How do we get rid of the Fighter

Sigil · Post by **Sigil** » Thu May 30, 2013 5:56 pm

Drolyt wrote:If you can't see the racist connotations of the term I don't think I can help you. The entire idea of barbarism is "my culture is better and more civilized than yours and you are bad". It is a Eurocentric concept that has little to do with reality. No actual primitive tribe looks a damn thing like the stereotypical fantasy barbarian.

Yes, barbarian is offensive when directed at a person or group, but its offensive in the same way the word shithead is offensive. Sure, it's bad to be called a barbarian or shithead, but there isn't a group of people it actually innately refers to.

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Thu May 30, 2013 8:11 pm

Sigil wrote:
Drolyt wrote:If you can't see the racist connotations of the term I don't think I can help you. The entire idea of barbarism is "my culture is better and more civilized than yours and you are bad". It is a Eurocentric concept that has little to do with reality. No actual primitive tribe looks a damn thing like the stereotypical fantasy barbarian.
Yes, barbarian is offensive when directed at a person or group, but its offensive in the same way the word shithead is offensive. Sure, it's bad to be called a barbarian or shithead, but there isn't a group of people it actually innately refers to.

Look at sabs' last post. Let me quote it:

sabs wrote:Barbarian should be a race subtype, or a background slot that gives you 'stuff'. Not a full fledged character class.

Besides, not all "barbarians" are conan berserker types. Amazon tribes, Huns, could all fall under barbarian and look nothing like the pseudo viking berserker that's in D&D

Barbarian sure as hell has connotations about which cultures are "barbaric". Not that those connotations even make sense, since there is little cultural similarity between the Huns and the indigenous people of the Amazon. I don't want to come off as the language police, but there is really no reason to use the term barbarian when berserker fits the concept so much better anyways.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu May 30, 2013 8:25 pm

Drolyt wrote:racist

No. "X is a word that insults a race when used," and "X is a word that can be used to insult a race when you use it to insult a race" are very different things. The former is racist. The latter is any adjective that can be considered an insult. Here, some examples: glorpzians are ugly. Glorpzians are stupid. Glorpzians are smelly. Glorpzians are barbaric. I hope you understand that using the word ugly is not actually racist and calling glorpzians ugly is, and that is completely compatible with the existence of words that actually are racist like glorpbacks or glorpeyes or gloggers or glonkeys.

Drolyt wrote:No actual primitive tribe looks a damn thing like the stereotypical fantasy barbarian.

Are you aware that no actual person looks a damn thing like the stereotypical fantasy wizard? Fantasy settings are based on arbitrary stories instead of on historical truths. Weird, but true. And in some of those stories there are people who live in something not unlike a small, relatively isolated hunter-gatherer society (which it won't be a historically accurate depiction of either), and have "exotic" customs relative to whatever the mainstream populace is. And because of their "exotic" customs they'll have access to some strange, nebulously-defined mystical power source. And, yes, at its core, that's stupid: the historical origin for those stories is "that culture is different; this both scares and intrigues us. Let's make up mystical stories about them." But for some reason people like them, so it's stuck. And it's no more offensive than "monks are our setting's version of all the popular representations of eastern martial arts," except possibly in the origins of the name, but, well, see next paragraph.

As for an actual point: I have heard the word barbaric used to insult a culture zero times. While it may seem counter-intuitive to say that barbarian does not have connotations of barbarism, I'm going to point out that calling people and cultures barbaric is really not something that comes up a whole lot at all and we are talking about TTRPG's specifically, in which people use the term barbarian to describe their characters without intending to diminish them. And this works, either because they base their definition of barbarian on mechanics (it's the fighter that hulks out) or inaccurate but neutral assumptions about the origins of the term (that they also have wrong) - that is to say they think barbarian means some combination of tribalism, nature worship, spirit worship, and ancestor worship (all of which are perfectly fine elements to have in a character).

Drolyt wrote:but there is really no reason to use the term barbarian when berserker fits the concept so much better anyways.

Berserker fits people who flip out and murder things harder. It doesn't actually fit any of the other themes I pointed out in my very first post, and still am pointing at. That isn't to say there has to be a class for those themes in core, or even ever, but I think it is fair to say you can build a "dude who hits things with sharp things" type character that progresses into high level using the elements I listed above and is meaningfully distinct from your other "dude who hits things with sharp things" classes, at which point it would need a name.

Winnah wrote:Fuck the barbarian. I want to play a cosmopolitan, or a sophisticate.

