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

[Charlaquin]

Those other terms are a trait or skill, not a class.

Berserker was literally a class of Warrior.

 

[MGibster]

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

The Greeks originally used barbarian to describe just about anyone else who wasn't Greek. Including the likes of the Phoenicians and Egyptians. Which is, you know, odd given that we still use the alphabet derived from the former and the latter sure seemed pretty damned civilized to me. And really, I don't think most people even think about Berbers when they hear the world barbarian today. Most of us probably don't even think of a people.

 

[MGibster]

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.

What fighting style does Fighter describe?

 

[MGibster]

Class names are just standard D&Disms to me. They don't make much sense outside of the context of D&D and I'm fine with that. It's not like the Druid in D&D has any relationship to actual druids of Celtic people. Why would we expect accuracy with the Barbarian?

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm not sure there's a better term than "Barbarian." I think "Ravager" is worse, given the root of that word. "Berzerker" is alright, but it evokes a Norse heritage and the whole point of discarding "Barbarian" is getting rid of the cultural baggage. "Rager" is... too on the nose.

You could go with something generic like "Brawler" or "Roughneck," but those kind of terms have historically been applied to Rogue archetypes. "Warrior" is the best overall term, IMO, but that kind of prompts the question of the difference between warriors and fighters. "Warrior" is too generic and lacks the Barbarian class's nature and tribal flavor. You don't want to go with "Tribal Warrior" or "Wild Warrior" or "Wildsperson" because that still feels a little culturally condescending, and it may not describe every member of the class. "Wilderness Warrior" is okay... but that kind of steps on Ranger. Although getting stepped on really does feel like the Ranger's lot in life, stuck in the middle between the more well-defined classes of Fighter, Barbarian, Druid, Rogue, and Bard. "Rage Warrior"? Ugh, no.

How do you differentiate Fighter, Ranger and Barbarian without any cultural inclinations?

 

[MGibster]

You could go with something generic like "Brawler" or "Roughneck," but those kind of terms have historically been applied to Rogue archetypes.

I don't think I've ever heard roughneck used to describe a rogue here in the United States. Around there here parts, a roughneck is someone whose occupation involves hard manual labor, often in harsh conditions, especially on an oil rig or similar environment.

Edit: But, cool, I just learned something new about the origin of a word. Who says role playing games aren't educational?

 

[MarkB]

What fighting style does Fighter describe?

What lifestyle does it describe?

I don't mind overly-generalised class names. I mind class names that mean other things. "Fighter" as the formally-trained dedicated combatant serves perfectly well, and isn't likely to be misleading.

 

[Shardstone]

This conversation has me interested in what a real Conan the Barbarian class would be like. Maybe I'll homebrew one...

If only I could escape the name "Barbarian" due to its 5E connotations. But I really can't think of a good name to describe a Conan-esque character other than Barbarian tbh. Athlete? Warmonger? Soldier? Meh.

 

[Arvok]

"Barbarian" comes from the Greek and simply means "not Greek". The Romans, of course, adopted it and to them it meant "non-Roman" (and non-Greek, since the Romans admired many aspects of Greek civilization). It became associated with the Germanic, Celtic, and Eastern warriors and their fearsome and savage reputations and fits well with the role barbarians fill in the D&D world, in my opinion.

The class was originally conceived of as an individual who lived outside of the dominant culture's norms. If you get rid of the name you lose that connection.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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).

Just an anecdote: the Comanche people call themselves the Nermernuh, but also call themselves Comanche. "Comanche" was originally a Ute words and means “anyone who wants to fight me all the time.” Comanche | History & Facts

So yeah, some barbarians would use that term for themselves, because they are strong and brave, unlike 'civilized' folks.

(I still voted berserker, because classes should define actions, not background.)