Atheism=/=Not believing in God's.
Except that's exactly what atheism is.
|
Please, let's not get into a stupid religious debate.
Long story short, a Barbarian who is so wary of arcane and divine powers that he believes gods are merely really, really strong people is a completely valid thing. It doesn't necessarily fall into the realm of atheism, but that's highly irrelevant, because this forum is about Pathfinder, not existentialism.
Barbarian, Paladin, even Monk all classes in this game are only limited by ones imagination.
Atheism=/=Not believing in Gods.
I think you're confusing Atheism and Agnosticism.
But this is somewhat off track and I apologize.
Battlerager I think is still a good alternative.
Or Juggernaut since he generally fills the tank role?
Atheism: The opposite of theism. Denies one or all of the three main aspects (existence, ruler-ship, revelation).
I disagree a bit with this. "Denying" insinuates actively saying "there is no such thing as". I think "Has no belief in" would be a more correct description - after all, you can lack belief in something without actively denying it. For example, "I really have no idea if there's a god or not, so there's really no god that I believe in".
Atheism is a statement of faith, not on the existence of gods.
BattleragerI like this better than the original "Rager" suggestion, at least.
yea... battlerager works. its a mouthfull but gets the job done.
Barbarian, Paladin, even Monk all classes in this game are only limited by ones imagination.
not really... a paladin is a pretty specific thing. maybe you have different kinds of paladins but paladins are pretty straightforward...
monk is less locked in than paladin... i would call the monk Simpy martial artist and make the Ki bassed monk an archetype with sub archetypes (kind of like cavalier is a fighter archetype with sub archetypes)
barbarian on the other hand... is just WAY too open IMHO. at the absolute very least the barbarian class write up could be written in such a way that its not so specific. ... but doing so would mean that the write up has to focus more on the rage mechanic... which makes changing the name to (Battle)Rager makes a lot more sense.
The better term for Barbarian may actually be Fighter.
I think the class is significantly different enough to warent its own core class... just like the sorcerer is different enough to not simply be called magic user.
A Paladin can be more than what most people think of.
It can easily be used for say a Crusader or a Knight in a Religious kingdom.
Fighters are normally called Soldiers or Warriors in my campaign world.
yea... what I mean is a paladin is always a religious warrior. by the nature of the name, abilities, rules and characterization a paladin is always some rightious force for good or god.
a paladins primary difference is that they have all kinds of divine powers that their character is wraped around.
a barbarians defining characteristic is that they are uncivilized or otherwise live outside of the norms of someones civilization. that does not in any way describe their
Battleragers defining characteristic is that they can channel the power of their rage into supper human feats in battle. it does not matter if they are an uncivilized half human brute that cannibalizes his victims or a dandy elf noble that likes to paint pictures of faries but in battle channels his rage over the desecration of nature into super human feats.
basically what I am saying is that a player class should be named after its abilities or roleplay role, not its social status.
Paladins don't have to be religious warriors.
A barbarian could simply be a person who chooses to go against the norms of their civilization.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still baffled as to how one can be an Atheist in a world where gods will sometimes deign to come down and kick your ass 7 ways from Tuesday to set the record straight.
I can't imagine people in a fantasy world, with even less consistent rules of physics, would be any better adjusted than people in this world, who believe all sorts of ridiculous stuff.
There are still flat earthers, for instance, to pick a relatively un-controversial low-hanging fruit as example.
And even if the various 'gods' exist, the fact that, in Golarion, any old demon lord, archdevil or even *wannabe* demon lord or archdevil (nascent this or malebranche or harbringer that), can grant spells and empower clerics, kind of makes it even easier to believe that the so-called 'gods' are just a bunch of pretentious outsiders with delusions of grandeur, since there literally *are* pretentious outsiders with delusions of grandeur that can do the same 'godly' things they can.
BattleragerI like this better than the original "Rager" suggestion, at least.
Ditto. Although I remember battleragers being those dwarven berserkers from 2nd edition that drank gutshaker before going into battle.
BattleragerI like this better than the original "Rager" suggestion, at least.Ditto. Although I remember battleragers being those dwarven berserkers from 2nd edition that drank gutshaker before going into battle.
There was also a battlerager prestige class for dwarves in 3.x
However i don't like the name. Yeah it describes what the class does (at leas one thing of it) but i think it sounds off and doesnt fit with the usual base class naming conventions.
We also don't call the rogue sneakattacker.
good point... I am back to rager LOL
I usually call that kind of people Fighters with tantrum issues.
Class names are, mostly, irrerlevant. I am getting ready to play, for examle, a priest of Nethys. I am utilizing the Witch class to play said priest. I have also played a "Barbarian" who was a martial artist monk, and have a society character who, according to his character sheet, is a Ninja but he is a Sczarni rogue from Ustalav who simply has an odd connection to shadows.
