| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they go the "Berserker based in norse culture"-route I really hope they get some native to Northern Europe writing the class, and not some Seattle-dude.
I really doubt that particular group will be much bothered by not getting to write the class given what's been done with Thor in recent years. It'll be much the same as what Japanese people, as opposed to Japanese Americans, thought about the whole Ghost in the Shell controversy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My love for you is like a truck BEZERKER
I am going to be honest, I don't prefer Berserker, because frankly that word is almost as loaded with historical weirdness as "Barbarian". And in a way that entrenches the class in things that I would rather see opened up.
I love Rage as a class mechanic, but I dislike Rage as a locked in flavor for that class mechanic. I would rather see done away with and replaced with something like "Battle Trance". A state where your mind focuses in on pure battle at the expense of other things. Rage may be one of the things that sends a character into a Battle Trance, but so may extreme discipline, meditation, letting the spirits of your ancestors/a dragon/a giant take over for you, or any of a variety of other things.
I think this idea as a whole would make the class more interesting, and would allow for more varied types of Barbarians. And I think it would make the term Barbarian less objectionable as it would decouple the idea of native people with mindless rage.
Berserker feels like it would reinforce the idea of the class as a rager in the collective consciousness rather than allow it more room to breath.
"Battle Trance" instead of rage would fit what Berserkers were described as just as much as rage could. For example what you say here:
...letting the spirits of your ancestors/a dragon/a giant take over for you, or any of a variety of other things.
This is basically exactly what Berserkers did. The term fixes your issue!
If they go the "Berserker based in norse culture"-route I really hope they get some native to Northern Europe writing the class, and not some Seattle-dude.
They could end up doing a worse job than "some dude from Seattle" frankly. Modern people in Norway, Sweden, Demark, or Iceland don't have special access to knowledge about their ancient cultures and traditions any more than any other modern person. In all cases anthropologists and linguistics, and whatever other fields are concerned, know the most and many of them are not Northern Europeans
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can add me in those who dislike Berserker. Barbarian also means uncivilized, and it's made quite clear by the existence of the Urban Barbarian in previous edition and by instincts like Superstition and Animal. Berzerkers are not uncivilized, they are vikings. It's not the same fantasy. Also, berzerker rage is supposed to be drug induced and uncontrollable which is not the case of the Barbarian.
If Paizo ever wants to change the term, I'm fine with that. But I hope they'll find a word that carries a more interesting fantasy than berserker.
|
"Barbarian" comes from Greek, before the Romans picked up the word later on. And originally referred to someone who didn't speak Greek.
Berserking on the other hand is really a pretty small part of Norse culture, maybe it's too culture-specific to use as a name for a class that's supposed to work for more than just that one culture?
Perfect. Almost nobody but Biblical Scholars and people from Greece speak Greek so it's an incredibly broad term that encapsulates almost all of us. Broad strokes and all are great for classes I think.
...right?
|
|
“Barbarian” is whatever on its own merit. It’s a word with a long legacy in the fantasy space, but it doesn’t have any actual connection definitionally to be an unarmored berserk warrior - so why call the class that?
Where things get really thorny, however, is placing them in the world. Golarion has a great many nations inspired by those on Earth, and when you start saying things like “Fantasy Africa has many Barbarians” or “Fantasy Vietnam makes more Barbarians than Fighters.” I don’t like that the Barbarian class acts as an indicator of how ‘civilized’ a people are meant to be, and if that’s not the intent… then again, the Barbarian name is worthless here.
I think “the guy who goes berserk” as the defining class trait should be called Berserker.
Ironically I don't think Barbarians do unarmored very well here. They seem to in 5e, but not here. Which I find interesting and somewhat frustrating.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can add me in those who dislike Berserker. Barbarian also means uncivilized, and it's made quite clear by the existence of the Urban Barbarian in previous edition and by instincts like Superstition and Animal. Berzerkers are not uncivilized, they are vikings. It's not the same fantasy. Also, berzerker rage is supposed to be drug induced and uncontrollable which is not the case of the Barbarian.
If Paizo ever wants to change the term, I'm fine with that. But I hope they'll find a word that carries a more interesting fantasy than berserker.
Barbarians aren't uncivilized either. You listed two instincts that might be considered as such, but even those don't mean uncivilized.
