Barbarian. BIG, uncivilized, uneducated and extrememly stupid! All barbarians are is a one trick pony. I mean seriously, how many times have we played in a game and the guy who is playing the barbarian plays him like a retard (Yes, I said "retard!" Get over you political correctness people, you're all adults. I mean it in a social sense, not a cognitive manner). Big, dumb and obnoxious. Barbarians have no concept of history, engineering, literature, art and it is simply the suspension of disbelief that has allowed the average barbarian pc not to be exterminated. Honestly, most people who play barbarians name themselves "Thag," "Crunk," "Grog," etc. The most profound thing they say is "Thag SMASH!" or "Thag like to eat!" The only good they are is when they rage, so why even have them?
But what about Greyhawk barbarians? We have the northern barbarians, the Paynims, the vast tribes of the Flan, peoples who live near or in swamps or mountains. Certainly there is a difference between cannabalistic cavemen and the tribes of the north. There are differences between say, the Frost Barbarians and the Flan roving around near the Hool Marshes or Sunndi? So how do we feel about these uncivilized brutes? Why do we, as GM's and WoG fans, allow players to play the stereotypical barbarian? Let's look at Conan. By the time he became king, he spoke 6-7 languages and read/wrote four fluently? He made maps for fun and they were accurate! So why is it that we allow players to take the easy route with the WoG barbarians?
First, barbarians were introduced in the AD&D UA as a very different class than the D&D3.x version. Specific cultural notes/tweaks were included in the class specifically to differentiate the various tribal peoples who were defined by the class. For D&D3.x, I made the following house rules to bring them inline with AD&D UA's version:
Barbarians lose Rage as a class feature. It is replaced by a series of feats granting the same abilities. Each instance of a barbarian receiving a use of the ability is replaced by a bonus feat drawn from the following list: Alertness, Endurance, Mounted Combat (Mounted Archery, Trample, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge), Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Rage (Extra Rage, Greater Rage), Run, Skill Focus (with a class skill only), Toughness, or Track. Feats dependent on other feats are listed parenthetically after the prerequisite feat.
The following lands produce archetypal barbarians. The suggested bonus feats for these characters are included as well as typical weapons used and adjustments to class skills.
The lands of the Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians as well as the Hold of Stonefist produce peoples of the Scandinavian/Viking mold. These barbarians may substitute Profession (Sailor) for Ride as a class skill. Mounted Combat is rare while Run and Skill Focus (Profession: Sailor) more common. They typically employ longsword and shortbow.
Rovers of the Barrens and Tiger and Wolf Nomads are excellent horsemen, in the same vein as the Mongols. The Rovers, the most primitive of the three, usually have Run and use druidic weapons (though they have no specific prohibitions) and the shortbow. The Tiger and Wolf Nomads emphasize Mounted Combat and associated feats and skills. Their typical weapons are the lance, scimitar and composite shortbow.
I usually play Barbarians as uneducated, not retarded. Defiant, uncivilized, unwilling to conform, intolerant of useless complexity. "Enough talk!" *throws dagger*
Ah, Unearthed Arcana. I miss the Cavalier, but I was young then Funny that you mentioned UA, because I don't remember anyone ever playing the "dumb" barbarian. We all thought it was "cool" that they didn't like magic-user's, had to wear animal hides and got knives! As a matter of fact, the 3.x edition is the first time I ever noticed people going out of their way to play dumb characters, but then again, maybe this generation was influenced by the hideous artwork in the books.
I may very well steal your barbarian house rules for my own homebrew campaign.
In all honesty, I have never seen a player (nor have I myself) play a barbarian as dumb or stupid. Unable to read yes....low Intelligence no. I think this says more about the player's mentality than anything and I avoid those who do play this way. If this is as far advanced as they are capable of they don't get invited to the gaming table in the first place.
My take on barbarians of Greyhawk is to go through the various 3.5 books and select feats which help define the culture/climate they originate from as well. I add it to their standard selection from the Players Handbook rather than let players have a free for all and choose out of any book they want.
I do the same thing for religions and spells. Take all that is offered in the splat books (spells and feats) and use it as dressing for specific barbarian clans, religions, rangers from various areas in regards to fighting the giants there, and so on. Customize the classes to a degree based on region. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
The Germanic and Celtic tribes which fought the Romans were Barbarians by our and Roman standards. But they were not stupid.
