it is not necessary, and is in fact limiting in what you may want to do with a character.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
One way to view alignment in these fantasy worlds would be: what side would this person choose in a cosmic war? If the heavens and all things good took up arms in war against all the hordes of hell, then an evil character would likely join the side of hell because the resulting dystopia will favour those who spilled blood for it, while good characters would sacrifice everything to avoid that dystopia; neutral folk would rather this whole war went away please. If forces of pure chaos coalesced in the world and sought to shatter all chains and hierarchies while the old powers of order sought to conserve and constrain, then a lawful character would fight to maintain order against the uncertainty of change, while a chaotic character would welcome this grand shakeup; again neutral would rather everyone just chilled out.
Back to the original question though, what alignment is a barbarian? I think the first thing to do is to separate the concept of the class, Barbarian, and the concept of barbarous wild people. The only "chaotic" mechanic in the class is the rage concept, but that could be just a small facet of their personality. A barbarian could be a perfectly trained, disciplined and loyal soldier who discovers and exploits the beserker blood rage within themselves. Or an evil, fanatical cult member, so unchangeably devoted to the ancient laws of their sect that all the wayward blasphemers must be violently cleansed. Or a silent, stoic tribal elder, connected intimately to their spirit ancestors and the traditions they represent. Any of those could be strongly lawful, just with an internal rage that they hope to only release when it meets their own chosen goals.
I don't think there are any rules at all restricting alignment by class. Even Paladins are free to be chaotic whatever with no restriction. The only restrictions are DM-Imposed. Any rules you might be thinking of are probably from other editions...
Anarchist propaganda up in here. :P
Lawful doesn't mean unchangeable, it means most change happens within certain boundaries, and for extreme cases there is an established bureaucracy/hiearchy/tradition for that too.
Opposed to that, a chaotic person might "thrive in dynamic situations", but can just as well rebel needlessly against an established system just to be contrarian, because they refuse to be told what to do.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
Lawful doesnt mean unchangeable - but when the law changes the law will be enforced by the lawful with the same zeal as before its amendment.
Chaos - a contrarian who bucks for the sake of bucking is usually not just chaotic but another alignment. Welcome to chaotic evil or neutral where we appreciate your attention seeking and / or your pyschosis.
:) Less propaganda more manifesto, and like all philososphic schools of governance Anarchy is a failure in practice. Unless your a hivemind, are you a hivemind?
If you are worried about the alignment, use two ideals that aren't of the (any) variety. Then figure out which would take precedence if they came in conflict with each other. Understand that personality traits don't mean that a person has to act that way all of the time, but they will react that way the majority of the time. An evil character would be ok helping people if it meant he had more followers to help accomplish his goals. A good character would kill someone if they believed it was for the common good.
With the following, "I mean, is alignment referring to our character's internal monologue, or external actions? If Abbie's Orc character thinks night and day about murder and mayhem, and yet never acts on those thoughts - is that character evil? I mean, they're restrained for sure - but subtleties like 'restraint' don't exist in this system, from what I can see." I would say what is the motivation that prevents the orc from playing out his thoughts? How does he feel about his thoughts, is he disgusted by them? If he doesn't act because he'll be arrested if caught and he's fine living the letter of the law, I'd say he's lawful. If he bristles at the law, but still adheres to it, he's closer to neutral. If his honor is derived from a personal code that isn't influenced by society, he's likely still chaotic. If he's disgusted by his thoughts he likely isn't evil: but if he indulges in those fantasies because his mind is the only place he feels safe living it, he's likely evil (or neutral if those thoughts are only directed at someone bullying him).
There are some rules about clerics and perhaps Paladins only being one alignment away on one scale but exact on the other. Ie if your deity is LG, you could be LG, LN, or NG, but anything else wouldn't work. I don't remember where I read that, but I suspect SCAG. That being said, your DM would be the one to enforce that if you had no interest in it.
I would take an honor structure as similar to a set of laws the guardian feels obligated to abide by. For that reason, I think any lawful alignment would make sense, though I can see the case for a neutral alignment.
Several changes might make the alignment system easier to grok: change "good" and "evil" to "selfless" and "selfish", change "lawful" to "orderly", and emphasize that while your alignment is typically composed of two parts (adherence to order/chaos, adherence to selflessness/selfishness), they don't really work that way.
"Good/evil" becoming "selfless/selfish" is less subjective, less open to debate, and is generally agreed-upon as the standard. "Evil" characters don't necessarily want to do "bad things", they just don't care about others as much as themselves.
"Lawful" becoming "orderly" points out that it's not that they're concerned with laws, but rather the concept of order. A Lawful character will gladly break laws if they understand it will result in a more orderly world.
And finally... a "Lawful Neutral" character isn't a less-good-but-not-quite-evil Lawful Good; they're a character who holds the concept of order above all else, including their, and others', wellbeing. A "Neutral Good" character isn't a more-law-abiding-but-not-quite-saintly Chaotic Good; they're a character who believes helping others is paramount, and that order and chaos are secondary concerns. "True Neutral", or "Neutral Neutral", characters are mostly concerned with finding balance in everything (which is tricky, since that sounds suspiciously like "order"!), and not simply "not evil, but not good, either... not lawful, but not chaotic, either".