Barbarians aren't uncivilized either. You listed two instincts that might be considered as such, but even those don't mean uncivilized.You can add me in those who dislike Berserker. Barbarian also means uncivilized, and it's made quite clear by the existence of the Urban Barbarian in previous edition and by instincts like Superstition and Animal. Berzerkers are not uncivilized, they are vikings. It's not the same fantasy. Also, berzerker rage is supposed to be drug induced and uncontrollable which is not the case of the Barbarian.
If Paizo ever wants to change the term, I'm fine with that. But I hope they'll find a word that carries a more interesting fantasy than berserker.
Right.
One of my favorite PC concepts is an Elf Barbarian whose Deer Instinct reflects his ties to The Wild Hunt and the courts of the Sidhe. He's quite the civilized hunter, albeit with a primal essence.(I keep returning the word "primal" when considering this except of course the word already has a major role in PF2. Dang it! Also its synonyms fail to resonate well. Double darn.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians aren't uncivilized either. You listed two instincts that might be considered as such, but even those don't mean uncivilized.
Natural, low tech, call it the way you want. There are for examples countless barbarians in Numeria and still no tech oriented instinct (that would certainly fit the Alchemist more than the Barbarian). Barbarians don't mesh very well with cities, technology, magic, etc...
The word barbarian is used in the setting and the class is supposed to represent their warriors. For example, the Tiger Lord Barbarians from Kingmaker have Barbarian levels. So there's a connection between being called a barbarian (in natural english) and having Barbarian levels. It's because of this connection that the class is called Barbarian and calling it berserker will lose this connection, making berserker an improper name to encompass the class.
It's bit like renaming the Wizard a caster, it will work as all Wizards are casters, but the Wizard class encompasses more than just casting spells.
Shame that battlerager is a 5e subclass
Unleashed or unfettered soldier?
The main concept is that they gain power by releasing some control. Would work just as well if it was releasing ki, Magic or anger.
I could also see it being presented in a potentially more favorable way if you instead make it they channel their power in a specific way.
Regardless, the concept would be that they enter an altered state that gives them advantages in damage potential but has drawbacks.
Bloodrager could also work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloodrager could also work.
But wouldn't peeople then complain it's not like the 1e version, as with warpriest?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s no tech oriented ANYTHING outside the Gunslinger and Inventor.Barbarians aren't uncivilized either. You listed two instincts that might be considered as such, but even those don't mean uncivilized.Natural, low tech, call it the way you want. There are for examples countless barbarians in Numeria and still no tech oriented instinct
Barbarians don't mesh very well with cities, technology, magic, etc...
What game are you playing cause it definitely isn’t Pathfinder?
The word barbarian is used in the setting and the class is supposed to represent their warriors. For example, the Tiger Lord Barbarians from Kingmaker have Barbarian levels. So there's a connection between being called a barbarian (in natural english) and having Barbarian levels.One NPC from one AP does not define an entire class.
It's because of this connection that the class is called BarbarianNo it’s not.
and calling it berserker will lose this connection, making berserker an improper name to encompass the class.Hmm, should the class be named after the mechanic it uses, or an NPC from an AP that no one cares about (the npc not the ap).
It's bit like renaming the Wizard a caster, it will work as all Wizards are casters, but the Wizard class encompasses more than just casting spells.
Point out all the other classes that use Rage then. Go on.
|
|
You can add me in those who dislike Berserker. Barbarian also means uncivilized, and it's made quite clear by the existence of the Urban Barbarian in previous edition and by instincts like Superstition and Animal.And it’s made quite Clear by Giant, Spirit, Dragon, and Fury they are civilized. Checkmate.
But I hope they'll find a word that carries a more interesting fantasy than berserker.
… do you even know what the class does? Why people play it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One NPC from one AP does not define an entire class.
It's not one NPC in one AP, it's the reason of the Barbarian class: It's used to represent uncivilized warriors. The same way the Rogue class is used to represent roguish characters. That's the case for most classes: the name doesn't represent their mechanics but what character they represent in the world.
