PDA

View Full Version : ...why do Barbarians hate magic?



TechnOkami
2011-02-28, 10:55 PM
...I realize that the answer seems more or less obvious, but I want other people's opinions, not just my own. So... why do Barbarians hate magic?

Worira
2011-02-28, 10:55 PM
Since when do barbarians hate magic?

Vladislav
2011-02-28, 10:56 PM
Because Conan hated Tulsa Doom, and it sort of developed from there.

Serpentine
2011-02-28, 10:57 PM
I can honestly say I've never come across any Barbarians hating magic.

Zeofar
2011-02-28, 11:02 PM
Barbarians don't generally hate magic as far as I know; the worst that could be assumed of a generic barbarian is animosity toward spellcasters for placing learning above strength. Hackmaster Barbarians apparently hate all magic, and that's all I've heard of it as a rule (and just today, in fact!).

Tael
2011-02-28, 11:09 PM
I think he's referring to the ridiculous note in the PHB description on "How to play a Barbarian".

Yeah, basically, always ignore those sections. They're pretty useless for most games.

Studoku
2011-02-28, 11:09 PM
It stems back to the days of yore (1st ed d&d I think) where barbarians were not only prohibited from using magic items but they also gained exp for destroying magic items.

Why it was like that then, I haven't the foggiest. There was a lot of arbitrary stuff back then.

Swordguy
2011-02-28, 11:12 PM
The idea is that the generic "barbarian" culture is very honor-centric. Such societies tend to place importance on things like "fair" fights within their culture. Sure, they might ambush and wipe out another group of folks, but those people weren't "honorable" anyway, so it doesn't matter.

With that in mind, think about within a tribe, when two fighter-types have a disagreement. They set up a fighting circle, and they duel each other face to face with each guy having a fighting chance to win. Sure, one guy may be stronger, or more experienced...but he is in there risking himself, and the other guy may get lucky. He's taking the risk, and that's what matters.

Now compare that to a wizard and a fighter-type having a disagreement. The fighter type draws a weapon, and the wizard teleports away, or fries him with a wiggle of the fingers from 500 yards back, or turns him into a newt (will he get better? Who knows?), and so on and so forth. It is, essentially, not a "fair" fight. Thus, not an honorable one. The wizard was never really in any danger, because the fighter is never going to get near enough to be a threat. While there's victory in such a fight, there's no honor in it.

Thus, it seems more reasonable to conclude that barbarians will dislike magic, as it renders two prime facets of their culture, honor and melee prowess, essentially pointless.

(Again, this assumes the "generic" idea of barbarians - primitive, though not unwise, physical combatants who value strength and honor. Definitions of "barbarian" may vary. See your local Visigoth, Celt, or Mongol for details.)

Rappy
2011-02-28, 11:16 PM
They have wand envy. :smallwink:

Or, more seriously, a combination of Conan-itis and earlier edition fluff as was already noted.

Personally, though, I like the combination of barbarians and shamanistic spellcasters in a culture.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-28, 11:23 PM
Dude, Runescarred Berserker means your entire premise fails.

Also, Champion of Gwyver-whatchamacallit from Book of Exalted Cheese.

rayne_dragon
2011-02-28, 11:33 PM
It stems back to the days of yore (1st ed d&d I think) where barbarians were not only prohibited from using magic items but they also gained exp for destroying magic items.

Why it was like that then, I haven't the foggiest. There was a lot of arbitrary stuff back then.

This. Which I believe arises from certain fictional barbarians hating magic in general.

Good old destroying magic item XP. :smallcool:

Ravens_cry
2011-02-28, 11:38 PM
It was probably based on Conan as well as the Norse, who greatly feared sorcery. In fact, calling someone a sorcerer was an extremely grave insult I am given to understand.
Barbarian's getting XP for magic items was because back then, magic items actually gave XP. But since Barbarians were supposed to be against magic items, they needed a way to keep up. Hence, destroying magic items for XP.

Vknight
2011-02-28, 11:48 PM
Yeah the idea stuck and has followed along like the red headed stepchild you are unable to get ride of it.

Anxe
2011-03-01, 12:02 AM
They hate what they don't understand.

dgnslyr
2011-03-01, 12:05 AM
They hate cowards, and nobody is more cowardly than that dress-wearing pansy in the back who gestures and spouts gibberish, too afraid to test the honorable waters of hand-to-hand combat.

WarKitty
2011-03-01, 12:06 AM
It was probably based on Conan as well as the Norse, who greatly feared sorcery. In fact, calling someone a sorcerer was an extremely grave insult I am given to understand.

Yes and no. Calling a *man* a sorcerer was a very grave insult, but that was as much because sorcery was seen as exclusively a woman's activity. A sorceress was actually a highly respected role.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-01, 12:33 AM
Dude, Runescarred Berserker means your entire premise fails.


He didn't say any of it about RB culture. He said it about Barbarian culture.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-01, 12:38 AM
He didn't say any of it about RB culture. He said it about Barbarian culture.


