I'd also like to ask how many people can be described as going into a rage during battle, that aren't considered barbaric at some level. (And please don't give a number, give examples)
Fictional - the Battleragers, from RA Salvatore's books, dwarves who lived with other very typical dwarves. They essentially raged and their primary weapons were spiked/sharpened armor and a large head spike, they attacked by hurling themselves at opponents.
Real - there are a number of athletes that work themselves up pretty fiercely. For example defensive down linemen in football sometimes try this, at the professional level you see people who are pretty good at turning this on and off, though they always succeed on the off part, which is where you see some of the scuffles.
I've known more than a few individuals who use this approach to confrontations as well (one who used to be a down lineman as well). They aren't from a barbarian tribe, but if I were building them as a character barbarian would be the best fit.
It also feels like if you were describing real world peoples and using the "typical" barbarian (a raging warrior from a primitive or nomadic tribe) there's so few, that altering the basic trope of the class to be more inclusive doesn't hurt it at all. There's already expansions to the trope through archetypes (urban barbarian), that to me starting from the more inclusive concept is better than starting from the exclusive one.
A lot of this also stems from how I view design philosophy for RPG's. In my experience, class is usually the first or second choice you make for a character. At that point, I think the game should be making sure that your options are limitless in practice and in feel. You shouldn't have to search or try to twist your class choice to accommodate the character you have in mind, they should just naturally include what you're looking for. Once that first choice is made, follow up decisions should be prompted that help the player focus in on what it is they want.
Rereading the opening text of the Barbarian class reaffirms to me that Berserker would be a better choice. Berserker has a more primal feel to me, while Barbarian makes me think they're more common from certain parts of the map.
Once again Irontruth is much more articulate tha I am in the making of the point.
So I'm on board with the OP.However, I don't care that much... probably like the OP, who was likely just pinging the community for verification.
your correct Malingor.
I dont really expect some of these players to suddenly change their mind on the subject. but its fun to banter about.
....thus being on the side opposite of the point you are trying to make.
Not at all the opposite point of what I was trying to make. However, it is clear you missed or ignored the point I was trying to make (being you could argue the same debate about every class name so why not change them all - but that would lessen the overall experience of the game from what most people view the game and genre to be about. At some point you would have to use generic names to not have the same debate come up again and again over any name chosen, thus removing the mythological, historical, and popular culture from the game that it IS based on. That is why change for change's sake is not an improvement).
However, since you insist on quoting only selected sections of posts to support your own arguement, and often taking them out of context (which you have done twice with my own posts, not counting others) and ignoring or not addressing anything otherwise, it would seem we will just have to agree to disagree.
Fictional - the Battleragers, from RA Salvatore's books, dwarves who lived with other very typical dwarves. They essentially raged and their primary weapons were spiked/sharpened armor and a large head spike, they attacked by hurling themselves at opponents.
Real - there are a number of athletes that work themselves up pretty fiercely. For example defensive down linemen in football sometimes try this, at the professional level you see people who are pretty good at turning this on and off, though they always succeed on the off part, which is where you see some of the scuffles.
In the end I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I mean, I honestly know many people who would describe getting pumped to run at an enemy or opponent as barbaric and wild. What you perceive as inclusive, I perceive as exclusive and vice-versa.
I feel that you can describe a controlled rage. I've never heard berserk except at the extreme end. That's my opinion.
Conan's examples of "raging," I think, are more poetic license than his actual style of combat. (And on that note, Conan is known for being FAR more sneaky than any Barbarian build will get you...)
But then, I think it's ridiculous to say Drizzt has a level of Barbarian for the exact same reason, yet he doesn't get a level of Wizard, even though he mastered his 1st level training?
;)
....thus being on the side opposite of the point you are trying to make.
Not at all the opposite point of what I was trying to make. However, it is clear you missed or ignored the point I was trying to make (being you could argue the same debate about every class name so why not change them all - but that would lessen the overall experience of the game from what most people view the game and genre to be about. At some point you would have to use generic names to not have the same debate come up again and again over any name chosen, thus removing the mythological, historical, and popular culture from the game that it IS based on. That is why change for change's sake is not an improvement).