Do you have any source material that makes being a cosmopolitan or a sophisticate worth noting and people will agree with you that it needs emulating? Do you think cosmopolitan and sophisticate are concepts with themes that have an established high-level presence? I'm not really sure I could say yes to both of those questions with barbarian (as I'm describing it, anyway), but I am sure it gets quite a bit closer.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu May 30, 2013 8:25 pm

Berserker as a descriptive phrase for a class has the same problems as Defender or Scout or Thief or Fighter. Naming a class after a tactic limits roleplaying potential. No one really has a problem with Barbarians getting their mojo from spirits of the land or being able to call up and command a horde of dire lions out of nowhere -- probably because of the 'noble savage' archetype which lets you stick in nature-themed crap without breaking the class flavor.

Berserker, however, lacks that kind of broadness. Unless you're willing to spend the next few years-to-decades specifically force meme-ing a new archetype for berserker, you have a narrow class that creates dissonance when you add new schticks to it in the same way that declaring Wizards are masters of axes or clerics are really good at picking locks.

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Thu May 30, 2013 8:48 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Berserker, however, lacks that kind of broadness.

I'm not seeing it? It seems to me barbarian is the more limiting concept, I mean you can't even represent Conan the Barbarian using the D&D barbarian class. You are correct that berserker is a light concept, but I don't think it has the same level of connotations as thief or fighter so I don't think many people would rebel if you extend the berserker into high (power) levels, but people already have a (very stupid) idea of what a barbarian is so I think it is actually limited the same way the fighter is, albeit not to the same extent.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Thu May 30, 2013 9:15 pm

to me, barbarism still seems (from the fantasy point of view) more like a way of life: a particular barbarian could be a druid, shaman, skald, etc., just like a particular city dweller could be a cleric, wizard, bard, whatever.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Thu May 30, 2013 9:29 pm

DSMatticus wrote:As for an actual point: I have heard the word barbaric used to insult a culture zero times.

If that's true, then you're no longer a credible source for how people use words.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23barbaric

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu May 30, 2013 10:02 pm

Drolyt wrote:You are correct that berserker is a light concept, but I don't think it has the same level of connotations as thief or fighter so I don't think many people would rebel if you extend the berserker into high (power) levels, but people already have a (very stupid) idea of what a barbarian is so I think it is actually limited the same way the fighter is, albeit not to the same extent.

Just because 'barbarian' is a bad title doesn't make 'berserker' good.

If I was going to come up with a non-compound word that evoked the archetype of 'draw into my body and aura the powers of ancestor and nature spirits' I'd call the class a Thane (as in Beowulf) if I wanted something more grr-smash, Shaman if I wanted something more shadowrunny, Hero if I was running something Iron Age, or even Demigod if I wasn't running D&D.

Sigil · Post by **Sigil** » Thu May 30, 2013 11:46 pm

Just a personal anecdote: Barbarian to me sounds more generic, and could be used to describe a character inspired by ancheint arabic, asian, central european, or whatever people. Berserker on the other hand makes me specifically think of the viking style berserker/barbarian. When someone says berserker I immediately think badass sea-reaver. Hell, Reaver would actually be a pretty good class name too.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Fri May 31, 2013 2:38 am

I saw Gladiator when I was a kid and have forever assumed that Barbarians are crazy Gauls that live in the woods and hate the Romans.

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Fri May 31, 2013 3:01 am

Lokathor wrote:I saw Gladiator when I was a kid and have forever assumed that Barbarians are crazy Gauls that live in the woods and hate the Romans.

The Marcomannic Wars were against Germanic tribes along the Danube. The Gauls were Celts that lived in modern day France. They did fight the Romans, but centuries earlier.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:06 am

DSMattius wrote:
Winnah wrote:Fuck the barbarian. I want to play a cosmopolitan, or a sophisticate.
Do you have any source material that makes being a cosmopolitan or a sophisticate worth noting and people will agree with you that it needs emulating? Do you think cosmopolitan and sophisticate are concepts with themes that have an established high-level presence? I'm not really sure I could say yes to both of those questions with barbarian (as I'm describing it, anyway), but I am sure it gets quite a bit closer.

Present in fiction from the Scarlet Pimpernel to Iron Man.

The term barbarian is popularised only because of a movie in the 80's, where the protagonist can only be loosely described as a barbarian. A slave, an educated gladiator, a thief and mercenary, but not exactly a barbarian, at least not as most fantasy games would describe them.

I think Conan the Cosmopolitan (alternate title: Carry on Conan) would be an awesome movie. Arnie prancing around in a powdered wig and puffy shirt, glove-slapping everyone and cutting people deep with derisive social commentary.

Just like 'barbarians', I think the foppish dandy concept is too broad in scope to be restricted to a single class.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:11 am

So, in the opening sequence they were fighting Germans and not French... got it. Still Europeans though, still white people.