Hit Die: d10.
REQUIREMENTS
To qualify to become a runescarred berserker, a character
must fulfill all the following criteria.
Base Attack Bonus: +7.
Skills: Craft (scarring) 5 ranks, Intimidate
5 ranks, Sense Motive 2 ranks.
Feats: Iron Will, Survivor (FRCS),
at least one berserker lodge feat from
Chapter 3: Regions and Feats.
Special: The character must be able to
rage at least once per day, as the barbarian
class ability, and must be a member of
a berserker lodge.

Sorry, what was that, again?

Ozymandias
2011-03-01, 12:45 AM
Yes and no. Calling a *man* a sorcerer was a very grave insult, but that was as much because sorcery was seen as exclusively a woman's activity. A sorceress was actually a highly respected role.

Well, Odin was the god of sorcery (among other things). Although many older Gods were androgynous, so who knows.

My theory? Barbarians are jealous of wizards, because the latter gain their power through something barbarians can't do, namely, read.

HunterOfJello
2011-03-01, 12:49 AM
The Barbarians in the first Icewind Dale book, The Crystal Shard, feared and hated magic. I don't think all Barbarians are against the use of magic, because it does present one tribe in a distant area that is led by a Shaman who uses magic, but I got the jist that most Barbarians have a strong dislike for arcane magic.

The Crystal Shard was written in 1988 and was one of the first Forgotten Realms novels (along with being a great read), so it likely led to other authors continuing the precedence.

It makes sense that many Barbarian tribes would fear what they don't understand and hate enemies who can kill and overpower them en masse without any shown feats of strength. If you live your entire life in a heirarchy based on physical strength and prowess in battle, then you're going to get pretty pissed off when a weak and sickly looking 8 Strength, 10 Dexterity, 7 Con, 18 Intelligence Wizard shoots a handful of spells off and kills half your tribe.

At least if a Barbarian is defeated by a Dragon, a Powerful Demon or Tarrasque, he can die 'in honor' knowing that he was bested by a powerful enemy whose raw physical power exceeds his own. Getting killed the spell of a weak little gnome just because it can control strange and alien arcane powers is an insult to a Barbarians entire way of life.


Yes and no. Calling a *man* a sorcerer was a very grave insult, but that was as much because sorcery was seen as exclusively a woman's activity. A sorceress was actually a highly respected role.

If I remember correctly, in the older books (or novels) 'Sorcery' was the name of the type of magics that were used to summon demons. So, being a Sorcerer meant you were using magics that were heavily frowned upon by most mages and might get you into trouble.

dark.sun.druid
2011-03-01, 12:59 AM
Personally, I think the reason is fairly mundane. Barbarians are great melee combatants, but because of their generally low will save they tend to fair poorly against spellcasters. Hence, a dislike. Or, you know, that's what I get from my personal experience as the point of origin for a delayed fireball spell (I know that one is a reflex save).

calar
2011-03-01, 01:21 AM
Because they are jealous :smalltongue:

Cerlis
2011-03-01, 01:31 AM
except for the fact that in pretty much every fantasy setting ever (expessially DnD based ones)

any melee warrior (in general really) dislikes magic because of:


The idea is that the generic "barbarian" culture is very honor-centric. Such societies tend to place importance on things like "fair" fights within their culture. Sure, they might ambush and wipe out another group of folks, but those people weren't "honorable" anyway, so it doesn't matter.

With that in mind, think about within a tribe, when two fighter-types have a disagreement. They set up a fighting circle, and they duel each other face to face with each guy having a fighting chance to win. Sure, one guy may be stronger, or more experienced...but he is in there risking himself, and the other guy may get lucky. He's taking the risk, and that's what matters.

Now compare that to a wizard and a fighter-type having a disagreement. The fighter type draws a weapon, and the wizard teleports away, or fries him with a wiggle of the fingers from 500 yards back, or turns him into a newt (will he get better? Who knows?), and so on and so forth. It is, essentially, not a "fair" fight. Thus, not an honorable one. The wizard was never really in any danger, because the fighter is never going to get near enough to be a threat. While there's victory in such a fight, there's no honor in it.

Thus, it seems more reasonable to conclude that barbarians will dislike magic, as it renders two prime facets of their culture, honor and melee prowess, essentially pointless.

(Again, this assumes the "generic" idea of barbarians - primitive, though not unwise, physical combatants who value strength and honor. Definitions of "barbarian" may vary. See your local Visigoth, Celt, or Mongol for details.)

and often that is in addition to the superstitious nature of tribal cultures.

Its a dishonorable, cowardly, dark practice. your classic barbarian would only come to trust the party wizard after the wizard shows how natural his magic is and proves his physical might and maybe even staves off the barbarian's weakness with a spell of his own.

IthroZada
2011-03-01, 02:09 AM
Sorry, what was that, again?
Having the same class ability is not being the same class. Druidic avengers can rage, classes that get sneak attacks aren't rogues because of it.

averagejoe
2011-03-01, 02:22 AM
It was probably based on Conan as well as the Norse, who greatly feared sorcery. In fact, calling someone a sorcerer was an extremely grave insult I am given to understand.

It's worth noting that most cultures have some sort of evil magic tradition, and evil magic and good magic are often regarded as separate, "Things." Thus, calling someone (what we translate to) sorcerer might be an insult, but calling him (what we translate to) something like shaman or magician might not be. I don't know where you got your information, but its quite possible that the word doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm not much of an anthropologist, and I know little of this specific example, but in that context words like sorcery often mean specific, precise things meant to encompass many distinct things found in many different cultures.