However, since you insist on quoting only selected sections of posts to support your own arguement, and often taking them out of context (which you have done twice with my own posts, not counting others) and ignoring or not addressing anything otherwise, it would seem we will just have to agree to disagree.
I quoted that part, cause you've tried to make the point (and I believe someone else did as well). But it's not a logical argument. You have not shown how the two concepts are directly linked, only how they are similar. By directly linked I mean a direct cause and effect. That it is impossible to change the Barbarian class name, without changing/affecting the Paladin class name. I see no such link.
I've already conceded that we are not changing the core rule book, so there is no slippery slope theory, which is also a logical fallacy. If you want to have a separate discussion about the other class names, we can do that if you like, I'm sure there are several classes that you'll be able to find a lot of takers (Oracle and Magus being examples that already have multiple older threads).
I mean, I honestly know many people who would describe getting pumped to run at an enemy or opponent as barbaric and wild.
I think there is a huge difference between barbaric and barbarian.
one describes a specific action or moment, the other is a more all encompasing description. its like the difference between saying some one 'did something stupid' or saying that the person 'IS stupid'.
just because your friend rages out and does something barbaric does not mean that they are barbarians, though if he always does it regularly you could say he is a berserker as in 'one who goes berserk'.
Fictional - the Battleragers, from RA Salvatore's books, dwarves who lived with other very typical dwarves. They essentially raged and their primary weapons were spiked/sharpened armor and a large head spike, they attacked by hurling themselves at opponents.
Real - there are a number of athletes that work themselves up pretty fiercely. For example defensive down linemen in football sometimes try this, at the professional level you see people who are pretty good at turning this on and off, though they always succeed on the off part, which is where you see some of the scuffles.
In the end I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I mean, I honestly know many people who would describe getting pumped to run at an enemy or opponent as barbaric and wild. What you perceive as inclusive, I perceive as exclusive and vice-versa.
I feel that you can describe a controlled rage. I've never heard berserk except at the extreme end. That's my opinion.
Yup, and it might be that I'm wrong. If you and I were designing this game, this would be something I'd want to test out to see where we get good reactions.
I'm also not married to changing it to Berserker. Something slightly softer, while still being evocative would be really good IMO.
Here, I'll respond to your whole post this time.
This is where your opinion obviously deviates. You would suggest changing the class name because of this reason quoted, yet, to me at least (and many others it seems based on posts so far), it seems easier just changing the generalized "adjective" you are using to describe a tribe of primitive, savage, or culturaly different peoples.
Your first suggestion is that it is easier to change the meaning of the word than it is to change which word we use. I don't think this is reasonable as people don't forget the old meaning just because you assign it a new one. Words carry ideas of things, not just the names of things and are supremely important to how we recognize and interact with the world. I'm not a linguist, but the little bit I know about language tells me that this idea will not work.
Personally, I would tend to use something more descriptive anyway, instead of merely calling a group or tribe "barbarians", I would tend to call them something distinctive or more proper in name such as "The Black Fang", "The Red Riders", or the "River People" to give the group a more interesting flavor or colorful description fitting their nature, unless it is a comment being made as some form of insult that is derogatory to said group (in which other adjectives could also be chosen other than simple "barbarian" to avoid such confusion or assumption).
This is a great suggestion for writing and GM'ing, but it completely sidesteps the issue of class names. Are you suggesting we change the class name to something like "The Black Fang"?
Also, if I'm GM'ing, telling my players that they see a group of The Black Fang, without additional information doesn't tell them much. One player might envision giant black snakes and another a group of assassins. If I say they see "members of The Black Fang, a barbarian snake cult", they're all going to be on a very similar visual page.
My point is that the word has a common usage and that common usage does not have the same meaning as the class name. The class name fits within the common usage, but it's only one aspect of it. It's trying to use a word to represent one part of itself.
I still don't understand the reasoning behind arguing the point that the class name should be changed simply because it has class features that doesn't fit a generalized term in the english language.
