Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7703494" data-attributes="member: 6801228">... I don't get it, but maybe I need to approach this from another angle for it to make sense to me.What about this is screaming "PALADIN! CLERIC!" to you? If you think paladin themes work better than barbarian, why? What specifically is causing this.All I can think of is the whole, "Divine" and "touched by gods" part... which I don't see as being enough to make this a cleric concept instead of a Barbarian. AHA. Found the answer to my question before I even asked it. And now the disconnect seems clear. I don’t view barbarians as necessarily rejecting civilization. I see them… I’m not sure. On one hand, I like tying them to “the old ways”, one of my favorite pre-gens is an Orc (pre-volo) Owlbear Totem Barbarian with the Scholar background. He’s a shaman and spiritual leader of his people who decided to go out into the world and learn about the other cultures so his people could better understand them and how to interact with them. One the other, I like the Noble Barbarian. I’ve got a Barbarian waiting in the wings who is, to phrase it a certain way, “The Knightiest Knight who ever Knighted”. Chivalric code, Romantic Ideals, Honor and the whole nine yards, sword, shield, and half-plate is the ideal equipment by the end. He’s also a Wolf Totem, with the Great Wolf his Ancestor killed to save their lord being their heraldry and themselves having a spiritual connection to that wolves’ pack (spirit wolves for the ritual spells he may use) Their class is barbarian, and that represents how they interact with certain things, but I have no problem with them both existing side by side. Barbarians aren’t only “Wild Men”, they are the warrior who fights with no concern for life or limb, with passion and fury instead of controlled blows, who relish in the combat before all else. And Zealot fits right in.  I think Tony Vargas in Post #121 and BookBarbarian in #122 phrased it excellently.However, I see you responded and put forth this (didn't feel like quoting and deleting) And.... we're into a lot of grey and smoky area here. My last PC was a Storm Sorcerer Jeweler, who had an Elemental Gem bound to his hand. He was a merchant, an artisan, and an incredibly pious individual. He nearly killed a fellow PC when they tried to steal gold coins off an altar, because he was ammoral and extreme, but also because removing those coins was a mark of disrespect to the god that shrine was dedicated to, and you don't disrespect the gods. So did my class effect my outlook on the world? Yes, he was haughty and thought more like an Elemental or Djinn than he did a person, because he had this immense magical force in his body which had changed him physically. He was his power. My background effected it too, he was clearly an artisan merchant, he thought in terms of economies and trade and gold. He despised thieves as parasites upon the world, and the destruction of a trade town was a mortal tresspass. And then I added other details like his religion, his history as a street rat where he once was what he despises so much, So, yes class and subclass effects your view on the world, and how you interact with it, but details such as religion and background also are going to shape your characters view. I could see a frenzy barbarian getting along great with a zealot barbarian. They have a similiar approach to problems, perhaps even similiar personalities. I could also see them not getting along with clerics and paladins, thinking them stodgy and too caught up in ritual to just feel the might of their mutual god flowing through them while the paladin and cleric are upset that someone so clearly directly touched has so little regard for showing the proper respect to their diety. It isn't choose Column A or choose Column B. Characters are far more complex than that and I don't think Barbarian is so strict in it's flavor it has no room for a god-touched individual </blockquote>

Verification