Serpentine
2011-03-01, 02:36 AM
Most of this doesn't really cut it for me as a reason for claiming "Barbarians hate magic". I mean, looking at your stereotypical barbarian tribe, it will (usually/often) consist of:
- Chieftain
- Warriors (various)
- Wisewoman (often actually or considered a witch)
- Shaman
- Wandering bard

Three of those five parts of a barbarian tribe can and/or do at least dabble in magic, and are usually very well respected.

zenon
2011-03-01, 03:01 AM
The idea is that the generic "barbarian" culture is very honor-centric. Such societies tend to place importance on things like "fair" fights within their culture. Sure, they might ambush and wipe out another group of folks, but those people weren't "honorable" anyway, so it doesn't matter.



Ambushes aren't unhonourable as such, because if the people you are ambushing were any good, they would spot it and you would have a good battle, if they don't it's their own fault.

About magic, many barbarian cultures had druids or shamans who were seen as a mix between magic users and connections to the gods/spirits, which meant that they were highly respected and often serveed as judges. Barbarians might mistrust wizards and sorcerers though since they have no connection to the gods/spirits, which means that their power must come from something else, and that the source is propably evil.


Most of this doesn't really cut it for me as a reason for claiming "Barbarians hate magic". I mean, looking at your stereotypical barbarian tribe, it will (usually/often) consist of:
- Chieftain
- Warriors (various)
- Wisewoman (often actually or considered a witch)
- Shaman
- Wandering bard

Three of those five parts of a barbarian tribe can and/or do at least dabble in magic, and are usually very well respected.

Most barbarian tripes consisted primarily of either peasants or hunter/gatherers, the warriors were an elite group who followed the chieftain. This doesn't mean that the rest of them can't fight, as most had training with weapons to defend themselves and/or gather food, these people though weren't seen as warriors.

Serpentine
2011-03-01, 05:00 AM
I was talking about the stereotypes of them. How often do you hear about the families of the Mongol hordes? Rarely? There you go, that's the sort of stereotype I was talking about.

To add a bit to what I said before, the non-magical Barbarians might be in awe of magic, find it mysterious and a little bit scary - possibly related to that illiteracy, "power of the word" type thing. But that certainly doesn't mean they hate it, not in the right hands.
Fun aside: I heard a theory type thing once, about the origins of wandering mage-types in prehistoric Europe. They were basically wandering blacksmiths, people who knew the history of smelting metal and shaping it into useful things like weapons. This was a sort of new, arcane skill that only the initiated could understand, and they wandered from tribe to tribe trading their goods and skills.

zenon
2011-03-01, 05:05 AM
I was talking about the stereotypes of them. How often do you hear about the families of the Mongol hordes? Rarely? There you go, that's the sort of stereotype I was talking about.


I admit that you don't hear about the families very often, but you do hear about them surpringsinly often.
Maybe we just use different sources. :smallamused:

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 05:06 AM
Yes and no. Calling a *man* a sorcerer was a very grave insult, but that was as much because sorcery was seen as exclusively a woman's activity. A sorceress was actually a highly respected role.
Huh,thanks.:smallsmile:

Serpentine
2011-03-01, 05:08 AM
I'm not talking about history books or other sources that actually think about it. I'm talking about stereotypes, specifically those in popculture.
It's like if I listed a bunch of stereotypes about gay people to discuss the prevelance of stereotypes of gay people in the media, and you came along saying "but gay people don't really act like that!" Yes, I know that, that's why I'm talking specifically about stereotypes :smallannoyed:

Rowsen
2011-03-01, 05:10 AM
We don't take kindly to that there book learnin'.

Seriously though, since when do we hate magic?

Coidzor
2011-03-01, 05:13 AM
Since slightly before someone got the clever idea of forcing all Wizards to hide what they do due to persecution or even requiring that wizards break the game in order to survive.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 05:16 AM
I'm not talking about history books or other sources that actually think about it. I'm talking about stereotypes, specifically those in popculture.
It's like if I listed a bunch of stereotypes about gay people to demonstrate stereotypes of gay people, and you came along saying "but gay people don't really act like that!" Yes, I know that, that's why I'm talking specifically about stereotypes :smallannoyed:
Yes, but it is interesting to look up the reasons behind the stereotypes. For example, some gay men do indeed act in a way that is indeed best categorized as "flamboyant." Do they do this because of the stereotype or is it because the stereotype formed from them and their predecessors?
Stereotypes and tropes don't just form out of thin air, even when they aren't partially true.
Conan didn't like them, that's part of an answer, but where did Conan get his hatred of magic? Why did the the author choose to add that facet to his character?
There is a lot in the pot of myth, and it is interesting to dig out the bones.

zenon
2011-03-01, 05:18 AM
I'm not talking about history books or other sources that actually think about it. I'm talking about stereotypes, specifically those in popculture.
It's like if I listed a bunch of stereotypes about gay people to discuss the prevelance of stereotypes of gay people in the media, and you came along saying "but gay people don't really act like that!" Yes, I know that, that's why I'm talking specifically about stereotypes :smallannoyed:

I thought you meant historical facts, which I tend to use a lot to create what I think is a more living world. Basically I misunderstood you.