Like it or not, but Barbarian is a proper name.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I would ask everyone's favourite AI for some help
Prompt:
"Hey ChatGPT, could you come up with a list of alternative names for the for the Barbarian class in Pathfinder that don't have a historical context wherein the term has been used to dehumanize and justify the oppression of indigenous peoples and cultures?"ChatGPT:
"Certainly, here are some additional alternative names for the D&D class "Barbarian" that do not have a historical context of oppression or dehumanization:
Furyborn
Berserk
Savageheart
Titan
Warforged
Outlander
Brute
Gladiator
Fury
Ravager
Thunderer
Outcast
Wildheart
Marauder
Beastlord
Thunderbolt
RampagerThese names are meant to evoke the raw, primal nature of the class without relying on cultural stereotypes or insensitive terminology. However, it's important to keep in mind that the impact of language can vary based on cultural and historical context, so it's always a good idea to be respectful and considerate when creating or selecting names for fictional characters or concepts. "
I actually like quite a few of these!
Obviously the "savage" part of Savageheart leaves something to be desired, Wildheart is neat.
I also like the feel of Furyborn and Outlander.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One NPC from one AP does not define an entire class.It's not one NPC in one AP, it's the reason of the Barbarian class: It's used to represent uncivilized warriors. The same way the Rogue class is used to represent roguish characters. That's the case for most classes: the name doesn't represent their mechanics but what character they represent in the world.
Like it or not, but Barbarian is a proper name.
So to check, what is an "uncivilized warrior" and why do they all have fighting style of berserkers?
|
|
That is not the reason of the class. Your personal aesthetic is meaningless.One NPC from one AP does not define an entire class.It's not one NPC in one AP, it's the reason of the Barbarian class: It's used to represent uncivilized warriors.
The same way the Rogue class is used to represent roguish characters.Rogue is actually accurate though, or at least more accurate.
That's the case for most classes: the name doesn't represent their mechanics but what character they represent in the world.
Like it or not, but Barbarian is a proper name.
It is not. The Class’s mechanic is Rage. You have this personal preference that is some uncivilized nature class that you’re trying to enforce on everyone. That is not what the class is about. One Instinct is Nature -ish, one Instinct is anti-magic, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the class states they have to be anti-civilization or must be in the wilds. That’s flavor you made up and are trying to force on everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it’s made quite Clear by Giant
Let's take the iconic Giant Barbarian: "There are a million ways to die in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. The natives of this brutal land are the nomadic Kellids, and they have made the best of this primal world. Amiri1 (pronounced ah-MEE-ree) is one of these barbarians." from the wiki.
Nomadic is in general linked to lower level of civilization. And once again the word barbarian used in the basic English meaning. So, yes, Giant Barbarians are uncivilized warriors.
So to check, what is an "uncivilized warrior" and why do they all have fighting style of berserkers?
For the same reasons thieves have Sneak Attack: because the class meant to represent them has it as a class feature.
That’s flavor you made up and are trying to force on everyone else.
In 3rd edition, Barbarians were even illiterate. You are the one with lack of knowledge about the class.
Their point, I think, is that if "Urban Barbarian" proves they're normally uncivilized (since they have to make subclasses specifically to enable a city slicker berserker), the abundance of "rural" barbarian subclasses suggests that those barbarians are likewise considered deviations from the "default". The default barbarian is neither urban nor rural--she's just a lady who rages and hits things hard.
For what it's worth, I think that citing the Urban Barbarian, which you acknowledge isn't in this edition, really isn't relevant and shouldn't be a part of your argument. After all, we're talking about renaming the class as it is now, not as it was back in the editions when stuff like "barbarians are illiterate and have to be nonlawful" was a part of the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it’s made quite Clear by GiantLet's take the iconic Giant Barbarian: "There are a million ways to die in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. The natives of this brutal land are the nomadic Kellids, and they have made the best of this primal world. Amiri1 (pronounced ah-MEE-ree) is one of these barbarians." from the wiki.
Nomadic is in general linked to lower level of civilization. And once again the word barbarian used in the basic English meaning. So, yes, Giant Barbarians are uncivilized warriors.
That is uh... Very incorrect statement history research wise and sounds like what typical british movie villain set in historical drama would say.
So to check, what is an "uncivilized warrior" and why do they all have fighting style of berserkers?For the same reasons thieves have Sneak Attack: because the class meant to represent them has it as a class feature.
That’s flavor you made up and are trying to force on everyone else.In 3rd edition, Barbarians were even illiterate. You are the one with lack of knowledge about the class.
