Why nobody makes barbarians right?

It means brbr-sayer, basically stutterer

But it's the best kind of pc ever.

Only weaklings would want to be a manlet from some random potato planting village or a filthy disgusting city dweller.

Prove that I don't do barbarians right, faget.

Because fantasy is created by normal(...-ish) writers but beloved of by autists, and the more autistic they are the more likely they play RPGs.

>Tolkien
>Lovecraft
>Howard
>Gygax
>early GW
>normalish

Less-autistic than their fans. "Normal" is a relative term in any case and especially w/r/t fantasy authors.

But yeah, good writing requires nuance and autistics don't really do nuance. Fantasy fans also tend toward the "got beaten up in school a lot and were never able to really get past it" side of the scale.

So you get dumb jock barbarians rather than book-dumb/street (wilderness)-smart ones like I think most good treatments of barbs have them being.

the point of role playing is to be someone you are not

So wouldn't that make the people who play as barbarians the real weaklings

It's fun to be the simple character once in a while. Let the quiet guys plan and follow their plans. Help them improve.

I always play as human, do this mean that I'm not a human?

Joke's on you, OP. I just ended a session where my 10 INT Barbarian made nearly all the battle plans.

I never said everything you are not I just said someone you are not

Most D&D players are themselves idiots who can't take anything seriously and think retarded characters are so funny xD

>good writing requires nuance
The hell it does, not everyone is trying to be Hemmingway. Tolkien was completely devoid of nuance and subtlety, and his works are better for it. Take Maeglin, the angsty elf that betrays Gondolin and one of extremely few characters who ever is shown not to belong exclusively to one or the other side from the moment he is introduced, and something like five sentences into his post-introduction he's been established to be fated to fall into evil because of the encounter, and the next time he's relevant he's turned completely evil almost off-page and betrayed one of the last bastions of good to the source of all universal evil.

>Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel (for they alone can with reason be deemed absolutely unequal), but then they are of all men the least inclined to do so.
You could always play your Barbarian not as a being of blind animal rage, but as a instrument of precise and just fury. Emphasise stuff like moral courage, the virtue of direct action, and righting wrongs by way of the sword.
Less "Hurr durr I'm stupid and angry" and more "Anger is my tool".

Sometimes it's fun to play the bumbling idiot who could crush anyone in the party with his bare hands.

But fun is not really funny.

As a joke it can be funny, but with time your retarded barbarian is going to get boring.

I had a gm that was obsessed with gming a commoner only game. He said we didn't actually care about roleplaying. I said I was already an irrelevant peasant in real life and didn't want to pretend to be a different irrelevant peasant in game.

Because the noble savage trope is LAAAAAAAAAME

The thread is not about it

We had a barbarian who enjoyed alchemy as a hobby

"Nuance" doesn't necessarily mean "moral ambiguity is a theme", despite what autistic shitposters would have you believe.

Then I suppose you can provide other examples of nuance in Tolkien's works?

No, because I never read Tolkien, but outside of Veeky Forums "nuance" generally refers to how a theme is expressed rather than the theme itself. If a writer makes use of many small touches when describing something to make it more evocative or tie many threads of a story into something unique, it can definitely be called "nuanced". I'm given to understand that Tolkien was exceptional at this.

>No, because I never read Tolkien
Then you are a BLASPHEMER!

Sorry I spent high school playing football and making amateur attempts at building robots, your grace.

You could do both and more.

Because inferior editions of D&D forced barbarians to be illiterate.

Very probably, your grace. I'll get around to Tolkien at some point, likely after I finish the White-Luck Warrior and the next book on my "serious" reading list.

On topic, one day I want to play a barbarian who's a civilized and well-educated man, but who has no combat training outside of his great physical strength and extreme temper. Played as something other than a joke, he could make a good character, like as a contrast to decadent backstabby high society ponces in a political campaign.

>paladins
>specialized
Yeah, they only have heavy armor and weapons for combat, can use their spells for healing or buffing allies or to smite down single foes, have high charisma and are respected in the community so they make great faces, have auras that protect their allies, can sense undead and fiends, and can heal wounds and diseases. So specialized.

>it's a barbarian talking in a funny way for the billionth time episode

Which is funny since the Conan stories seems to be an argument against that, saying that barbarians are smarter, better and more human than most. I guess people aren't keeping up with the conversation.

That depends on whether "Barbarian" is a class or cultural background. Some systems can handle that nuance.

Because power through individuality is scary.

>Only weaklings would want to be a manlet from some random potato planting village
Like Bilbo and Frodo.

>and his works are better for it

>Why nobody makes barbarians right?

Yeah my dude i was making a point about characterization and roleplay, as in paladins specialized in being the moral compass, the zealot, etc. In other words replacing personality with class tropes

My current character is literally a manlet from a potato farming village, so I have to disagree.

>>Only weaklings would want to be a manlet from some random potato planting village
>Like Bilbo and Frodo
Weaklings? More like min-maxers.

>two-part campaign is about the struggle against a corrupting evil
>players should expect their characters to be mind controlled or taken away
>Bilbo's player finds a splat-book race that is great at sneaking, and resistant to mind control and magic.

I purposefully make my barbarians wrong by making them speak greek

Nobody laughs
:(

Irish?