Triaxx
2011-03-01, 05:40 AM
I've always played it that it's not magic but wizards. They like sorcerors (of course this is colored because barbarians and sorcerors are my two preferred classes.), because the sorceror is essentially a magical barbarian.

Where fighters and wizards spend years training, and honing skills to become fighters and wizards, Barbarians and Sorcerors are born with the ability to chop to bits, or burn to a crisp. And they're simply doing what they were born to instead of learning to it.

Plus Barbarians are notorious for using the rules as bathroom tissue anyway, so the concept of fighting within the rules of fighter esque combat isn't necessarily alien, just something they've decided doesn't apply to them.

Killer Angel
2011-03-01, 06:41 AM
Barbarians, gay peoples and stereotypes?
Well, you deserve this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-x7K8UU1k)! :smallbiggrin:

CycloneJoker
2011-03-01, 10:31 AM
Having the same class ability is not being the same class. Druidic avengers can rage, classes that get sneak attacks aren't rogues because of it.

Um, no. They have to rage like a barbarian, meaning they will almost always, if not always, BE A BARBARIAN. And Druidic Avenger? Isn't that one of those TERRIBLE variants from UA? Really, if a Druid wants to rage, Wolverine is on the table.

They also must be a member of a Berserker lodge, which, in addition to falling under the stereotypes for Berserkers, name themselves, their FIGHTING STYLE, and their group after animals. FIGHTY animals. So yeah, they are Barbarians.

FMArthur
2011-03-01, 10:36 AM
So they're special Barbarians. The existance of Abjurant Champions doesn't mean normal Wizards aren't squishy. I just don't see the point you're trying to make. This thread is about stereotypical Barbarians and their ways.

Jan Mattys
2011-03-01, 10:51 AM
http://www.bladerealms.com/Marto/Conan/Conan-Sword_of_the_Father-Sky.jpg

Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky. But Crom is your god, Crom and he lives in the earth. Once, giants lived in the Earth, Conan. And in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered. And the Earth shook. Fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters, but in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield. We who found it are just men. Not gods. Not giants. Just men. The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan. You must learn its discipline. For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.

*Points to sword

THIS, you can trust.

Lapak
2011-03-01, 10:52 AM
As others have said, it comes back to the fictional characters the class used as a base. But it wasn't purely because of a sense of honor or fairness, or anything resembling it: in much of the early fiction that's being referenced, magic is inherently dangerous and wrong. Like, requiring contact with Things That Should Not Be and performing rituals of monstrous evil. Even the 'good' magicians (and there are only a couple) in the Conan stories are not totally righteous, and most of them are vile. Magic is a force that inherently carries corruption with it in a lot of the material the D&D barbarian was based off of.

(Incidentally the book Conan had next to no interest in fighting 'honorably.' He fought savagely, and if he had the opportunity to kill an enemy by surprise he wouldn't pass it up.)

AmberVael
2011-03-01, 10:56 AM
Well, Odin was the god of sorcery (among other things). Although many older Gods were androgynous, so who knows.

My theory? Barbarians are jealous of wizards, because the latter gain their power through something barbarians can't do, namely, read.

I don't think Odin was actually the god of sorcery, from what I recall, but he did practice it.

I also recall Loki insulting him for it. Loki was a jerk, sure, but it wouldn't make nearly as much sense without some kind of stereotype behind it.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-01, 10:58 AM
So they're special Barbarians. The existance of Abjurant Champions doesn't mean normal Wizards aren't squishy. I just don't see the point you're trying to make. This thread is about stereotypical Barbarians and their ways.

My point. Some barbarians actually cast. The point that "All barbarians hates its, my preciouses! Gollum! Gollum!" is disproven. What stereotypes, anyways? The Norse, who were the inspiration for a lot of Barbarian fluff, their HEAD GOD was a magic-y person. I see no evidence beyond too many Conan fans on the forum. I could use that argument to prove that all 5-year old kids should be able to knock people out with soccer balls, because some character named Conan did that in almost every episode of a decent anime.

And Abjurant Champions are not enough to counteract the phenomenon known as "d4 HD," and the fact that the best spell they could get doesn't work.

Ungvar
2011-03-01, 12:15 PM
The original Barbarian class (not counting the one from Dragon Magazine) was from 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana. The Barbarian not only gained XP from destroying magical items, he was prohibited from using magical items, or even associating with mages or clerics until he had gained some levels.

Unsurprisingly, hating/distrusting all casters and destroying magical loot made it hard to play a barbarian in the traditional party. He was a powerhouse, though, and had a ton of class features. The Barbarian and the Cavalier (also from Unearthed Arcana) were considered to be the most broken classes in the game at that time.

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-01, 12:30 PM
Yeah, Barbarians are supposed to hate magic for the same reason they are supposed to wander around in furry underpants not using heavy armour and revolve around 'Raging' so much. Because the class is based on a half arsed misunderstanding of the whole Conan thing.

Darakonis
2011-03-01, 12:30 PM
...I realize that the answer seems more or less obvious, but I want other people's opinions, not just my own. So... why do Barbarians hate magic?