In that case...why don't we also advocate changing the class name of "Paladin". After all, the definition of a paladin is: any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne; any knightly or heroic champion; any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause. Surely there are several other classes that fit that bill. It could be argued that any class of PC adventurer could be a heroic champion or a defender of a noble cause. Not to mention, where does the class features of lay on hands, divine health, spellcasting, or channeling positive energy fit into this english language "definition" of a paladin?
Therefore, by your same logic, it too should be changed. It must be better to change it since leaving it is "wrong" in feel. We should just scrap the name regardless of what most people would argue a RPG Paladin is all about. Why not change all the class names while we are at it? (Hence my original parady post with class name changes.) Surely a similar arguement could be made for any of them. Where does it end?
This is the slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy.
At what point does change for change's sake take a fantasy game that is based on mythology and popular culture and turn it into a fantasy game in name only (losing the "feel" of what most would argue is the whole point of the genre in general)?
My $0.02.
You are implying that since something has been accepted for a certain length of time that it should not be changed. I disagree, very few things are perfect and if something isn't perfect people should be allowed to examine and discuss ways of improving it.
The mythology and popular culture that is included for references conflicts in more than one area. The Pathfinder core book is intended to be a setting neutral book.
Also, how exactly would changing the name Barbarian to Berserker lose the fantasy "feel"? I could definitely see that if I was suggesting Office Worker, but Berserker still feels setting appropriate to me.
I mean, I honestly know many people who would describe getting pumped to run at an enemy or opponent as barbaric and wild.I think there is a huge difference between barbaric and barbarian.
one describes a specific action or moment, the other is a more all encompasing description. its like the difference between saying some one 'did something stupid' or saying that the person 'IS stupid'.
just because your friend rages out and does something barbaric does not mean that they are barbarians, though if he always does it regularly you could say he is a berserker as in 'one who goes berserk'.
wat. @_o
You refute my point, but then you make my point. I don't see why someone who does something barbaric on a regular basis, who makes their whole shtick about doing something considered barbaric, could not be called a barbarian?
Yup, and it might be that I'm wrong. If you and I were designing this game, this would be something I'd want to test out to see where we get good reactions.
I'm also not married to changing it to berserker. Something slightly softer, while still being evocative would be really good IMO.
I know that a barbarian can be much more than the class and the class can be much more than a barbarian. I also feel that way about "berserker".
They are probably on equal grounding in the grand scheme of relevance, but I feel that the barbarian tribal nature is better supported between the history of the game and Pathfinder's rage powers, the lack of armor, and faster speed which I would have a hard time equating as justified for just any berserker. Yeah, I think if the game had embraced "berserker" from the beginning, filled it with all sorts of berserker flavor, etc, I would probably supporting it.
|
There's a major amount of futulity in this thread.
1. The original poster asked "why?". Problem is the folks who originally named the barbarian are mostly dead.
2. Berserkers were a specific class in 3.X, they were a special Prc of the Barbarian who basically cranked range up to Eleven with the cost of being absolutely uncontrollable at the time needing to make saving throws to avoid chopping up their friends and allies when they ran out of enemies to destroy.
3. In AD&D Berserking was also a specific type of cursed sword that would lead to situation 2 above. (one of those swords was responsible for the TPK of my first AD&D group)
Reason 3. is reason enough as to why the Berserker was not used as the name for the original version of this class.
Nice set of reasons... except, the most likely reason "Berserker" was not used (and probably never considered) for the 'original' class, is that the original class did not have any "rage" powers. As someone else has already pointed out-- "rage" does not show up as part of the Barbarian class until 3E. The class showed up in an AD&D 1 supplement (Unearthed Arcana-- not the same as the 3.5 variant rules book of the same name). For all the quoting and counter-quoting regarding Conan-- the AD&D 1 class looks like a very good effort to bring a "Conan" type character into the game... they are sneaky, good at climbing, have quite a few other useful skills... and with all the cookies they get, were probably just a little bit "broken", balance-wise (broke out the old books to take a look at it this morning... was amusing to see how much has changed).
