I suppose, but Howard is using it in a positive way even if the arrogant people in the setting use it to sneer at him. And certainly when players talk about their Barbarian PC they mean it in a positive way.
You realize you are completely agreeing with my point with this, correct? The Author means it to be seen as a good thing, because the city folk are wrong, but the city folk are using it dersiviely, as an insult. Exactly how it has been used by "civilized" society throughout all of history. The only difference is the hand of the author claiming that the rugged life of a 'barbarian' is actually the truest nobility of man, but remove that and it is the exact same trope it has always been.
Again I guess. Personally I am not a huge fan of the Fremen Mirage terminology because this is an idea that goes way back. But I also think this idea that city life and country life are different, is not bound up in that cyclical understanding of civilizations. And there is often tension between people in the country and people in the cities. Using that as fodder for characterization is fine I think. I don't see the issue here that you do with it.
Because you are focused on the cycle, not the morality. The tension is the problem. City folk sneer at the "uncivilized" country folk, who in turn sneer at the "corrupt and weak" city folk. The Fremen Mirage just takes the normal racist view of "those savages are evil" and flips it to say "those savages are moral paragons and the city folk are evil" Which means that the only reason we aren't taking "The Barbarian" to be an insult in Conan is the same way that any other "reclaimed" term is no longer an insult. Because they have instead declared power in it. But that doesn't make it not an insult, nor the tropes involved in it problematic.
But this just shows that it isn't even a problem. This is part of my main point here is we are using these lenses where something could be an issue in theory, but then most people are just playing barbarians because they are a fun trope and most people play scholarly wizards or noble warriors because they are fun and it is a fantasy world deeply removed from out own. I think the problem here is problematizing everything even when it isn't really a genuine problem.
And if we stuck with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" we'd still be riding horses.
And, again, it IS a small problem. Because it presents us with the simple, primitive, tribal people and calls them barbarians. The same negative trope we've seen again and again and again. Sure, it isn't AS bad, because the "barbarian" is a powerful warrior and a powerful force for good as well as evil. But you have taken such a firm stance that the name can never be changed, because... you don't think it is a big enough deal and worry changing the name will destroy the class and remove the enjoyment from it? But again... why would it?
If the term doesn't represent a specific group, why is it an it an issue?
Because it represents a trope. A bad trope. Just like it may not be specifically referencing the British to have all people with mental illness be violent murderers, but it is a bit of a problem to stereotype all people with mental illness this way. It is a bit of a problem to stereotype the "raging monster man" class as belonging solely to those without civilization, those who are primitive and less sophisticated. And that is the connotation of the "barbarian" in literature.
And changing the name to something better would remove that problem, alongside with giving more examples of the class represented by non-tribal people. So what's the problem here? Why is it bad to change a name and expand the representation of the class to show that it isn't locked solely in this single vein?
I think this completely misses the point. It is a playful exchange where she calls me a barbarian because 1) she is invoking imagery like conan which is funny, and 2) there is an image of westerners as crude in Thailand, not because we were tribal. Her use of this term has nothing to do with invoking anything derogatory about tribal people. And even if it did, it would be so removed from that, getting upset over it is pointless (like getting mad because someone said "Hey were you raised in a Barn" when you don't close the door).
I'm not mad about, I'm saying that her using that word to mean "Crude" when combined with the most common imagery of the class, paints a really obvious picture of what is meant by the class. And that picture isn't good. So when you challenged me with "well, does that mean we need to..." I answered honestly. Changing the name of the class is on the table.
This isn't a cancer that needs to be monitored though. These are just tropes in a fantasy game
1) I never called it cancer
2) We ALWAYS have to monitor the tropes in fantasy. Saying "these are just tropes" is how we got things like ugly people being stupid, or big people being violent, or women being helpless prizes to be won. Those were just tropes... but that doesn't defend them and give them grace to go unchallenged.
I suppose you can always come up with a more evocative word. And feel free to try. But Barbarian seems pretty perfect to me.
We changed the names of those classes you site because the old names were very stiff. Fighting Man, I think feels off for most people. But importantly we all know what thief refers to in D&D even if they change the name. We all know what a fighter is. With Barbarian, especially because it has been taken out in the past, I think if you renamed it, you would potentially confuse people. I agree the name isn't super important. You might find another term that works. I still don't quite get the argument for changing it though. At the very least it's established and familiar. It would be like changing the name of the fighter suddenly today.