Opinion on why that could be if it is true:

Barbarians are from more primitive cultures and thought to be less intelligent. Wizardly magic is beyond their primitive understanding, so they fear it (though they'd never admit that). They trust only in the tangible--a strong arm and a sharp blade.

But then what about shamans and druids? Primitive, nature magic? Well...

Peace,
-Darakonis

Jayabalard
2011-03-01, 01:20 PM
Yeah, Barbarians are supposed to hate magic for the same reason they are supposed to wander around in furry underpants not using heavy armour and revolve around 'Raging' so much. Because the class is based on a half arsed misunderstanding of the whole Conan thing.what misunderstanding?

Dimers
2011-03-01, 02:08 PM
Good old destroying magic item XP. :smallcool:

Yeah ... Hook that character up with a wizard making magic items for XP, and you've got a match made in munchkin heaven. :smallsmile:

My take on the OP question: Barbarians typically grow up in an environment that's spartan, nomadic or both. Material goods are deemphasized in favor of personal ability; wealth isn't as important as reputation. Spellcasting and ritual tools can be bulky and expensive. And given that wealth is often communal -- much of the luggage belongs to the tribe as a whole -- magic items could easily be disdained as snobby and avaricious hoarding. A barbarian from that sort of culture wouldn't hate magic unless it concentrates wealth in the hands of one person or needs components that can't be found in the local environment.

GenericGuy
2011-03-01, 02:56 PM
I tend to make more “primitive” societies without much organization as being dominated by the most powerful, and who has more power than a mage/shaman/sorcerer/etc.?

ericgrau
2011-03-01, 03:19 PM
<Opens PHB> Barbarians don't trust "book magic" because they don't understand it. They're fine with sorcerers and other casters. They like druids and other nature casters in particular, because they like the wild. I was a bit surprised when someone said the PHB fluff made them hate magic. No one in D&D can survive without magical gear at the very least.

So... ya... D&D barbarians don't hate magic. Barbarians in other stories may be different, and that's probably by tradition.

FMArthur
2011-03-01, 03:29 PM
Magic being feared, misunderstood and hated by superstitious under-educated people is as old as dirt. It's a staple in every fantasy story I've ever read and obviously has its morbidly amusing place in human history. Barbarian tribes basically epitomize superstitious ignorance. That's their thing.

DeltaEmil
2011-03-01, 05:32 PM
If we go by the D&D, barbarians are people who can get really angry.

Makes you wonder how the old greeks and romans could stand a chance against hulking warriors who became extra-angry.

Perhaps they all had marbles to defeat barbarians...

Sigh, I hope that 5th edition D&D will stop calling something they mean to be a berserker a barbarian.

Starshade
2011-03-01, 06:18 PM
I don't think Odin was actually the god of sorcery, from what I recall, but he did practice it.

I also recall Loki insulting him for it. Loki was a jerk, sure, but it wouldn't make nearly as much sense without some kind of stereotype behind it.

He was the god of magic, knew magical songs called Galdr (in modern norwegian, Galder, same as the nickname for the rock musician if you known norwegian metal) who he learned from a, hmm, think it was some sort of Jotun woman, and learned Seid (what's called sorcery in this thread?) from the goddess Freya.
But, even if he learned the magic from others, he was the norse god of magic. Even if they believed males practicing Seid was unmanly, and thereby also Odin's use of seid. I think it was said someplace in norse mythology he wore an dress when doing Seid, though the Galder magic was not "unmanly".

I also remember a reference to an historical figure, a son of the first norwegian king, who was executed for doing Seid, since they the male Seid practicioners was Gay....
But Odin was the god of it yes. Freya, who taught him it, was an fertility goddess.
Edit: Aahh, i think i remember, Loki teased odin he wore women's clothing doing Seid, right? No idea if anyone believed it though.

Gametime
2011-03-01, 07:07 PM
My point. Some barbarians actually cast. The point that "All barbarians hates its, my preciouses! Gollum! Gollum!" is disproven. What stereotypes, anyways? The Norse, who were the inspiration for a lot of Barbarian fluff, their HEAD GOD was a magic-y person. I see no evidence beyond too many Conan fans on the forum. I could use that argument to prove that all 5-year old kids should be able to knock people out with soccer balls, because some character named Conan did that in almost every episode of a decent anime.

And Abjurant Champions are not enough to counteract the phenomenon known as "d4 HD," and the fact that the best spell they could get doesn't work.

I think you're missing the point of the thread. The OP isn't making an argument that barbarians hate magic. The OP is addressing a common trope in fantasy settings where less civilized culture distrust magic. It's present in D&D, two prestige classes from a reasonably common and a reasonably obscure book notwithstanding. Saying "no such stereotype exists!" seems... odd, given how many people have recognized it.

Nothing in this thread has indicated that barbarians should hate magic, only that they often do in fantasy settings... and that's pretty obviously true. Saying "Ah, but the Norse didn't hate magic, so your vaguely inspired stereotypes are historically inaccurate!" ignores the fact that the stereotype obviously isn't historically accurate. There's also no good reason to discount the example of Conan, which is the archetypal "barbarian hero" series. Heck, the TV Tropes page for that archetype specifically calls out the tendency for them to face sorcerers.

Again, no one is saying that barbarians always hate magic in every D&D game ever, or that they should hate magic, or that they did hate magic in whatever real life culture maps best to D&D barbarians. But there is a stereotype. It may not be universal, but it is prevalent.

