Muh noble savage

Conan ain't noble; he'll turn traitor the moment someone else offers him more wealth. Then he'll backstab that guy and flee into the wilderness with a bag of loot.

think of a stereotypical native american...there you go

>mutually exclusive terms

You don't understand at least one of the terms.

Actually the noble savage was the idea that they embodied ideals of chivalry and had a noble cause that more sophisticated peoples had lost because of progress.

He was literally a pirate for a while.

Noble: Adjective. Having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.
Savage: Adjective. Fierce, violent, and uncontrolled.

Seems contradictory to me.

Highlander clans.

>Being THIS MUCH of a moron
I bet the term "idiot savant" also triggers you. The term in its modern context dates back to Jacques Cartier discovering Canada, though comparable concepts have been as old as Rome (with Roman authors noting that some 'barbarians' actually had pretty good things about them. The savages of Germania were clean, moderate and well-trained for example).

Nouns are not adjectives. A "noble savage" is adjective. noble but noun. savage.

A Savage can be savage, or they can be noble despite their savage background and upbringing.

A Noble can be noble or they can be savage despite their noble upbringing and background.

Never go full primitivist lads.
But given the world as it is its understandable to see how they got those views.

To me, a noble savage is like a well player Chaotic Good. They dont really give a shit about over complicated regulations or standards but they still do good. For example, corrupt noble will be at a ball. The savage dose not have the patience for all the prop and prim required to enter. Simply waits in the shrubbery outside until the noble arrives, stabs, runs off.

to be fair he was basically everything at one point. I mean it actually fits because who wouldn't want that kind of strong guy on their side.

Not a primitivist, but I enjoy playing the devil's advocate. Beaver's entire argument here is that violence is needed to enforce the law. That much is true, but the crux is that the noble savage would not need the law. If you look at Rousseau's natural State of Man no, Rousseau wasn't a primitivist. Go back to your grave, Voltaire!, you see a state in which law simply wasn't neccessary. The neccessity of law came with property, as the first man who declared a patch of land to be "his" needed means (ie. violence) to enforce that.

The noble savage despite being attributed with inventing it, this term was never used in Rousseau's writing FYI needs no law because he knows no property. The only "law" he would know is simply "don't be a dick". And there's very little reason to be a dick if there's nothing to gain from being a dick. Amusingly you can easily use this belief to make simple contact with the civilized folk toxic to the noble savage. The civilized rank one another in 'worth' according to how many shiny coins they have. Once they start trading/giving coins to the noble savages, there already exists inequality through possession. Which would lead to envy, theft/murder and the need for enforced violence to "civilize" the savages.

Crocodile Dundee.

He was literally a king for a while too (though not by choice). He had strong morals and he sticks to them. Those morals happen to allow for piracy.

That's not what savage in this context means you autistic retard. It means one of primitive background.
If that's too much to comprehend, maybe you should rest your two remaining braincells.

It depends on the stereotype, user

I don't remmeber my french literature well, but i am pretty sure the bon savage comes before Rousseau.

Arguing against the semantics is a sure sign that you cannot argue against the content of the argument itself.

The Ndebele never mutilated the dead bodies of british/dutch opponents fallen in battle. They only mutilated people who ran away who showed cowardice.

Yeah, it comes from Jacques Cartier. It's just that it's popularly attributed to a guy who never used the phrase in his writing. Rousseau did write "let them eat cake" though, which was in turn attributed to Marie-Antoinette who herself never said that.

Fun times.

Don't make him noble because he is savage. Make him noble despite being savage.

Wew, bon sauvage i meant
ayy thank you.

The dude started a thread asking how to do what is literally the easiest trope ever, the tried to argue it's impossible because savages cannot be noble.

You might as well be arguing with a wall.

As a complete aside, I never quite got Rosseau. I mean, I see the appeal of wanting to believe that people are naturally good, and I believe that myself to a certain point, but he sees people in an overly ideal lens.

I mean, take his most famous quote for example
>Man is born free and yet everywhere I see he is in chains.

That is patently false. An infant is born at the complete mercy of the world with no real free agency. From the get go they are subject to the mercies of others for their survival. It is mostly through the shackles of genetics, hormones and societal expectations that parents bother to protect their child at all. Truly man is not born free in any capacity.

>doesn't understand context
You can't ask someone to be compeltely free of external agency. He clearly means political freedom.

The Moriori tribes of the Chatham Islands supposedly had a code of pacifism, which worked for them pretty well as long as they remained isolated because they didn't waste resources on inter-tribal warfare. But as a result they offered no resistance at all to the British and then Maori invaders, the latter of which murdered most of them and enslaved the rest.