Yeah, the AD&D Barbarian looks more like the 3.X Ranger.
I think that there is truth in these last few posts, the problem may be that the name of the class has not evolved with the class itself
The original barbarian was based on a Conan like character.
many of the abilities and such were based on this arch-type
that class eventually evolved into something else when they added rage powers and at this point the rage ability defines the class much more than any connection to a Conan like archtype.
I believe that at this point the name barbarian actually holds the class back because flavor wise people are still somewhat guided into thinking of the class as an uncivilized tribal brute and thus both players and developers are often limited to thinking about the class only in this way.
I believe that removing the name Barbarian from the class will allow the players and developers to explore the rage based combatant to a greater degree.
as noted above BERSERKER may not be the best choice of name there is perhaps something better, but barbarian is definitely not it.
In my opinion, it's not that big of a deal since system stuff is background stuff.
That said, I'd personally prefer Berserk for describing a rage based class. However, the class skill selection points toward wilderness, like stuff savage tribesmen should be able to do... (to be honest, I dislike the boundaries the existing classes set which is why I tend to multiclass often... but oh well, that another topic)
Another idea would be another name tough I have no good idea here ("Rager" sounds lame, eh?)
Generally, my reason to prefer Berserk is that in usual fantasy context Barbarian is also used as a term for savage people, that might actually be insulting for the "people who instead of speaking just make something like bar bar" translation just like calling inuit eskimos ("people who eat raw meat") but as a fact it is used that way.
Monks are a bad term for this reason too but oh well. As for other basically wrong used names like table round paladins and celtic priest bards, neither Camelot nor the celts exist in Golarion, no problem with that, and this terms are rarely seen in their original meaning (hey, Age of Empires features paladins as high level knights weee)
To add to the history talk, forget the stuff you think you know about historical berserkers, any historic evidence is covered in thick layers of myth about immortal animal warriors send by odin and giants.
The "guys with bear fur" translation is most likely wrong - bear fur does not offer enough defense for it's weight. Another translation would be "guys who fight without armor" (from "bare") since most likely they were light infantry.
Since they had no armor, they probably had shields (real world two handed warriors are most likely wearing heavy armors) and some displays even tie the raging ability to them biting in their shields
It's too late to move past it now. It was something that moved forward through the editions. You can house rule the name to something else, but something as big as a class name won't be changed. It is referenced in far too many places.
+1
Also for me, the term berserkeralso creates a picture of an uncivilized brute or possibly borderline insane person with little self control.
Historically speaking, berserkers probably were elite warriors in early medieval history with stuff like dutch kings and varangian guards at the byzantine court guarding the byzantine emperor, which means they were not that uncivilized - I guess it's the pop culture image of vikings as savage people, opposed to the real vikings.
But since we're in the context of fantasy games, the picture it creates is important, yeahNo, I never did say that nor imply it. However, I did imply that change for change's sake does not improve things, as in the example paradies of changing the class names for little reason or benefit.(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.
Who in this thread asked to change it for the sake of change?
The funny part about this is, it's pointless.
Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian" in every released book because someone doesn't feel like using rule 0 to deal with super simple aesthetic personal issues.
Divide the number of threads that brougth any change by the number of threads that tried.
The journey is it's own reward.I don't think it's the act of opening the discussion that causes people to berzerk at the idea. I think it's the act of trying to enforce a change/opinion to a concept that has held for years because one can't be content with just the simpler, cheaper(to paizo) solution of changing the fluff in the home game.
Enforce? In what way? Opening a discussion about what name is more appropriate for something is enforcing?
Actually berserkers were Norse Viking types .
The word came from the Berskers (bear shirts) that theses warriors, who either whipped themselves into a frenzy or did drugs, would wear into combat.
I've also heard that 'language name' applied to 'bare sarks', meaning shirtless, because barbarians from other cultures (like the Celts) sometimes went into battle skyclad.
So, the 'bear shirt' argument is just another language trope! ;)
===Aelryinth