PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I have actually almost never seen a barbarian that didn't have a totem, at numerous tables of PF1, in both home games and PFS games (and I know I have over 150 tables as a GM in PFS), so I based it on my experiences and those of others I've spoken with.
I mean one of the reasons I avoided Barbarians in PF1 was largely due to the problematic nature of the "Savage, Uncouth, Uncultured" stereotype that's kind of baked into the class. I get that we can't change the name of the class because of Conan, but I never really felt like I was able to do justice to "tribal societies" myself.
I mean, sure a good part of the concept for the Barbarian class is derived from Norse berserkers, some of whom are likely distant relatives of mine but the fylgjur (and hamingja I guess) are sort of conceptually distinct, since people aren't (to the norse) savage and violent because you have a wolf fylgja, they have a wolf fylgja because they are savage and violent.
So it's kind of weird, (and potentially appropriative?), from where I sit to RP as someone who has a "totem" because of the class they took even if they're just a rich kid from Absalom with anger issues who puts no particular stock in anything.
I'm gonna second the appropriative nature of the Barbarian as a whole, but it's so iconic and integral to fantasy gaming that it's unavoidable at this point. But the word "Totem" could be changed, I'm sure there's a word that fits the idea that would dodge issues of appropriation. "Catalyst" maybe? "Trigger" might also be technically accurate, although heavens to betsy using "Trigger" would probably not go over well on the internet dot com.