You might have point for D&D 1e, 2e or 3e barbarian, but not really for Pathfinder 2e barbarian which is described as "Rage consumes you in battle. You delight in wreaking havoc and using powerful weapons to carve through your enemies, relying on astonishing durability without needing complicated techniques or rigid training. Your rages draw upon a vicious instinct, which you might associate with an animal, a spirit, or some part of yourself. To many barbarians, brute force is a hammer and every problem looks like a nail, whereas others try to hold back the storm of emotions inside them and release their rage only when it matters most."
Aka it has nothing to do with what kind of culture you live in 2e.
(sidenote, is it true that 0D&D precursor for barbarian was actually called berserker? That seems funny to me considering I don't think 1e and 2e barbarians had rage since they were subclass of fighter, D&D 3e was the one that added berserker rage to them I think?)
The best name for a given class is the one that most accurately describes "what a member of this class is like".
The problem with name Barbarian is that the word connotes "uncivilized" but the class is actually about "rage". There are, after all, many members of "uncivilized" groups that are honestly pretty chill and there are a lot of extremely civilized people with an anger problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it’s made quite Clear by GiantLet's take the iconic Giant Barbarian: "There are a million ways to die in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. The natives of this brutal land are the nomadic Kellids, and they have made the best of this primal world. Amiri1 (pronounced ah-MEE-ree) is one of these barbarians." from the wiki.
Nomadic is in general linked to lack of civilization. And once again the word barbarian used in the basic English meaning. So, yes, Giant Barbarians are uncivilized warriors.
Ooof. The Mongolians would like to have a word with you. It's a very Western world-view to think that horse-peoples (and other pastoralists) and hunter-gatherers don't have civilizations. Like are cowboys uncivilized? What migrant farm-laborers?
Sure. But no where is the name of a class a feature of the class...So to check, what is an "uncivilized warrior" and why do they all have fighting style of berserkers?For the same reasons thieves have Sneak Attack: because the class meant to represent them has it as a class feature.
Just to be clear, modern mongolia as country is a civilization, the yuan dynasty was a civilization. However various nomadic people in the steppe don't have a civilization, but they do have societies. By and large I would say that civilization=good in all cases is the bad ideological assumption, not that calling something uncivilized is the bad thing. Calling something uncivilized makes assumptions about what we should value and that we should value civilization. This isn't to say primitivism is desirable, or that something which isn't a civilization is primitive. I am just pointing to how "civilization" means class society. Rigid social roles like man and woman, black and white, working class and capitalist class, or in feudalism serfs, landlords, priests, and monarchs. Deleuze and Guittari have work responding to another guy, forget the name, about non-state societies and another related concept called "the war machine". Basically the division between state societies "civilization" and non-state societies (Barbarians) is the difference between rigid and supple segmentation. How fluid and dynamic social relations are. States require rigidity in social roles, and non-state require these break up and change around. Like I've said before, my issue with the term barbarian is it doesn't describe the class in that so-called barbarians are not all warriors, and not every Barbarian, as was rightly stated, is from a non-state society. Not all of them are "uncivilized". Consider the actual real world idea of berserker, the old Norse culture they would be a part of was a civilization, it was a state society. These people were "civilized"
|
|
Just to be clear, modern mongolia as country is a civilization, the yuan dynasty was a civilization. However various nomadic people in the steppe don't have a civilization, but they do have societies. By and large I would say that civilization=good in all cases is the bad ideological assumption, not that calling something uncivilized is the bad thing. Calling something uncivilized makes assumptions about what we should value and that we should value civilization. This isn't to say primitivism is desirable, or that something which isn't a civilization is primitive. I am just pointing to how "civilization" means class society. Rigid social roles like man and woman, black and white, working class and capitalist class, or in feudalism serfs, landlords, priests, and monarchs. Deleuze and Guittari have work responding to another guy, forget the name,...And it’s made quite Clear by GiantLet's take the iconic Giant Barbarian: "There are a million ways to die in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. The natives of this brutal land are the nomadic Kellids, and they have made the best of this primal world. Amiri1 (pronounced ah-MEE-ree) is one of these barbarians." from the wiki.
Nomadic is in general linked to lack of civilization. And once again the word barbarian used in the basic English meaning. So, yes, Giant Barbarians are uncivilized warriors.