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-01, 07:14 PM
It's natural that people fear what they do not understand, and what they fear they try to destroy...

Related story

In a game of a friend of mine, he was playing a barbarian and the party wizard fell down a hole and was knocked out. The Barb was the only one who could climb so he went down to get the wizard, and found the guys's spellbook. He deliberately left it down there and brought the wizard out. Then, when out of the hole the barb dropped a torch down there.

:smallamused:

ericgrau
2011-03-01, 07:15 PM
Ok... then it's prevalent because it appears in all the aforementioned media and lore. Barbarians hating magic is a popular concept because of stories.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-01, 07:36 PM
I think you're missing the point of the thread. The OP isn't making an argument that barbarians hate magic. The OP is addressing a common trope in fantasy settings where less civilized culture distrust magic. It's present in D&D, two prestige classes from a reasonably common and a reasonably obscure book notwithstanding. Saying "no such stereotype exists!" seems... odd, given how many people have recognized it.

Nothing in this thread has indicated that barbarians should hate magic, only that they often do in fantasy settings... and that's pretty obviously true. Saying "Ah, but the Norse didn't hate magic, so your vaguely inspired stereotypes are historically inaccurate!" ignores the fact that the stereotype obviously isn't historically accurate. There's also no good reason to discount the example of Conan, which is the archetypal "barbarian hero" series. Heck, the TV Tropes page for that archetype specifically calls out the tendency for them to face sorcerers.

Again, no one is saying that barbarians always hate magic in every D&D game ever, or that they should hate magic, or that they did hate magic in whatever real life culture maps best to D&D barbarians. But there is a stereotype. It may not be universal, but it is prevalent.

It's one of those old, tired stereotypes that persists in memory, but doesn't actually exist, {Scrubbed}

Coidzor
2011-03-01, 07:44 PM
It's natural that people fear what they do not understand, and what they fear they try to destroy...

Related story

In a game of a friend of mine, he was playing a barbarian and the party wizard fell down a hole and was knocked out. The Barb was the only one who could climb so he went down to get the wizard, and found the guys's spellbook. He deliberately left it down there and brought the wizard out. Then, when out of the hole the barb dropped a torch down there.

:smallamused:


Did your character later have to make a fort save later that night?

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-01, 08:04 PM
Did your character later have to make a fort save later that night?

I wasn't playing.

Coidzor
2011-03-01, 08:20 PM
I wasn't playing.

My bad. Point still remains. There's roleplaying and then there's being a ****.

Thurbane
2011-03-01, 08:40 PM
AFAIK (in D&D) Barbarians only hated magic in 1E (Unearthed Arcana).

They had limits on what magic items they were allowed to own, and weren't allowed to associate with spellcasters. The restrictions got eased as they went up in levels.

[edit]Hmm, looks like that was already covered...[edit]

Greylond
2011-03-01, 08:41 PM
Barbarians hating Magic in AD&D(1st and 2nd Editions) and HackMaster stems from what is supposed to be a representation of various cultures that despise anything such as "Hexes or Curses", witches/sorcerers(talking about the traditional meanings, not any particular game class). It is a way of introducing game balance in a character class that is insanely over powered(in AD&D and HM) and needed something to reign them back in. "Divine Magic", i.e Clerics, is distrusted but some of the more experienced ones of said culture(s) can handle the "Magic of the Gawds"...

Gametime
2011-03-01, 09:53 PM
It's one of those old, tired stereotypes that persists in memory, but doesn't actually exist, {Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}

What do you mean that it doesn't exist? That no one plays that way? That no one thinks of a magic-hater when they think of the "archetypal" barbarian? That no barbarian characters in literature have ever hated magic?

It seems contradictory to say that a stereotype exists in memory but not in actuality. Stereotypes are ideas. They don't have to represent reality as it is, only reality as people see it. If what you mean is that the fantasy archetype of "barbarian" doesn't necessitate hating magic, well, that's true, but there are at least a few examples of famous barbarians doing just that. If what you mean is that no one believes in the stereotype, well, that's demonstrably untrue.

If your only quarrel with the stereotype is that it encourages unoriginal roleplaying, well, so do all stereotypes, by definition.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 10:30 PM
It's one of those old, tired stereotypes that persists in memory, but doesn't actually exist, {Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}Hey, if your having fun with that, and your not hurting another players fun in the process, what's wrong with that? Role play is about having fun by playing a role, whatever that role is.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-01, 10:50 PM
What do you mean that it doesn't exist? That no one plays that way? That no one thinks of a magic-hater when they think of the "archetypal" barbarian? That no barbarian characters in literature have ever hated magic?

It seems contradictory to say that a stereotype exists in memory but not in actuality. Stereotypes are ideas. They don't have to represent reality as it is, only reality as people see it. If what you mean is that the fantasy archetype of "barbarian" doesn't necessitate hating magic, well, that's true, but there are at least a few examples of famous barbarians doing just that. If what you mean is that no one believes in the stereotype, well, that's demonstrably untrue.

If your only quarrel with the stereotype is that it encourages unoriginal roleplaying, well, so do all stereotypes, by definition.
Neither I nor anyone I know, when they hear barbarian, thinks "magic-o-phobe with an IQ of a wheel of cheese.

