D&D General Naming the Barbarian? [added battlerager]

[MGibster]

I wasn't talking about living groups. I was just saying would any character call themselves a barbarian? Wouldn't they use the term to describe others, not themselves? It's just about making sense from the perspective of the character.

(Not that characters use class names about themselves anyway, so it's all very abstract and hypothetical).
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, D&D class names are a bit weird. I can see someone calling themself a wizard or a druid but I don't think many people would refer to themselves as a fighter,* rogue, or barbarian. In one of my sillier campaigns, every PC went to adventuring school to learn the ropes of their classes. That means barbarian characters had to take courses in barbarism.

* I've heard people refer to themself others as a fighter, short for prize fighter, to indicate they are a boxer.

 

[Krachek]

I think barbarian is still the best name.
But Wotc has choose the best solution, To detach him from the cultural barbarian...
It would be a nice work if they didn’t screw the Frenzy ability.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'm torn between the need of a game to avoid derogatory terms as a respectful thing to do, and self-censoring and failure to actualize and modernize once derogatory terms into respectful ones. "Barbarian" in RPG is used to evoke an archetype in fantasy with pride more than marginalization, but there is no doubt that this is where to word originate from.

Personally I'm partial to"warrior", but it's semantically very close (too close?) to "fighter".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wasn't talking about living groups. I was just saying would any character call themselves a barbarian? Wouldn't they use the term to describe others, not themselves? It's just about making sense from the perspective of the character.

(Not that characters use class names about themselves anyway, so it's all very abstract and hypothetical).

I get you now. I don't think they would call themselves that. I think Fantasy Game class names are not meant to be the names people actually refer to themselves as. I see them more as terms we the gamers use to refer to the character types: in fact I remember how jarring it came across when they used to try to use some of the D&D class names in the old FR books---like when someone told Drizzt he was a Ranger. Granted the term Ranger was used by a character in Lord of the Rings to refer to Aragorn, so maybe that undercuts my point lol. But I think if you are looking for a more positive term, with Barbarian the more I think about it, the harder it is. Beserker is at least based on a real term, but that is so culturally specific, if you use it, you cut out a broad swath of barbarian cultures. And Rager, and terms like it, sound too video gamey to my ear (like you are naming the class after their big special ability or combat role). You could rip off Dune and do something like Freman. Or something like "Fierce Warrior" could potentially work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's interesting how the different words will probably evoke different ideas in people's head about the stereotypical identifier.

If you go with Barbarian, obviously it's going to evoke Conan. It's been that way from the beginning.

If you go with Berserker, I think most people's first thought would probably be Vikings. That's the culture that I think berserking specifically brings to mind.

If you go Ravager or Rager, there's no specific culture or identity that immediately comes to mind for either of them. There were the Ravagers in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, but that wouldn't be thought of in relation to D&D. And the word Rager makes most people think 'wild party', not 'someone who rages'. Heck... the first thing I thought of when I saw 'ravager' was the crazed group from the TV show Firefly... only to then look it up and discover they were actually called 'Reavers'... another name that falls into this same pot of undefined identity.

At the end of the day... because most people take the character class name and identity either at face value and play it as is stereotypical, OR they purposefully use the class as merely a building block and the class name and identifiers do not in any way inform who the character is or how they behave... I don't think it really matters all that much. If we stick with Barbarian, people will either play Conan clones like normal or they will interpret the 'rage' mechanic as some other thing that results in any of the other potential names being just as incorrect for the character's background as Barbarian would be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Outlander.

 

[GMMichael]

Conan was an explorer, a polyglot, literate in several of those languages including a few ancient ones, a general of armies, had a strong chivalric streak, is a thief, and later a ruler. I don't know if any single class in D&D can really do the character justice.

Yeah, "barbarian" is a compliment if it refers to Conan. "Outsider" if it refers to his homeland/people.

But if you're trying to avoid referring to the Berbers of North Africa, maybe "Gaul" would be a replacement term?

 

[MarkB]

I'm not keen on the term "barbarian" to describe a class - not because it's derogatory, but because it more describes a lifestyle than a fighting style. A barbarian tribe should consist of people of various aptitudes, not just a bunch of berserker warriors.

Then again, there are enough subclasses out there which de-emphasise the "anger" aspect of Rage in favour of, essentially, some form of combat focus, that I'm not sure a term like "berserker" really fits either.

Something like "battlerager" is probably the closest to a general class concept that I could get.

 

[Istbor]

I have never really liked Barbarian as a class name. Named thus to grab Conan fans' attention, and as time went on, does't really describe itself well. If we get technical, a barbarian can be anything, not just a strong man/woman who flies into a rage.

I am not sure. I voted Berserker, but I still don't think that is a great fit either, as not all of the class fit that concept. IMO.

Warrior would have a better feel to me. Describes what the class does, and isn't formal enough sounding to be a professionally trained martial. I also think Fighter is way too broad and doesn't accurately depict a trained professional in the art of combat. But what would you call them then? Soldier? Mercenary? Veteran? Maybe Champion should be the class name and we find something better for a sub-class? That would then make room for Warrior.

Anyhow. At least to Morrus' point above, I think a Barbarian character would probably refer to themselves as a warrior. Changing the name of classes at this point I think is a fun thing to think about, but unlikely.

 

[Charlaquin]

The name "Barbarian" tells you that this is the class you pick if you want to play a character like "Conan the barbarian".

Which makes it kind of misleading, since the Barbarian class bears little resemblance to Conan at all.