They crafted weapons and armor and jewelry from metals and ores that they themselves mined. And using techniques uniquely their own. Many of them spoke several languages and the more learned among them could even read and write! Hail Conan! Even the Greeks and Romans were impressed that "Barbarians" could do such things!
The situation with the Huns and Mongols were slightly different. They weren't really known for their metal craft or jewelry. It's why their armies were mostly mounted archers.
When I think of the Paynims, Tiger and Wolf nomads, I think mostly of the Germanic and Celtic tribes, because of the Baklunish influence upon these peoples. They are/were "touched" by a once great civilization, similar to Rome's.
But I think of the Huns and Mongols when I think of the Rovers of the Barrens. Consider their influences; Blackmoor (nonhumans) and Stonehold, true barbarians, the Bandit Kingdoms are semi-barbaric and mixed with nonhumans, the Empire of Iuz speaks for itself.
Tenh is more on a level with the Paynims, influenced as they are by Nyrond, Urnst and the Pale, truly civilized nations. But Tenh's influence on the Rovers would be very limited. The Rovers are, therefore, untouched and uninfluenced by a great civilization.
So, by and large, I think of barbarians as uneducated, not stupid.
Just my thoughts. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
I have seen some players confuse barbarian with caveman and even that isn't fair. Take most well-educated urbanities and place them in the wild and watch them struggle to create fire; let alone hunt and survive the winter.
I think that is the error; barbarians don't have literate education but they have practical skill based knowledge. A barbarian may not know the mathematics of stellar bodies but he knows how to navigate by the stars. Of course the barbarian is capable of literate learning when he comes into contact with "civilisation".
Barbarians can be brillant warlords; rich cultural histories and profound religious beliefs that are capable of fantasic accomplishments. Look at our own history; it is filled with barbarian cultures that have had an enormous impact upon the world and not only compete with the "civilized world' but succeed. All of the "civilized european nations" were once migratory barbarian tribes which overcame the "civilized" roman empire.
Any isolated and diffcult enviroment can produce a barbarian culture.
I like to think of the barbarians of Stonehold, as well as the Frost and Snow barbarians as Vikings. But I think of the Ice barbarians as half Eskimo, half Viking.
The Ice barbarians would need the Eskimo's skills for survival, but would be influenced in both battle dress and battle tactics by their cousins, the Frost, Snow and Stonehold barbarians.
I think that the barbarians of the Flanaess are much too closely situated to "superior" civilizations to conform to the North American plains Indian. Look at how quickly the plains Indians were "modernized" by the arrival of the Europeans. As a truck driver I drive through many indian reservations; they have air-conditioning, cars/trucks and, yep, even McDonalds.
The Baklunish, the Suel and the Oridians have been influencing the barbarians of the Flanaess far longer (almost two thousand years) than the North American Indians were influenced by the Europeans. The North American Indians continued as they did for so long because they were serparated from European culture by an Ocean.
Enter the Olmans; separated from the Flanaess by large bodies of water and an impenetrable jungle. The same case is true for the people of the Amedio Jungle. I believe North American Indian type cultures could also be found on the other side of the Sea of Dust (maybe) or the Dry Steppes.
Of course, the Tiger nomads and Rovers of the Barrens act as an insulation and buffer for the Wolf nomads. I suppose it would be possible for the Wolf nomads be be more "indian" like.
I understand that barbarians are not all dumb-as-nails, door smashing simpletons, but I'm not sure I understand the big stink of playing the archetype barbarian savage. All the character classes are archetypes and are usually played like that to some degree, no matter how customized they are. Not all players are inclined to play well educated, sophisticated characters. That would get pretty boring and stuffy IMO. A player who takes on the role of the bruiser is only adding some variety to the party (unless, of course, everyone else is playing a bruiser!) A player who can pull off a loud, obnoxious character well is playing a good character, just as a player who pulls off an intellectual wizard well is.
Now playing with a loud, obnoxious PLAYER is an entirely different matter...
I totally understand what you are saying, but my issue is that loud, dumb, unsophisticated brute that knows how to eat, smash, drink, uhhhhhh........ Playing a socially inept bruiser for a barbarian is, well, silly. But playing an agressive, physically assertive and confident barbarian is totally cool. I think you and I are saying the same thing, just two different ways
Any charater is "good," but only if the charater is played well. I agree with Luz on that. For the archetype barbarian, in game terms, I think of Minsc! If played well, he can be fun.