And if someone put forth the idea that changing the fighter to "The Warrior" would you demand proof of the cancer needing excised from the game to allow the change? Warrior is equally evocative, it is a good name, but would the change necessitate proving a deep problem in the game?
For something you seem perfectly fine to allow people to try, you have certainly argued very harshly against the attempt.
I don't think this is that true. I do think people can form biases. I am a lot more worried about biases formed in history class in elementary school than I am about media imagery. And I think the best cure for any misperceptions created by media imagery, again isn't to alter media (which I would say is in the realm of art and free expression) but to make people better at engaging art. Where I am really worried isn't so much games and movies, but actual propaganda, which can appear in both for sure but is more likely to be spread by a meme. Again I don't think changing the meme really alters anything. You need people to be better equipped to decipher propaganda when they encounter it (which is where I do think these kinds of critical approaches can be useful, I just think when we take them to the point of altering every little detail because we have so overprioritized media purity, it becomes a problem in itself).
There is no difference between a story and propaganda. Not in any functional way. And if you aren't worried about art, you are going to get blindsided. After all, why are elementary kids telling their female teachers that they belong in the kitchen, not in the classroom (real thing that happened)? It isn't because of something that teacher taught them. It is because of media imagery. Influencers, who were in turn influenced by entertainment that told them that the manliest men, the best men, the men they should emulate were violent, were angry, could take down multiple men in a fight, and the save the girl who fell in love with them for saving her. And when that didn't happen, they went looking into media for answers.
Media and stories shape us. That's why we use them. That's why they exist.
The name itself is unlikely to change things that much. But I mean these simple, exciting, and fun depictions are what grab our attention. The real history, the real information is much more involved, more dry, less likely to captivate you unless you already have an interest. For example, it took a movie like Excalibur to really spark my interest in the middle ages (D&D was as I said before the catalyst) but with Excalibur I developed a more concrete vocabulary of what it was I was interested in learning about. It's filled with anachronisms. You aren't going to really understand medieval knights if you go by Excalibur. But I wouldn't change it. It is absolutely a gorgeous movie and is the thing that sparked so much of my interest in that topic. But it took reading books like Strong of Body, Brave and Noble and all the textbooks we read in our Medieval History Course to get a better grasp of that (and not saying I know all that much about it, I took some courses and read some books).
Sure you an also do more authentic depictions of cultures in games but that can be tricky. Because it can be a challenge to make real history as exciting or easy to immediately grok as fantasy. There are plenty of games that do that. I don't think D&D is the best vessel for that kind of approach (it is just too much centered around a very gameable world filled with gameable conceits).
Honestly I think you want and need both. There should be more authentic games and there should also be games that are more just about a thin veneer of culture over fantasy tropes to have fun and roll some dice. And both can lead to a deeper interest in these topics (but a deeper interest in these topics shouldn't be the aim of an RPG anymore than the aim of a movie isn't to tell history----a movie can't because it is limited to one narrative usually)
Why can't it have a better name, and fun and exciting depictions? Why are these things contradictory to you?
I find history interesting, but it is also not as easy as reading a fantasy novel. So I think it is worth pointing out that really studying history takes time and patience and isn't he same thing as watching an episode of star trek.
But to answer the question, no history isn't boring and you are right many great films have been made about history. And many great games can be too. I just don't think every game and every movie MUST be rooted in an authentic history, and I think the needs of these mediums often demand that, to achieve a particular aim or vision, you deviate from history.
Okay, pause. What about DnD demands that Barbarians be primitive tribal folk, crude, uneducated, and lacking in civilization? What particular vision are we going for here? Why is that vision not served by a better name for the class, and showing that it can be from multiple walks of life. Which, by the way, is the mechanical truth. But it isn't the lore truth. No King, long-established in his line, is a barbarian by class. They are all tribal people.
Heck, I just did a quick search. Here are some of the most famous DnD barbarians
Krusk -> Half-orc born in a blighted land called "Bone Marsh"
Jamilah-> Ship-wrecked on the island of chult and adopted by the tribal people there
Runa -> a member of the Uthgardt Blue Bear tribe of nomadic people
Wulfgar -> Part of the nomadic Reghedmen
Shajji Hoijarek -> head of the Tsu-tsu tribe on the Plain of Horses in the Hordelands.