Bottom line you could chage the Barbarian to Farfignugan and it wouldn't change a thing.
/shrug
That works well for people who are already experienced in roleplaying in general and D&Dish games in particular. However, for first-time roleplayers or those who might have played a bit of RPGs but in other genres/playstyles (World Of Darkness, Shadowrun or similar) it might be off-putting.
When I looked into playing a game set in current times, I first went to d20 modern. Their class names are stuff like "smart hero", "tough hero" and "strong hero". Now, I've been playing/DMing for almost a decade but I still didn't really "feel" the system and I think that was part of the reason. For someone who's just played a few games of Ars Magika and are weighing between d20 Modern, Shadowrun and GURPS, it might make a huge difference.
In some cases abstractions are good - for example I would've preferred a shorter weapons list where mostly-identical weapons where folded into one (do we need both a sickle and a kama?), but words still send signals.
A new player looking at the list of classes to pick from, if ze wanted to play, say, a war veteran so damaged by the brutality of the war that ze loses control when threatened, seeing the options of "fighter, ranger, rogue, monk, farfignugan, paladin" - what do you think it will pick?
I couldnt have said it better myself... in fact I didnt.
Lumiere, I just love how magical girls keep entering the barbarian discussion.
Have you seen what some of those 'magic' girls can do when they are angry enough?
Generally explained by MAGIC.
As far as I'm aware, a Mahou Shoujo has never gotten FRICKIN' PISSED bludgeoned the bad guy to death with her bare hands and/or magic wand. Maybe in Nanoha, but I think that's more ORBITAL LASER than rage-induced asskicking.
There have been a few... Though it really wasn't the bad guy... more of their boyfriend or friend-who-is-a-boy. They then usually use magic to save them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say leave it be. After a while a player will start to evolve and gain the ability to take the class and make it their own.
|
|
The barbarian is a brutal berserker from beyond the edge of civilized lands.
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
Role: Barbarians excel in combat, possessing the martial prowess and fortitude to take on foes seemingly far superior to themselves. With rage granting them boldness and daring beyond that of most other warriors, barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way.
Again, how is any of this different from what the class does? I can understand trying to argue that other names fit better, but to claim this one does not match the fluff is silly.
The Barbarian class is not something every barbarian tribesman has, because it's a class, an abstraction. Two things that share the same name are not necessarily related.
TL;DR: The Barbarian FIGHTS like a barbarian, and that's why he's called the barbarian.
|
|
But that's the point: He doesn't fight like a barbarian. He fights like a berserker. He doesn't fight like a Mongol tribesman. He doesn't fight like an American Indian. He doesn't fight like a Zulu warrior. Or any other iconic barbarian image except the berserker.
You're splitting hairs. To claim the Barbarian class does not act like a barbarian is an intensely inane arguement. Of course it does, and "well X Culture isn't represented by it," isn't remotely enough to back up your argument. There are most certainly no American Indians or Zulu tribesmen in Golarion, for example.
But that's the point: He doesn't fight like a barbarian. He fights like a berserker. He doesn't fight like a Mongol tribesman. He doesn't fight like an American Indian. He doesn't fight like a Zulu...
Magus doesn't accurately represent the Magi in the Bible
Pls change name
|
|
But that's the point: He doesn't fight like a barbarian. He fights like a berserker. He doesn't fight like a Mongol tribesman. He doesn't fight like an American Indian. He doesn't fight like a Zulu warrior. Or any other iconic barbarian image except the berserker.You're splitting hairs. To claim the Barbarian class does not act like a barbarian is an intensely inane arguement. Of course it does, and "well X Culture isn't represented by it," isn't remotely enough to back up your argument. There are most certainly no American Indians or Zulu tribesmen in Golarion, for example.No of course there aren't.
And there are no Egyptians or Vikings or Chinese or Japanese or any other real world culture either. But there are nations and cultures in Golarion that draw from those cultures. So drawing parallels to real world barbarian cultures is useful, because those are what many people are going to think of when they think of barbarian. That and Conan, I suppose.
I'm not sure why it's an inane argument. The core feature of the Barbarian is his Rage. That reflects the berserker very well, even if it's not quite the same. Not all, in fact not many, barbarian groups in the real world have that concept as part of their culture.
Maybe they all do in Golarion. If so, I suspect that's because of the class and thus illustrates the problem.
Again, I'm not seeing where this problem is. The Barbarian class does absolutely what it says on the tin. See below.