Ooof. The Mongolians would like to have a word with you. It's a very Western world-view to think that horse-peoples (and other pastoralists) and hunter-gatherers don't have civilizations. Like are cowboys uncivilized? What migrant farm-laborers?
Sure. But no where is the name of a class a feature of the class...So to check, what is an "uncivilized warrior" and why do they all have fighting style of berserkers?For the same reasons thieves have Sneak Attack: because the class meant to represent them has it as a class feature.
Ah, is that so? Though I think the "civilized" people using "uncivilized" as insult has kinda made lot of people's understanding of what "civilization" means something different. Either way yeah it just reinforces that either way barbarian's class name doesn't describe the modern description of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m writing down The Rager for my next fantasy heartbreaker.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, modern mongolia as country is a civilization, the yuan dynasty was a civilization. However various nomadic people in the steppe don't have a civilization, but they do have societies. By and large I would say that civilization=good in all cases is the bad ideological assumption, not that calling something uncivilized is the bad thing. Calling something uncivilized makes assumptions about what we should value and that we should value civilization. This isn't to say primitivism is desirable, or that something which isn't a civilization is primitive. I am just pointing to how "civilization" means class society. Rigid social roles like man and woman, black and white, working class and capitalist class, or in feudalism serfs, landlords, priests, and monarchs. Deleuze and Guittari have work responding to another guy, forget the name,...
I think you're conflating civilization with agrarian societies. The people you're calling 'uncivilized' have all the hallmarks of civilization. They've got language, traditions, a system of self-sustenance, social rules, social roles, and a mastery of the technology they use to sustain themselves. They all just look different to someone whose used to conflating agrarian civilizations to non-agrarian ones.
To bring it all the way back to Pathfinder.
I can play a Shaonti wizard who would be (as far as the Order of the Nail is concerned) a Barbarian. Mechanically, she's no different than any other wizard despite having studied with her people's wizards and not in Korvosa.
I can play a gambler from Korvosa whose a sore loser and who gets into barfights all the time and now adventures to pay off gambling debts and bar tabs. She's from 'civilization' and is mechanically a fury instinct barbarian, but has no ties to the cultures regularly called 'barbarians'
And that's sorta the problem with the name.
Barbarians, as description assigned to groups of people, has nothing to do with with the character class Barbarians save when people play a Barbarian Barbarian.
Just to be clear, modern mongolia as country is a civilization, the yuan dynasty was a civilization. However various nomadic people in the steppe don't have a civilization, but they do have societies. By and large I would say that civilization=good in all cases is the bad ideological assumption, not that calling something uncivilized is the bad thing. Calling something uncivilized makes assumptions about what we should value and that we should value civilization. This isn't to say primitivism is desirable, or that something which isn't a civilization is primitive. I am just pointing to how "civilization" means class society. Rigid social roles like man and woman, black and white, working class and capitalist class, or in feudalism serfs, landlords, priests, and monarchs. Deleuze and Guittari have work responding to another guy, forget the name,...I think you're conflating civilization with agrarian societies. The people you're calling 'uncivilized' have all the hallmarks of civilization. They've got language, traditions, a system of self-sustenance, social rules, social roles, and a mastery of the technology they use to sustain themselves. They all just look different to someone whose used to conflating agrarian civilizations to non-agrarian ones.
This is exactly in line with what I said?
|
|
This is exactly in line with what I said?Just to be clear, modern mongolia as country is a civilization, the yuan dynasty was a civilization. However various nomadic people in the steppe don't have a civilization, but they do have societies. By and large I would say that civilization=good in all cases is the bad ideological assumption, not that calling something uncivilized is the bad thing. Calling something uncivilized makes assumptions about what we should value and that we should value civilization. This isn't to say primitivism is desirable, or that something which isn't a civilization is primitive. I am just pointing to how "civilization" means class society. Rigid social roles like man and woman, black and white, working class and capitalist class, or in feudalism serfs, landlords, priests, and monarchs. Deleuze and Guittari have work responding to another guy, forget the name,...I think you're conflating civilization with agrarian societies. The people you're calling 'uncivilized' have all the hallmarks of civilization. They've got language, traditions, a system of self-sustenance, social rules, social roles, and a mastery of the technology they use to sustain themselves. They all just look different to someone whose used to conflating agrarian civilizations to non-agrarian ones.