And I'm not saying get rid of these, I'm not saying these are bad. I'm saying having ONLY these is bad.
No, I have much bigger things in my life to worry about than the change to a class name. So of course it wouldn't be bad. I still don't see why it is needed because or why it needs to be particularly accurate to anything. It captures the concept better than most terms I think. And I don't believe the argument that it perpetuates biases.
I'm not saying it is a desperate need. You challenged me on whether or not it would be acceptable to change the name of the barbarian. I said yes, you challenged me on how I could possibly think that. I've answered. I'm not campaigning to have it done, I'm not writing Twitter screeds calling people names and demanding change. I started this nearly by acknowledging that, yes, that change is one I have looked at, and wouldn't be disappointed or upset to see happen.
You've somehow twisted that so that you can ask how it is "bad enough" to change, but we don't need things to be "bad enough". For example, there was no "bad enough" about the Priest changing to the Cleric, or the Thief changing to the Rogue. They just... were potentially better names. And I think rogue in particular is much better than thief.
My reason for 1 is just for the sake of being thorough and making sure we understand what we are extending this term to mean because when we do meet an alien species or if we recognize a species on earth as having moral agency and being sapient, I think it isn't as simple as saying it is automatic that we treat them as humans (again see my AI example). We just don't know what the context will be and what the nature of these beings will be, because we might not yet have imagined that.
"as humans" no, "as people" yes. There is a difference. Saying we will treat them like humans is expecting they will think like us, will have the same wants, desires, and motivations as us. That is silly. They won't be human. Saying we will treat them as people though means giving respect, rights, legal protections. We aren't going to assume they think like us, but we aren't going to kill them out of hand, or treat them like trash just because they are different.
For 2 my concern I think is well founded. If the default definition of personhood doesn't automatically include human beings (and not saying you are making this case), then you can easily exclude people by saying they lack moral agency or free will or they are not fully sapient (again this does depend on how Personhood is defined). But if it is just two points like that, and doesn't also say something like "and anyone who is a human being" then there most definitely have been arguments in the past that could put people like the disabled, the mentally handicapped, people with serious mental disorders that impact their ability to make informed choices, etc. And in the past there have been whole groups of humans not fully recognized as people (like women, and slaves). So I just think if personhood is going to be the thing that marks what protections people get, then you have to include all human beings in that.
Also I will say I am a lot less concerned about this point than point 2. This is something where I get the moral concern and think it is valid. But I do worry about a definition of person that isn't linked to humanity very closely
But then the solution isn't to hard code "must be human" into the definition of personhood, but to argue against the idea that you can claim women, slaves, or the mentally disabled lack those traits. And, again, exception based defintions are a thing. A man in a coma is a man, even if a coma prevents him from doing things that a man would normally be able to do.
You don't NEED to hard code the definition to protect against what you fear, you just have to have a sense of morality and empathy.
You and I might agree this is the case. But I can bet someone will make an argument that a person with significant enough brain damage to their frontal lobe who lacks impulse control doesn't have free will in that sense. Or someone int he grip of a drug addition doesn't have free will. Or someone suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's disease. You an easily see people making arguments eugenics and social darwinism using these kinds of reasons. Which is why I think our personhood should be viewed as inherent and obvious.
OKay, they can make the argument. People have argued with me that the Earth is Flat. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make them mainstream. The thing about laws and society is that they are majority rule. And, the problem with that is that if you are in the minority, you don't get a say. Whether or not you hard code that definition doesn't change that. Just keep the main stream as empathy-based, and you don't have an issue with stupid arguments that ignore the fundamental problems.
Except being a human doesn't require having both your legs. Being a person, at least how this term gets used in conversations around ethics, very much depends on you meeting the criteria individually. That is one of the reasons the debate around personhood is so contentious
Except, if I look up the definition of human I get results talking about humans such as "The three traits described are
bipedalism, language, and tool making. " Well, someone without legs isn't bipedal. Babies don't have language or tool making. We can make arguments that these people aren't human based on these facts.... but that would be stupid. The definition is meant for an average, not to be used to exclude humans from humanity.