Well even then he's wrong. A child isn't born with any political agency, which goes to reason that man is not born free

>Man is born free and yet everywhere I see he is in chains.
Let's go to the source material to see what he means then. Rousseau treats this in the very first two pages of his Social Contract. He considers subjugation to parents part of the 'chains' that bind free man. He does not resent the chains per se, but seeks for justifications for this. In the case of the parent-child relationship he sees a justification:
>You could call the family the prime model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all of them—·ruler, people, father, children·—because they were born free and equal don’t give up their liberty without getting something in return. The whole difference is that •in the family the father’s care for his children is repaid by his love for them, whereas •in the state the ruler’s care for the people under him is repaid not by love for them (which he doesn’t have!) but by the pleasure of being in charge.

As you can see later on, Rousseau is not against giving up natural(!) liberty per se. This can be given up in exchange for something else, something useful. Like the 'regency' a father has over a child until he's an adult. In the next few pages Rousseau tries and fails to see something like that in the rule of kings. He concludes that this rule is mostly justified through "might makes right" and then deconstructs that phrase (through it making jabs at Hobbes. Like Locke before him, Rousseau set out to solve the problem Hobbes' philosophy led to: all power is justified because it's better than the alternative).

I also disagree with Rousseau about human nature but luckily for us it's not as central to his philosophy as Hobbes view of the state of nature was to his. Rousseau mostly uses it to critize Hobbes for placing modern man in a primitive context, but at the same time admits his own state of nature is hypothetical, can never be returned to and perhaps never existed at all.

>Savage
In this sense means “non-Christian, non-European”
>Noble
In this sense mean “virtuous, mascule, stoic”

Do all the stuff seen as virtuous and christian without being from a christian, industrializing nation state.

Take someone from a decidedly "uncivilized" place, but have them exemplefy the virtues of of the larger civilization. For example, if you had a place that was basically fantasy arthurian england, a noble savage could be a pictish warrior who still exemplefies the ideas of chivalry, honor, and duty, while still remaining a savage by the terms of the more dominant civilization. A gaulish barbarian expressing ideals in line with Roman conquerors, while still fighting against them. An Uruk-Hai sparing the life of a downed soldier of Rohan because they believe that a man should die fighting. The list goes on.

Naturally, this changes a lot depending on which civilizations you're working with.

Depends on what you consider "noble",

“Noble savage” means they’re primitive yet kind. Is that the whole thread?

Give him land and a title?

Take real life savages and remove the bad stuff, like the baby cannibalism.

Have them not really say or do much. Or put them in an environment that's only slightly more dignified than they're used to, like on a ship.

Do it Brave New World style by making the civilized world a stupid, decadent dystopia.
Now how do you make a Savage Noble?

you make them extinct.
Only dead people do not commit crimes and hence can be noble.

Except "peace", "equality", etc are civilised values. Savage people don't believe in them. Anarcho primitivists believe in a civilised, anti nature ideology because peace doesn't occur in nature, war is constant.

You really believe that people from less technologically advanced civilizations didn't believe in the concept of peace or equality?

Topkek, are you that dude from another thread who posted viking art while claiming to be a real life barbarian?

Why did you have to remind me of that twat?

What do you think of the Warcraft Hordes noble savage?

Make him a knight/duke/prince/whatever who is either forced or has chosen to rely on more primitive equipment and no armour and all-around "savage" ways.

Or alternatively, make him a man from a "savage" culture who has somehow managed to get knighted and become nobility.

I feel like it would be impossible without the proper contrast. If your party is accepting totally legit jobs from their king/patron/contractor, then the noble savage doesn't have any room to grow or shine. You need to have some sort of conflict in your storyline that allows them to differentiate their ideals away from the "standard values" that the rest of the group has. This could come up either in the adventure as decided by the GM, or their patron could give the party a shady job. Or you could let it shine just with minor NPC interactions if your character isn't a total CHA/face dump

You give them a sense of opulence through being distinguished culturally and financially, and give them a sense of savagery by making it a culture so foreign that it seems like they're uncultured. For example a warlord from the steppes, a native american shaman, or any other exotic elite from a far off land.

murdered and ate user, don't forget that part.

>Now how do you make a Savage Noble?
You take someone with power and noble qualities - bravery, honour, or even just a high position in society - and then you make them have savage features - a love of violence, little restraint, a brutal nature; in some cases restricting their worldview of "people" who have to be treated with honour and respect only to other nobles.
Basically just make them a member or descendant of a warrior aristocracy.

You make a normal, medieval knight.
They're noble, they're savages. Done and done.

...

I understand his argument, but such a society is an impossibility. Even if you took personal property away, which even tribals still have, you would still need laws. Say two people get into an argument, it need not be over property as anyone with school yard experience can tell you sometimes people fight over nothing. Guy 1 attacks Guy 2, thus without this act being against the law or punishable in some way it becomes clear this violence is accepted so it shall become commonplace.

meant for

...