Would a Barbarian/Knight hybrid be too contradictory?

[Tuzenbach]

I like a challenge as much as the next person, but are those two classes incompatible with each other?

 

[Dandu]

Barbarians must be non-lawful (at least if they want to keep their Rage), while Knights must be lawful.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Barbarians must be non-lawful (at least if they want to keep their Rage), while Knights must be lawful.

Wasn't there something about the 1E Cavalier having the ability to have any alignment possible?

 

[Dandu]

Oh, I didn't realize you were playing 1E. No problem at all, then. In fact, many historical knights, such as Lancelot, flew into violent rages on occasion. Source

Then was there one that Sir Launcelot had sent unto
that place for to espy what time the queen should go unto
her death; and anon as he saw the queen despoiled into
her smock, and so shriven, then he gave Sir Launcelot
warning. Then was there but spurring and plucking up
of horses, and right so they came to the fire. And who
that stood against them, there were they slain; there might
none withstand Sir Launcelot, so all that bare arms and
withstood them, there were they slain, full many a noble
knight. For there was slain Sir Belliance le Orgulous,
Sir Segwarides, Sir Griflet, Sir Brandiles, Sir Aglovale,
Sir Tor; Sir Gauter, Sir Gillimer, Sir Reynolds' three
brethren; Sir Damas, Sir Priamus, Sir Kay the Stranger,
Sir Driant, Sir Lambegus, Sir Herminde; Sir Pertilope,
Sir Perimones, two brethren that were called the Green
Knight and the Red Knight. And so in this rushing and
hurling, as Sir Launcelot thrang here and there, it
mishapped him to slay Gaheris and Sir Gareth, the noble
knight, for they were unarmed and unware. For as the
French book saith, Sir Launcelot smote Sir Gareth and
Sir Gaheris upon the brain-pans, wherethrough they were
slain in the field; howbeit in very truth Sir Launcelot
saw them not, and so were they found dead among the
thickest of the press.

Furthermore

Alas that ever this war began. Now fair fellows, said the king,
I charge you that no man tell Sir Gawaine of the death
of his two brethren; for I am sure, said the king, when
Sir Gawaine heareth tell that Sir Gareth is dead he will go
nigh out of his mind. Mercy Jesu, said the king, why
slew he Sir Gareth and Sir Gaheris, for I dare say as for
Sir Gareth he loved Sir Launcelot above all men earthly.
That is truth, said some knights, but they were slain in
the hurtling as Sir Launcelot thrang in the thick of the
press; and as they were unarmed he smote them and wist [knew]
not whom that he smote, and so unhappily they were
slain

This, oddly enough, means that Monty Python and the Holy Grail's version of Lancelot is slightly closer to the Lancelot of Arthurian legend than most other depictions.

 

[fjw70]

One of my favorite characters was a 1e barbarian who (at the end of the campaign) helped the party paladin establish a new order of Knights.

 

[Rottle]

Wasn't there something about the 1E Cavalier having the ability to have any alignment possible?

There is a way in 1e to be of evil or neutral not sure about non-lawful but in the end that hardly matters because.....

Barbarians can only be human and cannot duel class.

But for the concept you could do something like play a heavily armored ranger. He has the survival skills of a barbarian and the ability to wear full plate. The ranger class could be used to emulate the hybrid of barbarian and cavalier.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Barbarians can only be human and cannot duel class.

The thing is, I was hypothesizing creating not a dual-class Barbarian, but a whole new class that combines aspects of the Barbarian with aspects of the Knight.


But thanks for your feedback!!!

 

[Rottle]

So a new class, with aspects of both knight and barbarian....well heck that would be the southern rangers of Gondor, though hardly barbarian in any way culturely they were tough woodsmen, trackers, hunters when needed but could also slap on plate and ride great big horses into battle when called on.

But heck you could build a hybrid from scratch if you like as well. The Romans often concurred barbarians and then trained them to fight as Romans. They did so with the goths and Visigoth. More then a few barbarians where trained as cavalry because the people they concurred favored horseback combat, which actually the Romans needed as they were never known as strong horsemen themselves.

 

[Celebrim]

I really detest the 'barbarian' class, because it carries so much baggage now that it just doesn't need. The class has gone from representing a generic primitive warrior in 1e (which was narrow enough), to in 3e as 'rage' became more and more the defining trait only really representing just that slice of primitive warriors occupied by Norse berserkers, perhaps Judean Nazarenes, perhaps Maori warriors, and a few other warrior cults.

The core concept though of a warrior that garners his strength more from or as much from willpower or bloodlust than skill of arms is much more broadly applicable, and includes - as Dandu rightly points out - examples from what we'd consider the 'civilized' cultures. The archetype here of the raging near psychotic fighter as well a members of primitive warrior cults, covers everything from elite royal bodyguards, elite assault troops, actual psychotics, to religious fanatics. Quite arguably, whether we are talking western knightly tradition or Japanese samurai, multi-classing between the 'skill at arms' tradition and the 'screaming and striking off the other guys head' ought to be a fairly common thing.

And the reverse implication, that all 'primitive' warriors (or even all primitive peoples) are 'barbarians' and basically equivalent to norse beserkers is really no better. Indeed, the implication that just because your living in a nomadic tribal society that you are chaotic, or that just because your society is technological advanced that you are lawful, might even be worse. There is no reason why the leader of a barbarian horde shouldn't be both a barbarian and lawful in inclination, with a code of ethos, a respect for his peoples law and heritage, and a sense that he is part of something larger than himself. There is no reason why a tribe of people, regardless of technology level, should see the individual as being more important than the tribe itself, or be without ethical scruples, or be moral relativists. If anything, isolated tribal bands might be less individualistic and more steeped in tradition and ritual than more prosperous and cosmopolitan societies.

So, I guess I think the whole question is basically wrong. The real question ought to be, "Why do the rules make being a fanatic (barbarian) and being a knight (cavalier) contradictory?", or perhaps, "Why should a barbarian be caring all this unnecessary cultural baggage, that we continually have to ignore when we want to use the class to represent equivalent archetypes?"

That being said, in 1e you are talking hybridizing two of the most powerful classes in the game, with the almost certain result of making a rules monstrosity freed even from its role-playing restrictions.

 

[ccs]

What you're looking for is called a.... Fighter!