>More like min-maxers.
Munchkins. Fuck.

Can they at least be barbarian munchkins?

I have an addiction to making tiny str-based characters.
I played a kobold half-dragon/tiefling shenanigan with 28 str and talked the DM into magic weapon/fang casting bracers, so I could throw furniture/rocks/other enemies as a reasonable combat technique.

Racism is a pretty old concept, dude.

Do they know it's Greek?

Quality post, but what about the shark's tax policy?

It's sometimes brought up that "barbarian" is kind of a misnomer, since it's really some ancient discriminatory slang for illiterate idiots.

The thing is that we don't have any other word that invokes the image of a raging, reckless warrior that tears through the battlefield on sheer force alone as obviously as "barbarian".

Really, what else would you call them? Ragers?

>The thing is that we don't have any other word that invokes the image of a raging, reckless warrior that tears through the battlefield on sheer force alone as obviously as "barbarian".
Have you heard of a Berserker?

This. He's a fighter/monk or fighter/brawler if you are a pathfinderfag. Not a lot of levels in monk but just enough to get evasion and wisdom to AC.

That's a fighter subclass in d&d senpai

I'm sorry, I don't play MMORPGs.

Well I don't wear towels either, so

I don't get it.

exactly towel wearer

I still don't get it, so I guess I'll have to throw in the towel.

That's not "noboby". That's "DND".

Dungeon World nails it, even if you don't like the system.

>I dare to say its way of doing it isn't even that system-dependent

>silmarillion

>good part of the legendarium

Dude, the EGYPTIANS were barbarians. You know, the guys Plato had an hard-on for, books, temples, oldest civilization, all the usual fare.
Hardly irrational sheepfucking pillagers.

And I'm not gonna point to the statue of the diying Galatian, even for more "savage" types.

this, I cringe and die a little every time someone laughs at the sir bearington pasta (reminder that it's fake)

know your audience

Because the most popular pen and paper RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, portrays barbarian's this way in a mechanical sense.

Going by just the core rules, barbarians are Garbo at performing most skills, and primarily exist to just be beat sticks. Therefore they are retards.

Die a lot next time instead.

This. Stop believing the pop culture image and read the source material.

yet the way they were framed is that their mathematical prowess was somehow a result of an inborn but limited understanding to be perfected by the Greeks.

Because I was playing an orc barbarian

Care to give us a cite?

Because D&D rewards excessive min-maxing, and mental stats are always first on the chopping block.

>Being a barbarian doesn't mean you need to act like a low IQ retard

That's why I play a sophisticated barbarian, like in OP's pic, who punches camels in the face in marketplaces.

For fucks sake. It means they are from Barbary.

The people most attested to holding the title of "Barbarian" were the Galatians, who if you knew your Accounts, were seen as extremely intelligent, beautify Warrior-people by the greeks.

However, Galatian as a language was a Gallic language, which everyone knows sounds "Sing-Song" at best and "Rambling shit" at worst.

Which is why they compared the language to Birdsong. It may sound a little like music, but it's fucking impossible to understand for a non-gaul.

>"Sing-Song" at best and "Rambling shit" at worst.
youtube.com/watch?v=5NmAAZ27pLo

The problem is that berserkers were not raging retards. They were just the Earl's champion

Barbary is later term developed from the word barbarian to denote north africans from the Barbary Coast

To be fair, what use is INT or CHA to a melee class that focuses on hitting shit for 90% of its class features?

I mean, at least WIS covers shit like insight and perception, INT and CHA are always either the most broken stat in the game if the GM is willing to play ball or the most worthless stats in the game because the GM chooses to either ignore it or sweep it under the rug. There's no in between.

Hurp derp look at me I care more for historical accuracy than fantasy!

Aristotle, politic, book I, chapterr iii I believe

Say one thing for Logen Ninefingers, say he's a barbarian

I want to make a barbarian character based off of Titus Pullo

youtube.com/watch?v=VUjaHP4GEqU

youtube.com/watch?v=xBCqAU4HB5o

youtube.com/watch?v=g89LSzDuuQ4

>Hemmingway
>nuance
Hemmingway is about as dry and direct as it's possible to be while still writing readable literature.

Rome was the best fucking thing.

You gotta get a player to play a Lucius type to buddy up with though - I figure he'd be a face of some kind, not sure what class specifically.

I'm just gonna pretend you never said that.

I feel like a barbarian with his heart in the right place and a straight-edge paladin could make a pretty cool power-duo.

I just wanted to argue about literature without going to Veeky Forums...

I know that feel, bro. But I've derailed enough threads the few days to feel comfortable doing it again.

>But Vorenus, if you're a Pally, what God are you devoted to?

youtu.be/f1IQicmIiXM?t=187

... Shit man, he even falls like a Paladin when shit hits the fan, it works the more I think about it. I wanna play a game where two players are Titus and Lucius-esque characters as a gold-hearted Barbarian and a slowly crumbling Paladin respectively.

>Greeks
>rational
LOL some phylosophers aren't the thought and culture of an entire people. The "muh original western rationality" is a Reinassance meme, especially when you consider that most of these phylosophers come from late classical/early hellenistic era, exactly when the insular poleis model was failing/had failed, and with it most of the hellenic way of life