I am probably going to regret this but...What's wrong with the Berserker that allegedly makes the Zealot a necessary or welcomed change?
My problem with it is multifold.
1. The name Zealot is terrible. As someone else mentioned, it is immediately evocative of a religious type of person...not a raging barbarian.
2. Whether it is intended to "mean" this or not, words have meaning. Whether they are trying to "repurpose/reinvent" a new "D&D" meaning for it or not, "I'm going to be a Zealot!" is not a phrase -in any context- anyone should utter... ever.
3. I have an issue with the fact that Barbarian -the class- has become soooo freaking narrow that there is only "Rager" or "Shamanic Spirits-related guy." If the archetype is so pigeon-holed that all you can do with it is give 3 flavors of "berserker rage": Berserker, "Battlerager"<eyeroll>, "Zealot"<angry eyeroll> and 3 flavors of "spirits guy" then maybe it's time to acknowledge the Barbarian is a One-trick Pony deserving of simply being consumed as a subclass of Fighter.
4. All of that said, it is of little surprise [however unfortunate] and in keeping with long-time D&D tradition as a (sometimes less subtle than more) reflection of the culture of its day, the original editions modeled classes and concepts after Aragorn (ranger), Elric (fighter/magic-user), Conan/Red sonja (barbarian)...the Kung-fu Saturday afternoon series giving us the "Monk"...the gymnastics craze/fame of the early 80's, culminating in the 1984 Olympics gymnastics team, giving us the "Acrobat," etc..., etc... through the decades... that in 2018 in this country, D&D would give us the "Zealot." Can't really go more into it than that (thank the gods), given forum rules inre: real world politics, but really shouldn't have to.
Again, it's not ok. But it's not a surprise.
So, yeah, what's the deal with the Berserker that a "Zealot" is more desirable?