Also, as brought up, the archetypal "barbarian" culture WORSHIPED a sorcerer-ish guy, so I fail to see how that argument holds up.

A stereotype is like a trope. They get tired and dull pretty quickly, but when subverted/inverted/tweeked/warped/poked fun at, then they can be original and amusing, but the fact that every other barbarian is either Conan or Thog, it get's really dull.

Hey, if your having fun with that, and your not hurting another players fun in the process, what's wrong with that? Role play is about having fun by playing a role, whatever that role is.

The fact that it got VERY old VERY quickly. And also, a role doesn't need playing if it's been done, like 50,000 times.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-01, 10:55 PM
The fact that it got VERY old VERY quickly. And also, a role doesn't need playing if it's been done, like 50,000 times.
What hasn't?
If this hobby has a goal, its about having fun. If Conan Clone is fun for you, and isn't disruptive to others peoples fun, I repeat, where is the bad?

pendell
2011-03-01, 11:03 PM
Concur with other posters. Barbarians hate magic because they're based on Conan.

And in the world of Conan, "magic" is a product of the decadent civilizations Conan holds in contempt. In the wild lands of Cimmeria, men grow up with a basic moral code and an extreme level of physical fitness. But they aren't much for book-reading or priests or sorcerers. Crom is a deist God -- at birth he dispenses sword and the strength to wield it, and for his followers that is enough.

Hardly the sort of god one prays to for miracles or work spells by.

Sorcery -- there is no D&D "magic" in Conan's world. There is sorcery -- the art of gaining supernatural power by pacting with unworldly powers. The most common sorcerous form is to summon some monstrous demon to earth -- a giant spider, a man-ant, a living idol -- which is then kept compliant with human sacrifice, usually of attractive nubile girls. Worship of these creatures and "deviltry" in the literal sense is a feature of the civilized lands in Conan's time, but most especially in Stygia.

Practically every Conan story involves around his lady friend-of-the-issue being kidnapped and fed to one of these monsters, whom Conan dispatches in summary fashion. As well as the wizard, who typically doesn't have much in the way of power once his beastie from beyond is safely butchered.

A sword & sorcery novel is fundamentally different from Forgotten Realms or any other D&D world. D&D lifted the barbarian class but not the assumptions that go with it.

I suppose you could make a sword-and-sorcery campaign world, and the barbarian class allows for that, but D&D is a neutral gaming system and does not mandate such an approach.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gametime
2011-03-02, 12:40 AM
Neither I nor anyone I know, when they hear barbarian, thinks "magic-o-phobe with an IQ of a wheel of cheese.

Also, as brought up, the archetypal "barbarian" culture WORSHIPED a sorcerer-ish guy, so I fail to see how that argument holds up.

A stereotype is like a trope. They get tired and dull pretty quickly, but when subverted/inverted/tweeked/warped/poked fun at, then they can be original and amusing, but the fact that every other barbarian is either Conan or Thog, it get's really dull.



Except the Norse culture is hardly the only one on which barbarians are based. They're one of the most prevalent, certainly, but not the only. Further, there's no reason you can't take certain aspects of a culture while leaving the others, which is exactly what most fictionalized representations of Norse culture end up doing.

Again, you're missing the point. It isn't an argument at all. No one is saying "Barbarians feared magic!" and then pointing to empirical examples. We're saying that there are certain veins of thought in storytelling, and one of them happens to be of warriors from a barbaric culture who distrust magic.

There's nothing wrong with tropes, in themselves. They can be overused, certainly, but there's nothing inherent to the idea of "trope" that makes it overused. You seem to take objection to a number of things; first, that fictionalized accounts of barbarian heroes aren't rigorously historically accurate, which strikes me as an overly harsh criterion by which to judge works of fantastic fictions; second, that these accounts are not wholly original and instead draw upon previous stories and themes, which strikes me as similarly harsh; and third, that the account of "barbarian" being presented here does not map to your own personal conception of the archetypal barbarian hero, which seems unduly personalized for a discussion of broad character types.

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-02, 12:53 AM
what misunderstanding?



Concur with other posters. Barbarians hate magic because they're based on Conan.

And in the world of Conan, "magic" is a product of the decadent civilizations Conan holds in contempt. In the wild lands of Cimmeria, men grow up with a basic moral code and an extreme level of physical fitness. But they aren't much for book-reading or priests or sorcerers. Crom is a deist God -- at birth he dispenses sword and the strength to wield it, and for his followers that is enough.

Hardly the sort of god one prays to for miracles or work spells by.

Sorcery -- there is no D&D "magic" in Conan's world. There is sorcery -- the art of gaining supernatural power by pacting with unworldly powers. The most common sorcerous form is to summon some monstrous demon to earth -- a giant spider, a man-ant, a living idol -- which is then kept compliant with human sacrifice, usually of attractive nubile girls. Worship of these creatures and "deviltry" in the literal sense is a feature of the civilized lands in Conan's time, but most especially in Stygia.

Practically every Conan story involves around his lady friend-of-the-issue being kidnapped and fed to one of these monsters, whom Conan dispatches in summary fashion. As well as the wizard, who typically doesn't have much in the way of power once his beastie from beyond is safely butchered.