But, at the same time, I agree with Dwarf from Nyrond, a Minsc character in every game will get boring very fast.
Perhaps its the player, himself, as Luz alluded to. Perhaps you have a player who doesn't want to do any thinking. He/she could be someone who simply wants to hack and slash (think Keep on the Borderlands) The player may have trouble with problem solving and simply doesn't want anyone to be aware of it and so he/she plays a barbarian -- the way they do -- in order to allow the other players to figure things out. After all, he/she is just a "dumb" barbarian.
I have a friend who, when he visits, goes straight to my library to sift through my books. But he's only interested in books with "great" pictures. He's not a "reader." He just likes to look at pictures of the Celts, or Roman legionaires, or far out galaxies, etc.
The problem could be with that particular player. Try a game without letting him/her join in.
I totally understand what you are saying, but my issue is that loud, dumb, unsophisticated brute that knows how to eat, smash, drink, uhhhhhh........ Playing a socially inept bruiser for a barbarian is, well, silly. But playing an agressive, physically assertive and confident barbarian is totally cool. I think you and I are saying the same thing, just two different ways
Yeah, someone who plays in a repetetive manner like that (eat, drink, smash, etc.) gets old fast. I've had a few players play characters like that, they never lasted long The funny thing is a DM doesn't have to try hard to get rid of that character because that character does it to himself. The sheer stupidity of that character's actions usually gets himself killed sooner rather than later.
Perhaps its the player, himself, as Luz alluded to. Perhaps you have a player who doesn't want to do any thinking. He/she could be someone who simply wants to hack and slash (think Keep on the Borderlands) The player may have trouble with problem solving and simply doesn't want anyone to be aware of it and so he/she plays a barbarian -- the way they do -- in order to allow the other players to figure things out. After all, he/she is just a "dumb" barbarian.
Another thing to consider is character selection. A player who joins the group may find all the other classes taken and decide to go with one that is not. In my experience as a DM, more than once I've heard a player who has joined our group say: "Well, there's already enough thinkers so I'll play the hired muscle." Then proceed to roll up the big, dumb barbarian.
One of the good things about having a character like this is that it speeds up the game. Their attacks or actions are usually pretty straight forward most of the time and, as you said, they like to let the others figure things out.
First day on Canonfire! I now have fourteen post! Loving it! Great to meet you! I was an Over-the-Road truck driver for many years and haven't used a PC much. Still learning to use e-mail and chat.
You're right in what you say (sorry, haven't learned to use the quote thing yet ) about their attacks. And any group can always use a "tank," I believe that's the term used these days. And barbarians can be great ones for that, especially if they berserk!
In truth, its only the actual grunting and table slapping that would drive me nuts. There is such a thing as "over acting."
So why is it that we allow players to take the easy route with the WoG barbarians?
The barbarians in my campaign have been played as just being from a different culture that have different ways than citified book learnin', and not as simply being stupid. Granted there have only been two of them in my campaign, but there haven't been any "Thrud the Bararbian" type characters.
You're correct. For our gaming purposes/discussion, it was J.R.R. Tolkien who really "fleshed out" Orcs. He originally wrote his books before many of us were born. However, like the Scandinavian mythology's Trolls, Giants, Elves, Dwarves, et al, Orcs originate in our own mythology.
They were always shadowy figures -- used to scare children, etc -- and were always brutish and stupid. The Orcs of our real world mythology would have been hard pressed to learn to read or write.
I would, therefore, play an half-orc as more intelligent than a full Orc, but not as intelligent as a human. As such, he would "think" more than a full Orc, but would still be quick to simply "smash" things, in answer to his frustration. Some on Canonfire! are no doubt better able than I to speak to the "rules" guiding this subject.
But, I speak, as I always do, to the original intent; the DMG is just that, a Guide! You are the Overgod of your WoG. Bend the official "rules" to suit your needs. They were designed as guides only (except in competition/convention play). They were meant to keep us from beating our heads against the wall.
How does a God do this?
What if a Demon does that?
What if my player does this? Falls into that? Trys to use this thingy? Can he/she survive if this or that happens?
They were designed to help you, the DM, answer those types of questions. Your world is your own. Have fun!
And, when reading my posts, always remember that, becasue of the nature of my occupation, I've been away from the game since the early 1980's. Therefore, I am "untainted" by everything that's happened since that time. (Some of which I do not agree with) I speak as to the original intent of those of us who originally played the game. I cannot, of course, speak for our Master, EGG.