The point I was mostly making was that it's extremely easy to have a concept of a "barbarian" that doesn't turn into some racist vision of a non-white native tribe that probably got trod on by white imperialism.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:23 am

Drolyt wrote:If you can't see the racist connotations of the term I don't think I can help you. The entire idea of barbarism is "my culture is better and more civilized than yours and you are bad". It is a Eurocentric concept that has little to do with reality. No actual primitive tribe looks a damn thing like the stereotypical fantasy barbarian.

Barbarian is not a eurocentric concept. The term derives from the Hellenistic city states, and basically meant "I can't understand what you're saying so clearly you're uncivilized." If anything it's hellenocentric.

But no one actually cares. Pretty much any culture one would level the descriptor of "barbarian" at would just sneer, quietly self-assured of the superiority of their own culture over the speaker. Everyone thinks their culture is the best culture.

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:32 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Barbarian is not a eurocentric concept. The term derives from the Hellenistic city states, and basically meant "I can't understand what you're saying so clearly you're uncivilized." If anything it's hellenocentric.

I was unaware that the Greek Polis were located outside of Europe. Thanks for clearing that up.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:40 am

Technically, yes, they were. They're in the Mediterranean. More importantly, calling it eurocentric implies that all of Europe does it (which, sure, they do, but no more than literally every other culture on earth).

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:51 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Technically, yes, they were. They're in the Mediterranean. More importantly, calling it eurocentric implies that all of Europe does it (which, sure, they do, but no more than literally every other culture on earth).

The issue is that the average person's conceptions of what is "barbaric" are Eurocentric. I shouldn't have to explain that.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:14 am

Do me a favor and define Eurocentric.

Sigil wrote:Just a personal anecdote: Barbarian to me sounds more generic, and could be used to describe a character inspired by ancheint Arabic, Asian, Central European, or whatever people. Berserker on the other hand makes me specifically think of the viking style berserker/barbarian. When someone says "berserker" I immediately think "badass sea-reaver". Hell, Reaver would actually be a pretty good class name too.

How can something Eurocentric encompass Arabic or Asian tribes and such, unless you have a different definition of the word than I do?

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:21 am

icyshadowlord wrote:Do me a favor and define Eurocentric.

Sigil wrote:Just a personal anecdote: Barbarian to me sounds more generic, and could be used to describe a character inspired by ancheint Arabic, Asian, Central European, or whatever people. Berserker on the other hand makes me specifically think of the viking style berserker/barbarian. When someone says "berserker" I immediately think "badass sea-reaver". Hell, Reaver would actually be a pretty good class name too.
How can something Eurocentric encompass Arabic or Asian tribes and such, unless you have a different definition of the word than I do?

I... are you being serious? It is a Eurocentric worldview. The problem is the highly inaccurate and offensive view of those people. It has nothing to do with the viewpoint of the people themselves.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:29 am

Drolyt wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:Technically, yes, they were. They're in the Mediterranean. More importantly, calling it eurocentric implies that all of Europe does it (which, sure, they do, but no more than literally every other culture on earth).
The issue is that the average person's conceptions of what is "barbaric" are Eurocentric. I shouldn't have to explain that.

The average american's conception of atheism includes untrustworthiness and evil. What's your point?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:33 am

Winnah wrote:Present in fiction from the Scarlet Pimpernel to Iron Man.

I think it is immediately clear by your own examples that cosmopolitan/sophisticate are in fact not the source of those character's powers. No one is suggesting that classes should be made for every possible background a character could have; the actual argument is that barbarian has come to include a set of themes (like the ones I described) that have very credible claims for deserving to be represented, and have room to be mechanically distinct from refluffs of other classes. It just so happens that by the virtue of the typical campaign setting, those themes have implications for the character background (in the same way being a wizard has implications of being educated).

Sigil · Post by **Sigil** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:38 am

Drolyt wrote:The issue is that the average person's conceptions of what is "barbaric" are Eurocentric. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Your original objection to the use of barbaric hinged on the original meaning being racist. Now you're saying only present-day connotations matter?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:39 am

Is everyone here a white atheist

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:40 am

Let's tackle this from another angle. Can someone explain to me what the hell a barbarian is?
Aside:

Sigil wrote:
Drolyt wrote:The issue is that the average person's conceptions of what is "barbaric" are Eurocentric. I shouldn't have to explain that.
Your original objection to the use of barbaric hinged on the original meaning being racist. Now you're saying only present-day connotations matter?

That was just a little etymology. Etymology is useful for understanding the meaning of a word, but ultimately what actually matters is what the word means to people who hear it. And if you are denying that what people imagine in their heads when they hear "barbarian" is an offensive stereotype of non-western cultures then I'm not sure what to say.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri May 31, 2013 5:44 am

Barbarian Hero