Why does no one respect the Barbarian archetype these days?

Because honestly Barbarians just seem like fighters who like being naked.

I actually respect barbarians now more than I ever did. Before, they were just shitty rage machines, but now, in 5e (and some small part, 4e), they actually have some class and an actual identity separate from the other classes.

We are too far from nature

Stereotyped to be naked and retarded. Turns people off. 5e does it right by portaying the barbarian as a nordic, perfectly clothed viking in it's art.

>everyone can afford armor

Because nobody wants to be the master of their own destiny anymore.

Did he get angry and kill the fuck out of people?

And Humanity is represented as a black woman.

>perfectly clothed
*barf*
Semi-skimpy or nothing.

>D&D Barbarians are the only ture barbarians
Sigh.

No, This is precisely the reason why people are turned off by it nowadays. The perception and image most have of Barbarians is of an ignorant savage, someone clearly *not* in control of their destiny because they don't know shit. This is what most believe now and that makes the class unappealing.

Yeah, people got too used to being under the yolk. The moment there is any pretense of not being leashed, we assume they are ignorant and savage.

Which is stupid because barbarians would have to have survival intelligence similar to that of a ranger.

>because they don't know shit

Funnily enough Conan from R.E Howard's works was a cultivated man who knew how to speak, write and read multiple languages, and possessed enough worldly knowledge and insight to fill entire libraries.

Also he was trained by some of the finest martial arts trainers in the east, honestly Conan was kind of a (male) mary sue.

Many fantasy writers, because they're hacks, believe there's really two options for your swordguy characters: honorable knight and brutal savage.

Which is a shame because there's just so much variety you can play with when it comes to barbarians. My draw to them as they're the Chaotic version of a Paladin: an otherwise honorable and competent warrior who represents a culture where actual Paladinhood is kind of an alien concept.

When I think of Barbarians in terms of the class, I think of Aztec Jaguars or similar IRL warriors. My understanding was always the term "barbarian" was an in-universe name for a warrior from a different culture and not an actual objective judgment on the character's intelligence.

Did you know that Conan and Cthulhu live in the same universe?

Well the days of roid-looking, rugged, fighters is over sadly.

Because 3e fucked it up.

Greeks had their Barbarian, Hercules.

Did you miss the part where he goes in a battle rage multiple times?

This is the answer, sadly. In the first half of the 20th century you had your Conans and Tarzans and your John Carters. Then after WWII pulp magazines sold units based on salacious stories on barbarian types. By the 80's and 90's when pulp mags gave way to novel series people moved away from wandering barbarians to courtly factions, since they worked better in that format since adventures went from self contained romps to twelve novel epics. Now that those series are finally ending the trend is just doubling down on heros journey archtypes featuring younger waifs, so there's no room for an adult fighter who already knows who he is.

People realised the Noble Savage was bullshit.

>the trend is just doubling down on heros journey archtypes featuring younger waifs
Ugh, this. I don't hate the idea itself but I'm getting a little sick of these tropes showing up in everything.

You know why basing every story around a basic as dirt narrative structure is a bad idea? Because it gets really fucking easy to predict everything that's going to happen. But I guess that's the price of living in an entertainment age where movies are just factory productions. The corporate suits know what we want in the slop and damn if we don't eat that shit up.

I disagree.
Read Out Of The Silent Planet. And not all barbarians are savages.

"Noble Savage" is a specific trope which doesn't actually involve nobility or savages. It's a term for mainstream fiction's patronizing attitude towards "savage" cultures like American Indians. It implies their lack of civilization is a virtue, and their closeness to the land gives them a moral and spiritual high ground over whitey.

It is of course a blatantly racist concept, because it trivializes cultures into Disney song morality and it completely ignores the societal advancements many of these cultures made.

Because people are dumb/lazy and haven't seen a more interesting way to fluff a barbarian that they can steal in some time except The Hulk.
Everything is Conan, with the differences in character entirely being whether Conan is a murderhobo, or has vague shamanistic beliefs he reminds people about every few minutes. Except for the ones who are The Hulk, who die before they hit second level because their anger made them invincible.

>is literally called 'the barbarian'
>"that's not how a barbarian is defined by D&D, the prime authority in fantasy!"

>trained by fighters of the East
Mate, movie Conan ain't book Conan, you know that, right?

Movie Conan is still a perfectly valid character.

I'm pretty sure Book Conan has at some point been to the East. He's been everywhere else.

>living a simple rugged life can't be noble
Do you also think the same thing about homesteaders?
>Assumes noble savage is racist
>Forgets that the celts were a thing

But Movie Conan retired in California. Did Book Conan do that?

The racism part doesn't come from implying a simple life is noble.

It comes from misrepresenting another culture into a tooty-frooty hippy society and then implying that culture is superior to all others. It usually ties in to white guilt.

A good example is that infamous ad where the Native American cries at the sight of people chucking trash onto the road. It's just kinda exploitative and patronizing.

>The racism part doesn't come from implying a simple life is noble
I know that you moron.

>It comes from misrepresenting another culture into a tooty-frooty hippy society and then implying that culture is superior to all others. It usually ties in to white guilt
>Forgets again about celtic druids

>Is upset at the anti-litter video, for featuring the celts of America, crying at the fact their homeland is getting harmed
Would you be happier if it had potato niggers instead of red skins crying?

t. Hillary voter

user, if you made Pocahontas with Celts and Romans, it would not be any less racist.

I feel like a moron now.

Any self respecting murderhobo dons armor at first encounter.

And being a yoked mule is being the master of your destiny?