Another way to think of it is similar to the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers or Clerics and Oracles. Wizard/Cleric/Fighter attain their skills through study and training while Sorc/Oracle/Barb do it by intuition and natural talent. "Barbarian" refers to the "uncivilized" but that's only uncivilized from the perspective of a culture that considers itself highly civilized. This is how the Romans (highly civilized, widespread empire) viewed non-Romans. It's the same as how people view "old money" vs "new money" or "classically trained" vs "progressive innovation". The classically trained Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric will "look down" on the Barbarian, Sorcerer, or Oracle mucking about on their own. The Fighter is the planning tactician while the Barbarian is Leeroy Jenkins. We call the Barbarian "uneducated" and "uncivilized" because they don't follow rules of engagement, they don't use strategy or tactics, they act on emotion, etc. but the Barbarian gets in there and gets things done. While the Fighter is planning, the Barbarian is busy wiping the blood of his first kill off his blade. That's why the civilized Fighter calls him a Barbarian.
This is 100% the case. Maybe other names would suit the class better, but there's absolutely no reason to say that a Barbarian needs to have its name changed because it doesn't represent a handful of real-world cultures. If you don't like it, don't call it that in your game. Even in Golarion, a Barbarian would likely refer to himself as a Warrior or a Berserker or some such title. But that doesn't mean that the name absolutely restricts them from playing someone from those cultures you suggested... you know, beyond the unrestrained rage-powered hate-smashing things.
So what if it means that people new to the game tend to play the bloodthirsty savage type of Barbarian? As they get comfortable with the system, they'll realize they aren't completely restrained by fluff, and that it's there to suggest, not command.
Thief changed to Rogue for much of the same reasons that people support the idea of Berserker over Barbarian.
Interestingly enough I think there are very few people who would suggest that the old way was better for some reason.
its not that you cant play the character how ever you like, and its not that the original name is totally wrong.
its simply that the original name is too restrictive in a flavor sense.
can you get over it? of course...
does it ruin the game? of course not...
would changing the name make the class itself significantly better or worse... not really.
The main point of the people who like the of berserker over barbarian is purely for aesthetics and more open ended character design. This is a significant factor to those players.
while the ones who oppose generally do so on the argument that the name does not matter... if thats the case, If you truly believe the name does not matter. then why oppose the idea of a change?
|
|
Thief changed to Rogue for much of the same reasons that people support the idea of Berserker over Barbarian.
Interestingly enough I think there are very few people who would suggest that the old way was better for some reason.
its not that you cant play the character how ever you like, and its not that the original name is totally wrong.
its simply that the original name is too restrictive in a flavor sense.
can you get over it? of course...
does it ruin the game? of course not...
would changing the name make the class itself significantly better or worse... not really.The main point of the people who like the of berserker over barbarian is purely for aesthetics and more open ended character design. This is a significant factor to those players.
while the ones who oppose generally do so on the argument that the name does not matter... if thats the case, If you truly believe the name does not matter. then why oppose the idea of a change?
I'm not arguing that the name shouldn't be changed for fluff reasons. I'm arguing it shouldn't be changed solely because the Barbarian class is apparently not barbarian-y. Which is is.
The fluff part, I don't really care about. I'm not arguiung that Berserker or Battlerager or Magical g#&*~+n Girl don't fit better, and I won't, because that's completely subjective. In my opinion, I prefer Barbarian to the other options, and I'm totally okay with other people disagreeing. I even actively want them to, because I'm bored and need something to discuss.
But to say a Barbarian doesn't fight like (some) barbarians is wrong and silly and various other things I'd like to say but won't in the interest of civility (observe: I am not a barbarian!).
I'm not arguing that the name shouldn't be changed for fluff reasons. I'm arguing it shouldn't be changed solely because the Barbarian class is apparently not barbarian-y. Which is is.
then this may be our fundamental difference.
my argument is not that the barbarian is not "barbarian-y" enough. My point is that the class is more than the image that barbarian generally conjures and thus should have a name that is more open and flexible in order to represent the greater potential of the class.
I suppose barbarians rage could also be used to model the Warp Spasm of Irish Mythology, though possibly Druid Wild Shape would make more sense for that given its meant to be a physical transformation.
Lycanthropy is a better fit for that. And it was all Celtic Mythologies not just Irish. Though in most others it bore other names over Warp Spasm.
Berserkers weren't screaming mad men. The screaming mad men image was propaganda. In fact it tended to be the opposite with them singing.
You want a true Berserker either make a class or archetype that combines the Barbarian and Bard classes.
Dude...RPG Rule # 75, Section 3, Subsection 14, Article 1, Paragraph 19, Point 6: There must ALWAYS be a "wild" race/class that hails from the fridged (sp) northlands...or hot, jungley southlands, etc.