Unless I grossly misread it, you conflated non-agrarian civilizations with being uncivilized. They still are civilizations, just different than agrarian ones.
|
|
Barbarians aren't uncivilized either. You listed two instincts that might be considered as such, but even those don't mean uncivilized.Natural, low tech, call it the way you want. There are for examples countless barbarians in Numeria and still no tech oriented instinct (that would certainly fit the Alchemist more than the Barbarian).
Probably because we haven't gotten a book featuring Numeria yet? One of my favorite podcasts has a bloodrager with a chainsaw.
Barbarians don't mesh very well with cities,
Urban Barbarian archetype from 1E.
technology,
Aforementioned chainsaw wielding bloodrager
magic, etc...
Bloodragers in general
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should probably acknowledge that the definition of "civilization" has always been extremely political, and the choice to exclude nomadic societies has historically been used to justify, among other things, literal genocide. So, you know, there's that. I'm not saying there's any great definition for it, mind you, but arguing over what the definition is isn't gonna get us anywhere because not even the sociologists can agree on that.
That being said, "barbarian" has always meant "person on the outskirts of [non-nomadic, agrarian/urban] civilization". It's basically a slightly less racially loaded synonym for "savage". Because, you know, anyone who's not a part of one of the Great Civilizations is a dangerous brute. Who probably doesn't really want that land they're standing on, it's probably cool if you scoop it and try to grow the wrong crops there, they won't mind.
Does that mean it's offensive? I don't know. It does definitely describe a specific flavor that is not intrinsic to the class mechanics.
I just think berserker sounds cooler.
Yeah, I see berserkers a lot in fantasy fiction. Garth Nix's Abhorsen series, for example, or Matthew Kirby's Icefall, both feature major characters who have a berserk rage. Nancy Farmer's Sea of Trolls comes to mind, too. It's a familiar trope, and honestly, I've always found it really compelling. None of those three examples are "barbaric"--Icefall's and Sea of Trolls's characters are honorable viking warriors, and the berserkers in the Abhorsen series are a king, a goldsmith, and a young woman who just wants to be left alone.
None of them really get called "barbarians" a lot, because their berserker rage isn't defined by them rejecting society--only the young woman does--it's defined by a potentially terrifying capacity for rage when pushed the wrong way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to quote the PF2 version here is the PF1 version: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.So no "Barbarian" is not about being from an "uncivilized" culture but letting out your rage and not caring for the rules of war like a fighter means you are a "Barbarian".
Well, maybe the Pathfinder wiki is all wrong then: "Barbarians are uncivilized [sic]".
Here's the Gazetteer (Erik Mona and Jason Bulmahn) description of the Barbarian class: "Barbarians are a misunderstood lot. Much of this confusion comes from the wide variety of barbarian lifestyles. While the tribes who rule the Lands of the Linnorm Kings follow the ancient traditions and rites of their ancestors, making them among the most “civilized” barbarians, their brethren who wander the wastes of Sarkoris are little more than monsters, attacking and devouring anything that crosses their path, be it man or beast."
Civilized barbarian is so much of an oxymoron that it is inside quotes.
So the Barbarian class is precisely linked to uncivilized cultures in Golarion. There's a whole bunch of history behind the Barbarian class that you can't just handwave because the latest description doesn't contain the word "uncivilized".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I grossly misread it, you conflated non-agrarian civilizations with being uncivilized. They still are civilizations, just different than agrarian ones.
Some non-state societies, which are categorically not a civilization, have agriculture. So definitely not. I said the value judgement that "civilized"=good is a bad assumption. This is the thing I'm challenging. Civilization=/=society, and it certainly doesn't hold dominion over language, culture, art, technology etc. This is a kind of "ideology" thing: "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es." "they do not know, but they do" or "they do not know what it is, but they are doing it". The thing which we do, but do not know is assume civilization is just good, the way to be and when we look at a non-state society and realize they actually aren't the stereotype we applied to them, what being "uncivilized" means, we instead of questioning the paradigm just say "oh ig they are civilized" and we should call their society a civilization. Except civilization really means class society. It means rigid social roles instead of fluid social roles. Non-state societies have and do purposefully disrupt these rigid roles. Saying this "isn't a civilization" is not a value judgement outside of the ideological paradigm of a state society in which civilization is seen as the only way to be
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My love for you is like a truck BEZERKERWould you like some making f*** BERZERKER!
Did he just say making f***?