I've never played a Barbarian, but if I was to do so, I would model part of him after Fafhrd who was quite intelligent. He would be reserved though so other might mistake him as the typical brainless barbarian, to the sorrow of his enemies! _________________ Count Telemachus, Archmage of the Unicorn Conferderation
I've never played a Barbarian, but if I was to do so, I would model part of him after Fafhrd who was quite intelligent. He would be reserved though so other might mistake him as the typical brainless barbarian, to the sorrow of his enemies!
I think I prefer something along the lines of Conan. No, I don't think he's "over used/done," he's just not done well. After Howard's death, no one got him quite right, IMHO. Though L. Sprague deCamp did him fairly well.
I've always associated (wrongly, I'm sure) intelligence with education. After all, a person's IQ only measures a person's ability to learn, not what they actually know. Conan was far more cunning, than he was intelligent. But, again, he was merely uneducated, not stupid. But, Conan, himself, never saw the need for formal learning.
I suppose if you play your Paladin as typically stoic and unrelenting in his zeal, then you can just as logically play a Barbarian and a fan of smashing and raping.
Also, the first mention I can find of Orc is by the Italian poet Ludovico Ariosto who claims it was a sea-monster.
Also, the first mention I can find of Orc is by the Italian poet Ludovico Ariosto who claims it was a sea-monster.
Sorry. Poor sentence structure.
I was not implying that the "Orc" was Scandinavian. I was merely demonstrating that, like many of the monsters of Oerth (Old Earth), they originated within our own mythology. Many of them cannot be considered as "copyrighted" by WotC. For instance, Conan is literally owned by someone. He is their "intellectual property." Hercules is not.
In addition, many of these creatures have legitimate "personalities" and charateristics from our own mythology and these facts can be taken into consideration when formating them to fit your own campaign. WotC did not create them and, therefore, WotC cannot dictate (via the DMG) what their personalitites may, or may not, be like.
The best barbarians I have seen in game is one that works in ANY fuedal farming society: The "farm boy with a temper." In fact right now my wife and I are playing twins. She is ultra chaotic, action oriented, and generally takes what she wants when she wants it. A classic barbarian wrapped in a farm girl package. She is not prone to using small words, though she can't read yet. We crafted the characters so that she was very able to deal damage, and have a temper that led credence to her backstory of having almost killed a boy who insulted the family.
By contrast I am playing a self taught ultra disciplined farm boy who is mechanically a monk. He is devout and well versed in fighting unarmed and with farming implements (monk weapons). We fight in game like cats and dogs, right up until either of us or a friend is in danger, at which point we go ballistic on whoever it is. Its a lot of fun. Did I mention we are half-orcs on the Wild Coast who just helped to fight off a Pomarj invasion force? Yeah that bears mentioning I guess. :)
Mikel, I like your take on roleplaying. Too bad my players don't all embrace that particular attitude! Kudos!
I always looked at the barbarian as being a stranger in a strange land. He is not sure how to adapt to his new environment right away simply because he has only learned one thing, survival. Half-Orcs are interesting as barbarians but definitely should not be the exclusive view, now granted they are not the sharpest tools in the shed but they aren't all "Groontah Neckchopper" either.
Paizo's beta picture for the new Pathfinder book shows an interesting female human barbarian. Not the typical hottie in a chain bikini either. She is not the type that looks like the aforementioned Groontah either. No "uuuhhhhhhh! Me KILL!!!" type of feel to her. She definitely looks tough and a survivor of her tribe or clan.
Dwarves and other races would make interesting ones as well. A character who was abandoned and living on the frontier would become one of two classes likely: Ranger or Barbarian. Perhaps through divine help a Druid. A multiclass of all 3 I always thought would be interesting.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Chert as a Barbarian archetype yet.
He's by no means stupid. Naive, perhaps, and ignorant (at least initially) of civilized ways, but not the "Hulk SMASH!" sort of character that's being discussed.
And, if I remember correctly, he was introduced around the same time as UA was released, along with a certain thief-acrobat...
Mikel, I like your take on roleplaying. Too bad my players don't all embrace that particular attitude! Kudos!
Jim
I particularly don't care for the Conan style barbarian, which is what the "ug kill" are trying to be, or Red Sonya if they are women. I mean if I am playign a character for cheese value, sure, but normally, not a chance.