>Cthulhu
>live

uh huh

Does he have the face of a predator (Yautja) on his belt?

Not a barbarian by the Greek definition.

"When I was little, we found a man. He looked like - like, butchered. The old woman in the village crossed themselves... and whispered crazy things, strange things. "El Diablo cazador de hombres." Only in the hottest years this happens. And this year, it grows hot. We begin finding our men. We found them sometimes without their skins... and sometimes much, much worse. "El cazador trofeo de los hombres" means the demon who makes trophies of men."

How so? He was a rugged, roid-like, strength fighter, who only the lion skin when fighting.

Did you do know the author was friends with H. P. Lovecraft?

>Why does no one respect the Barbarian archetype these days?

youtube.com/watch?v=1IXIPn70XZg

No point in being some muscle-bound idiot when a smart person can do everything you can do better.

Because anime faggots and dexfags

The word barbarian literally translates to "speaks like a sheep" (you know, cause sheep say "bar bar") in Ancient Greek and more accurately meant "foreigner, not a Greek."

Is that a Dunlending?

Why does OP keep posting the same thread?

Did you know that which is dead may never die?

>t. Worthless nerd

Because the Barbarian archetype is fucking stupid.

in real life, barbarians such as the Germanic Tribesmen were a mix of ranger, fighter, druid and a tiny bit of D&D barbarian

Because unironic, authentic manliness is being suppressed and subverted in pop culture.

...have you ever watched the show that's from? your "muscle bound idiot" is actually a thoughtful, sensitive genius who just happens to also be good at murdering people (well, not anymore, because he's a good guy now) and the cocky young geek, for all his successes, fucks up on the regular and has to get bailed out by the "muscle bound idiot"

also they are super gay for each other, and the girl in that clip is their poly third wheel.

what's worse is that even most of the self appointed defenders of manliness are frequently some of the worst offenders on that. Confidence and strength are being replaced either by smartass weaklings on one end, and by insecure defensive cowards on the other.
everything is forced into a choice between being a beta cuck or a pick up artist, and neither is authentic.

>heh...whatever virgin

Because frat-house shit is conflated with masculinity, and genuine masculinity is mocked.

>implying anyone who consistently says this has ever read the stories
They're just parroting what they heard someone say once.

Beorning group of people ruled by Beorn

>"that's not how a barbarian is defined by WoTC, the prime authority in RPG fantasy!"
Fixed it for you. I preferred how AD&D did Barbarians, except the can't work with mages thing, that shit was irritating.

Because most players suck at playing barbarians. Instead of a typical gaul/saxon the tards decide to make some angry guy that solve everything through raw strenght.

Conan is a good example of a barbarian, but nobody make pcs like him

Oh of course, that does make sense too. The Beornings are basically a tribe of Woodmen from Mirkwood, right?

>first humans beings in Africa
>the sex that can actually produce children
Makes sense to me.

>Greeks
>Hercules was a barbarian

also

>Greeks
>spelled Hercules

Try again.

Yes because bearing children is the focal point of playing a human in DND...

What's the problem?

>Conan
Conan was a barbarian only in name. His actual class would be a Rogue/Warrior

>Hold on a minute, are you saying that we were kings and such, chaps?

Modern players don't respect anything. Instead of a competent badass who doesn't need the frivolities of civilization, everyone plays them as total retards so funny xD

Hercules is his latin name

NOOOOBODDDDY CAAAAAREEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

when will we round up and give a good whipping to fags that remind everyone "BARBARIAN IS JUST FOREIGNER IN GREEEEEK"

>being a yokeless soycuck

No one likes barbarians because they are backward violent savages that steal your shit and rape your women

>none (barbarians) of them are left
Tell that to the people of Europe

This is the correct answer. Or at least part of it, the other part is deemphasis of STR in combat and making acrobatics and athletics interchangeable.

At least at my table.

That's because Howard literally could not stop wanking Conan. Conan was the strongest, fastest, smartest, bestest all around guy ever.

I read the entire collection you goddamn mouthbreather. He repeatedly goes into a battle fury.

The 3.0 barbarian class was pretty much Conan the class, all it was missing was stealth. Everything from the rage (which is not a mindless berserk fury) to the danger sense is Conan in spades.

*Somebody* has to be at the far end of the bell curve. He's on one side, your family is on the other. What's unreasonable about that?

>play barbarian
>wizard gets uppity
>bring him down to single digit hp without even raging because I specced into anti-casting

Most folks can afford sleeves and more than a loincloth.

You need to acknowledge the multiple meanings of words user.

It’s fairly evident from context they mean pop culture barbarians, not historically accurate barbarians. No one is debating you because you’ve clearly missed the point.

Generally unless the OP posts something about historical relevance it’s probably the pop culture/modern fantasy stereotype that’s they are referencing. Not always but usually .

>+Armor is for pussies anyway
>-Armor isn't actually for pussies

Boring and Overused

>play barbarian
>wizard gets uppity
>fume impotently as he flies away
fix'd

Because classic Sword and Sorcery styled Barbarians are now called Rangers, and rangers suck.

In my opinion they are a waste of space as a class when you can easily mold them back into fighter (same with Ranger as well). Their class features are made to fit the main class features that could honestly be feats: Rage and Favored-Enemy.

Not to mention it sets up this notion that barbarians are only loin cloth wearing weirdos who get mad real easy

>Because classic Sword and Sorcery styled Barbarians are now called Rangers, and rangers suck.

Because classic Sword and Sorcery styled Barbarians are now called Martials, and martials suck.

>Caster Supremacy 4 Lyfe