Beware of extremes when considering alignment, too. Chaotic Evil doesn't need to mean a raging, psychotic criminal who will stop at nothing to wreak the most havoc and kill the most creatures possible. Sure, such a character is probably Chaotic Evil, but so is the neighborhood store manager who cheats on his taxes and overcharges for a loaf of bread. Similarly, while Chaotic Neutral is often portrayed as "madness, taking random actions with no logic reasoning behind them", it doesn't have to be. It can simply be a freedom loving, routine hating, happy-go-lucky adventurer whose primary drive is to experience the world. They'll help others if the whim strikes them (especially if it can lead to adventure!), might lay traps for unsuspecting innocents ("hey, I've never seen how rot grubs affect a Warforged!"), but they won't impale themselves on a sword willingly, or try to fight the ancient red dragon, in its lair, with no weapons or magic. They can be perfectly logical in their decisions, as long as they lead them to new experiences. A Lawful Good character doesn't have to be a good-natured, well-behaved, polite pushover. They can be a fierce, gruff, thick-headed warrior, horrible to be around, or they can be a fun-loving, beer-drinking joker: alignment doesn't dictate personality.
Edit: oops, forgot the whole point.
In short, an "honorable barbarian" can be any alignment whatsoever. They could be a Chaotic Evil, sadistic barbarian who enjoys killing, but who adheres to a strict personal code, and will slay anyone who slights them, and likewise would avoid insulting others. Or a Lawful Good tribal leader, who has led their community to never before seen heights, beloved by their entire nation, a paragon of honor, who will gladly put themselves at risk by standing in harm's way, going into a mindless rage to defend their extended family against their ancient foes. Or, really, anything in between. =D
Here's my take on it:
Good/Evil is about what lines you are willing to cross.
Imagine a personal honour code of "I don't let foes escape from my rage."
A good barbarian might chase foes, but abandon the chase when it gets dangerous for onlookers and innocents. An evil barbarian might continue chasing, not caring about collateral damage.
Both of them can justifiably describe themselves as "honourable".
My $0.02 ( and only my $0.02 - YMMV ).
Lawful = adhering to a common order, as defined by the society. This isn't just the codified laws, but also social convention - so a Barbarian tribe might not have so-called civilized law ( whatever that is - I think that's a cultural bias ) but they would definitely have cultural traditions and mores'. They have a code of conduct. Someone who accepts the moral authority of the group is lawful.
Chaotic = making one's own choices about what rules to follow. They may - or may not - look the same as a Lawful person. It all depends on whether they agree with the society, but the moral authority is personal. They don't care what the group has decided is right, they'll make up their own mind. If they and the group agree, then that's just a happy accident. However, people being what they are, I think a Chaotic individual who personally evaluates all the laws/traditions of the culture and never deviates is rare.
To Tonio's point above, I think wanting structure vs. personal freedom might be a separate axis. I was struck by the quote "A Lawful character will gladly break laws if they understand it will result in a more orderly world" which I don't think is always the case. This might be another alignment dimension entirely. I think you can accept the moral authority of the group, but not want it to be overly restrictive - and still be lawful. I likewise think you can be chaotic ( be willing to break the social rules / law ) in order to create a more structured society. Isn't this what happens in the rise of totalitarian governments? You can be transitionally chaotic to get to rigid rule of law, I guess. It's an interesting nuance.
Good is considering the well-being of others, on a par with your own. This means that you might view your survival on par with someone else's - but you won't put your luxury or your convenience over the survival of others. You don't have to put the well-being of others above yours to be "good". In cases where it's gain-against-gain, a good person would try and have everyone benefit equally, or at least proportionally to effort, risk, or contributed resources. They try and be fair.
Evil is the devaluation of others. You would consider your gain, or your luxury, over the well-being or even the survival of others. You're in it for what you want to get out of it; you don't care nearly as much as to what others' get out of it.
I also think that morality is about choices and behavior - so it's not what you think, or say, it's about what you do.
Honor on the other hand, is not the same as morality - it's about the public perception of your adherence to social morality, not about your actual adherence to that moral code. You can break the social code of conduct, but if you're not caught, you don't lose honor. On the flip side, the public perception that you did something that you did not actually do can cause you to lose honor, without having committed a moral breach.
And that leads us to shame - which is what you incur externally from loss of honor - and guilt which is what you incur internally when you breach a moral code.
Whew ....
Put that all together, and there's no reason a Barbarian can't be any alignment. They have a tribe, with a moral code, or at least a set of traditions. They can abide by it, or not. They can abide by it because "it's the way we do things", or they can abide by it because they personally agree with the rules in place. They can view their tribe members as of equal consideration in moral and social affairs, or they can be in it for personal gain.
Whether or not they are honorable depends on their reputation within the tribe. So an "honorable Barbarian" merely has a good reputation for being a good member of society. They could be any moral alignment they can get away with, so long as they can deceive the group.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think this sums it up pretty well. The honor as the outward perception only is the only part that disagree with and only because I think some people are so tied up with their honor that there is no difference between public shame and private guilt to them.
Thanks,
I don't disagree with your thesis that some people have internalized their cultures honor system that their personal moral evaluation is "an act is moral if and only if it is honorable". I think this is essentially a Lawful approach in an honor based society, whereas a Chaotic approach to an honor based society has the wiggle-room to take the approach "if I don't get caught, it's not dishonorable - therefore I will do this thing according to my own morality".
I don't think that negates the "honor is external / shame internal" approach - but as you point out, it's more nuanced than a purely binary split.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.