D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[TheSword]

Hold on, I'm confused:

The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.

You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.

So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.

The name implies non-civilized... but it’s a pretty specific type of non-civilized. That of axe wielding Norse berserkers.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The name implies non-civilized... but it’s a pretty specific type of non-civilized. That of axe wielding Norse berserkers.

The name has been used to describe all sorts of "uncivilized" people, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.

 

[TheSword]

The name has been used to describe all sorts of "uncivilized" people, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.

Can you reference that in any substantial way as the main way it seems to be used is for those civilizations not considered part of Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome. Vercingetorix, Boudicca, Attila the Hun, Clovis.

I’ve never heard of Shaka Zulu, Moctezuma or Geronimo being described as barbarians? That seems very jarring.

 

[Cadence]

If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.

If Aragorn and Lancelot get a full 20 level treatment, Conan gets one too. Game history and inertia.

 

[Remathilis]

If Aragorn and Lancelot get a full 20 level treatment Conan gets one too. Game history and inertia.

Aragorn's niche has been eroding over the course of several editions, and every edition since 2e has tried multiple attempts per the life of that edition to nail it. Lancelot's too, though his is more of the Lawful Goodness no longer being a prime factor in the class. As for Conan, if your going by the movie or Marvel comics Conan, then sure. If you go by the ones from Howard's stories, not quite.

I will agree with you on tradition and inertia, but if that isn't enough to save alignment or CE orcs, it shouldn't be enough to hold any other part of the game beyond scrutiny.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I said...

I think that you hit the nail on the head. [this in reference to a specific bolded text] Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.

Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.

None of this says anything you seem to think I said.

Hold on, I'm confused:

The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.

You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.

I didn't say that, though.

I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does.

Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.

I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.

I...don't...care?

But I also didn't say or imply that it is meant to only represent the European barbarians. It does, however, only represent berserker barbarians, which makes no sense for many of the cultures that the class gets used to represent the warriors of.

I was commenting on that, specifically. As shown by how that was the only thing I commented on.

 

[FrogReaver]

I said...

None of this says anything you seem to think I said.

I didn't say that, though.


I...don't...care?

But I also didn't say or imply that it is meant to only represent the European barbarians. It does, however, only represent berserker barbarians, which makes no sense for many of the cultures that the class gets used to represent the warriors of.

I was commenting on that, specifically. As shown by how that was the only thing I commented on.

Perhaps a bit too much I here?

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Perhaps we could do something to make Berserker a subclass of a class called Wayfarer. Ranger could be another subclass. - or keep Ranger as the class, and make Berserker and Wayfarers subclasses? The basic class is a character who is comfortable outdoors, and has skills to suit.

 

[Umbran]

Google turned up Eberron isn't Steampunk Which offered three things it was missing to be Steampunk, and offered Magipunk instead.

The point was not to engage in a pedantic argument of what genre Eberron is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Perhaps we could do something to make Berserker a subclass of a class called Wayfarer. Ranger could be another subclass. - or keep Ranger as the class, and make Berserker and Wayfarers subclasses? The basic class is a character who is comfortable outdoors, and has skills to suit.

I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage.

Not because it's problematic, but because it's really one of the most narrow basic concepts of a class, and it already has subclasses that just do not fit that base class concept, like the Zealot.

But I don't think that Ranger and Barbarian need to be the same class. They could be, but they don't need to be.