Actually my wife and I recently had a discussion about our characters and decided that my lawful good monk is lawful good because he has a conscience which tells him he should nto be the raving monster his instincts tell him to be. He is so far from a paladin its not funny, and no one really had figured it out yet. He is lawful by nature, and so likes doing things the right way, but his instinct is to handle it brutal and self serving (chaotic evil). His sister never really understood the whole need for control, and rather just does what she wants to and tries her best to be good to folks and not hurt those who don't need hurting (chaotic good), despite her wish to just lay down utter destruction any time she is annoyed or denied something. Its been an interesting dichotomy and fun to play.
I actually got the idea for the half orc farm boy barbarian from a friend, who played one in a previous campaign. That character ended up being one of his most loved, mainly because he wasn't dumb, just uneducated. Actually both of the twins have 12 Int. :) Not the greatest, but not dumb either. She has Charisma, I have wisdom, and we both have strength (DM: "what do you mean 6 damage minimum from a sling??!").
In my experience, I've seen more outlander "barbarian" types in "educated" classes than I have in barbarians. Could just be my gaming group though.
wonder if anyone could recommend a good reading about the diferent kinds of barbarians in GH. A player in my group whants to play one, (a montain or plains man). Not the "hulk smash" guy, but a tall, strong and "shy" *cant fin the english word, but in portugues is "introspectivo" (one who prefer to be with himself)
I don't know which books to suggest, but it should be a fairly easy subject to research via the web. Not that I've tried, mind you, but it should be fairly simple.
wonder if anyone could recommend a good reading about the diferent kinds of barbarians in GH. A player in my group whants to play one, (a montain or plains man). Not the "hulk smash" guy, but a tall, strong and "shy" *cant fin the english word, but in portugues is "introspectivo" (one who prefer to be with himself)
When the barbarians rules were introduced in Dragon (number 64 IIRC), there were Greyhawk-specific notes suggesting that the Rovers of the Barrens, the Wolf and Tiger Nomads, and Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians would be of the class. IIRC the people from the Hold of Stonefist and the Amedeo and Hepmonaland were also mentioned. Both weapons and secondary skills were suggested for each group. That would be the original source for "the different kinds of barbarians in GH." What was in Dragon was largely incorporated word-for-word in the (original, 1E) Unearthed Arcana.
If none of these quite fit your player's idea, there is ample room to have a barbarian come from a minor group of tribesmen of a forest, mountain, or swamp region. Most likely such an individual would be Flan, and their people holdovers from before the Oeridian and Suel invasions. There are no "plainsmen" left in the Flaneass that could still be barbaric I would think, but possibly in the Baklunish west.
While "introspective" is a word in english, it means someone who thinks about their own thinking a lot, someone who analyzes their own thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.
Someone who prefers to be by them self would better be called "introverted" (directing energy inward), which can mean shy, quiet, reticent, etc. Introverted is the opposite of "extroverted", which can mean social, gregarious, etc.
Kirt _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
wonder if anyone could recommend a good reading about the diferent kinds of barbarians in GH. A player in my group whants to play one, (a montain or plains man). Not the "hulk smash" guy, but a tall, strong and "shy" *cant fin the english word, but in portugues is "introspectivo" (one who prefer to be with himself)
Echoing Kirt, check out the UA write-up for barbarians. If he wants a "plains-runner" type, look to the Rovers of the Barrens, a plains horseman of a Mongol/Turkish blend would be more Tiger and Wolf Nomads. Mountain types tend to hail from the Hold of Stonefist. All UA barbarians have the basic skillset necessary to model mountain dwellers. Let me know if you need specifics.
wonder if anyone could recommend a good reading about the diferent kinds of barbarians in GH. A player in my group whants to play one, (a montain or plains man). Not the "hulk smash" guy, but a tall, strong and "shy" *cant fin the english word, but in portugues is "introspectivo" (one who prefer to be with himself)
When the barbarians rules were introduced in Dragon (number 64 IIRC), there were Greyhawk-specific notes suggesting that the Rovers of the Barrens, the Wolf and Tiger Nomads, and Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians would be of the class. IIRC the people from the Hold of Stonefist and the Amedeo and Hepmonaland were also mentioned. Both weapons and secondary skills were suggested for each group. That would be the original source for "the different kinds of barbarians in GH." What was in Dragon was largely incorporated word-for-word in the (original, 1E) Unearthed Arcana.
