D&D General why did they transform the Barbarian into a Raging Monster ?

[Lyxen]

I don't have my 1E material anymore - anyone know if Raging was an ability for either the Conan writeup or 1E Barbarian? If so, all Conan had to do was rage once in the source material, and Gygax would see that as justification for the ability.

No, no rage in 1e Unearthed Arcana, I'm not even sure when it popped up, maybe 3e ?

 

[Reynard]

Conan is often confused with similar fictional character, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ahem: "With an oath the Cimmerian heaved himself up on his feet, his blue eyes blazing, his dark scarred face contorted. Rage shook his soul, but desire for the taunting figure before him hammered at his temples and drove his wild blood fiercely through his veins. Passion fierce as physical agony flooded his whole being, so that earth and sky swam red to his dizzy gaze. In the madness that swept upon him, weariness and faintness were swept away." The Frost Giant's Daughter.

It took 1 minute to find, because it isn't uncommon.

 

[Waller]

a Barbarian should behave like North American Indians, happy with Natural Beasts and always on the run, with skills like Climate Knowledge or Herbalism ...

You just described a ranger.

 

[Lyxen]

Ahem: "With an oath the Cimmerian heaved himself up on his feet, his blue eyes blazing, his dark scarred face contorted. Rage shook his soul, but desire for the taunting figure before him hammered at his temples and drove his wild blood fiercely through his veins. Passion fierce as physical agony flooded his whole being, so that earth and sky swam red to his dizzy gaze. In the madness that swept upon him, weariness and faintness were swept away." The Frost Giant's Daughter.

It took 1 minute to find, because it isn't uncommon.

We can argue all day about the frequence of occurence, but the fact is that you changed from "Conan went into blood rages ALL THE TIME" to "it isn't uncommon", when all I said was that it was not all the time, so...

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

And how is my sentence in contradiction with that policy ? Please read: "The Romans used the term barbarus for uncivilised people, opposite to Greek or Roman, and in fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners among Romans after Augustus age (as, among the Greeks, after the Persian wars, the Persians), including the Germanic peoples, Persians, Gauls, Phoenicians and Carthaginians." Simple historical fact that has NOTHING to do with Dungeons and Dragons and its history.

I don't remember where I'd read it but something along the lines that, to Romans, all the foreign languages just sounded like they were saying 'bar bar bar barbarbar bar' - which always makes me imagine Muppets.

 

[LordEntrails]

Hmmm, maybe you should actually read the thread, for example here or even the OP, which clearly refers to real world people, historical or not.

Thanks, I've read every post in this thread. But it looks like you and a few others have managed to successfully de-rail it from the OP. I will again re-iterate, historical context is irrelevant to what a Barbarian is in D&D.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Lyxen certainly seemed to be, but fair enough.

In response to a comment about morality - lots of things in history are consider amoral today. Most, probably.

 

[Greg K]

I don't have my 1E material anymore - anyone know if Raging was an ability for either the Conan writeup or 1E Barbarian? If so, all Conan had to do was rage once in the source material, and Gygax would see that as justification for the ability.

No. The original barbarian class was a magic hating warrior with athletic prowess and wilderness survival skills along with weapons and additional skills based upon their culture. Examples of cultures included were based on Northern (viking/germanic), Steppe, and Jungle based environments (maybe, desert as we well).

edit: The Berserker, officially, appeared as one of several "Barbarian" kits for the Fighter in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook. The 1e Barbarian became the Wilderness Warrior kit in the same book.
edit: As an aside, Mearls wrote that for, 4e, Conan was the inspiration for the Fighter class.

 

[HammerMan]

There is no need to be honest to turn them into a raging monster.

yeah I would rather do away with barbarians then keep them as the rage mechanic class

 

[Rogerd1]

Sure, but that's presupposing that different job titles require different classes, which is begging the question (including your conclusion among your premises).

As D&D was originally created, rogue, barbarian, thief, soldier, knight, cavalier, champion, free lance, would all just be the same class- a Fighting Man, in the parlance of old military history, wargaming and sci-fi (e.g. Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Fighting Man of Mars), later simplified to Fighter.

All true.
But then again look at 4e, in which you could get a Champion and a Barbarian. Additionally look at Savage Worlds Beasts & Barbarians which does one of the best Conan expy's I have seen in a long while. They have pirates, as well as barbarians for class options.

Just sayin'...YMMV.

yeah I would rather do away with barbarians then keep them as the rage mechanic class

Me too.
I have taken away the rage stuff, and allowed them to pick Extraordinary Training, sort of like Gurps Martial Arts, same for all classes.

If they purchase magic, then they can cast / use magic in the normal way.