If none of these quite fit your player's idea, there is ample room to have a barbarian come from a minor group of tribesmen of a forest, mountain, or swamp region. Most likely such an individual would be Flan, and their people holdovers from before the Oeridian and Suel invasions. There are no "plainsmen" left in the Flaneass that could still be barbaric I would think, but possibly in the Baklunish west.
While "introspective" is a word in english, it means someone who thinks about their own thinking a lot, someone who analyzes their own thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.
Someone who prefers to be by them self would better be called "introverted" (directing energy inward), which can mean shy, quiet, reticent, etc. Introverted is the opposite of "extroverted", which can mean social, gregarious, etc.
Kirt
thanks kirt, it was not introspective :D
the article in dragon 63 is good, and i think someone already have used it here in this topic.
i will show my friend ;)
If it is 3E I guess a multiclass character or alternate class features are the way to go, if you don't want to play a berserker, as the 3E Barbarian core class is pretty much defined by it's increasing rage ability. Now a Brb/Rgr is another thing completely.
There are also a few nice regional feats in Dragon 315 and 319, including a few for the different barbarians. (They are also available here (online) and here (Word document))
If it is 2E there are a few different character kits in the Complete Fighter, Ranger and Barbarian handbooks. Again the Barbarian kit from Compl. Fighter is applicable mostly to viking berserkers as it is pretty much defined by the rage ability. But there are many other kits that could fit well.
Last edited by Thanael on Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:06 am; edited 1 time in total
If it is 3E I guess a multiclass character or alternate class features are the way to go, if you don't want to play a berserker. the 3E Barbarian core class is pretty much defined by it's increasing rage ability. Now a Brb/Rgr is another thing completely.
There are also a few nice regional feats in Dragon 315 and 319, including a few for the different barbarians. (They are also available here (online) and here (Word document))
If it is 2E there are a few different character kits in the Complete Fighter, Ranger and Barbarian handbooks. Again the Barbarian kit is applicable mostly to viking berserkers as it is pretty much defined by teh rage ability. But there are many other kits that could fit well.
thanks Thanael!
we play 2ed, but i prefer not to use kits.
i have learned some great stuff here, about barbarians (but in the end, that player decided to do a human thug ¬¬)
Correction to 2E. The barbarian kit is specifically the movie version of Conan. Proficient with bastard sword and battle axe, poor reaction rolls with spell casters, cheesy literary basis.
The berserker kit is the berserker and it provides a set of rules for "raging."
The wilderness warrior kit is closer to the barbarian class of AD&D UA, but the tech level is generally pre-iron age.
Bit off topic but since the thread seems to be headed that way
I am curious; player kit or not?
Personally I never did warm to them; saw them as an unnecessary complication.
when we discovered the brown books, we went crazy!
lots of photocopy books, and we had them all..so, kit was a NECESSARY thing in our campaings! bladesingers, dragon slayers, ninjas of all sort..
and the world was beatiffull (and a bit insane).
than we got older, and now, i can even think of choosing one! they are so off balance...i mean, when we compare one with another
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
I mean seriously, how many times have we played in a game and the guy who is playing the barbarian plays him like a retard (Yes, I said "retard!" Get over you political correctness people, you're all adults. I mean it in a social sense, not a cognitive manner). Big, dumb and obnoxious. Barbarians have no concept of history, engineering, literature, art and it is simply the suspension of disbelief that has allowed the average barbarian pc not to be exterminated. Honestly, most people who play barbarians name themselves "Thag," "Crunk," "Grog," etc. The most profound thing they say is "Thag SMASH!" or "Thag like to eat!" The only good they are is when they rage, so why even have them?
We have the northern barbarians, the Paynims, the vast tribes of the Flan, peoples who live near or in swamps or mountains. Certainly there is a difference between cannabalistic cavemen and the tribes of the north. There are differences between say, the Frost Barbarians and the Flan roving around near the Hool Marshes or Sunndi? So how do we feel about these uncivilized brutes? Why do we, as GM's and WoG fans, allow players to play the stereotypical barbarian? Let's look at Conan. 
By the time he became king, he spoke 6-7 languages and read/wrote four fluently? 
He made maps for fun and they were accurate! 
Even the Greeks and Romans were impressed that "Barbarians" could do such things! 