A sword & sorcery novel is fundamentally different from Forgotten Realms or any other D&D world. D&D lifted the barbarian class but not the assumptions that go with it.

I suppose you could make a sword-and-sorcery campaign world, and the barbarian class allows for that, but D&D is a neutral gaming system and does not mandate such an approach.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

By a the latter half of his life Conan was a literate, multilingual adventurer who would wear weild and use whatever was best suited to the task and who 'defeated' foes and situations not at all infrequently by avoiding, outsmarting or in some way negating them rather than by simply hulking out and killing something. It would usually involve killing something eventually, admittedly.
The low int, furry trousered pro-wrestler style Barbarian is more based on the Trope of Conan than the stories thereof, really. Inappropriately aped opinions on magic and so on are merely part of that.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-02, 12:58 AM
Except the Norse culture is hardly the only one on which barbarians are based. They're one of the most prevalent, certainly, but not the only. Further, there's no reason you can't take certain aspects of a culture while leaving the others, which is exactly what most fictionalized representations of Norse culture end up doing.
Well, there's also the Celts. I believe several of the Tuatha de Danann were sorcerers or sorceresses, and were godlike, if not gods, to that culture. Basically every "barbarian" culture's mythology has sorcerouss gods.

Again, you're missing the point. It isn't an argument at all. No one is saying "Barbarians feared magic!" and then pointing to empirical examples. We're saying that there are certain veins of thought in storytelling, and one of them happens to be of warriors from a barbaric culture who distrust magic.
The only real example I can think of is Conan, so I'm trying to figure out where everyone got it beyond "I wanna play CONAN!"

There's nothing wrong with tropes, in themselves. They can be overused, certainly, but there's nothing inherent to the idea of "trope" that makes it overused. You seem to take objection to a number of things; first, that fictionalized accounts of barbarian heroes aren't rigorously historically accurate, which strikes me as an overly harsh criterion by which to judge works of fantastic fictions; second, that these accounts are not wholly original and instead draw upon previous stories and themes, which strikes me as similarly harsh; and third, that the account of "barbarian" being presented here does not map to your own personal conception of the archetypal barbarian hero, which seems unduly personalized for a discussion of broad character types.

Fiction should be, and mostly is, based on fact. It's how it always was, and how it should stay, IMO. My "conception" is based on previous examples. Nothing more, nothing less. Where does anyone get this idea, outside of Conan or Conan fanboys.

Hawkfrost000
2011-03-02, 12:59 AM
Barbarians do not understand magic, and people fear what they do not understand.

Serpentine
2011-03-02, 01:44 AM
Fiction should be, and mostly is, based on fact. It's how it always was, and how it should stay, IMO.So, in your opinion... Lord of the Rings is absolute rubbish because elves, dragons and hobbits don't really exist, is that right?
Fantasy occurs in its own worlds with its own rules and histories. Saying they must be "based on fact" is... baffling, at best :smallconfused: If I decide that the "barbarian" tribes that are the source of many members of the Barbarian class have a deep cultural aversion to magic and magic-wielders, justified by the game world and its history, then as long as I do it well, criticising me for it is completely and utterly groundless. It's my world, I can do whatever I damn well please, and real-world "fact" has exactly zero to do with it. My Barbarians are not Vikings or Celts, even if they might borrow some elements from those cultures. They are an entirely different group of people in an entire different reality, and they can be and think whatever I want them to. That remains true even if I did draw inspiration from Conan or anywhere else.

Jan Mattys
2011-03-02, 03:33 AM
Well, there's also the Celts. I believe several of the Tuatha de Danann were sorcerers or sorceresses, and were godlike, if not gods, to that culture. Basically every "barbarian" culture's mythology has sorcerouss gods.

The only real example I can think of is Conan, so I'm trying to figure out where everyone got it beyond "I wanna play CONAN!"


Fiction should be, and mostly is, based on fact. It's how it always was, and how it should stay, IMO. My "conception" is based on previous examples. Nothing more, nothing less. Where does anyone get this idea, outside of Conan or Conan fanboys.

You sound extremely elitist. I can't figure out if it's what you're saying or the way you're saying it, but you definitely do.

Eldan
2011-03-02, 03:41 AM
Magic being feared, misunderstood and hated by superstitious under-educated people is as old as dirt. It's a staple in every fantasy story I've ever read and obviously has its morbidly amusing place in human history. Barbarian tribes basically epitomize superstitious ignorance. That's their thing.

Except in D&D, it might not be superstition. It's entirely possible that the god of luck looks more favourably on those who knock on wood, because they show respect to the goddess of the forest, his wife. Perhaps spilling salt offends some god of order. Perhaps Imps are more likely to transform into black cats than any other animals. And so on.

Jan Mattys
2011-03-02, 03:55 AM
Except in D&D, it might not be superstition. It's entirely possible that the god of luck looks more favourably on those who knock on wood, because they show respect to the goddess of the forest, his wife. Perhaps spilling salt offends some god of order. Perhaps Imps are more likely to transform into black cats than any other animals. And so on.

But d&d classes do NOT come from d&d world.
D&d classes come from other (and pre-dated) cultural references. So they have traits that, translated into d&d, wouldn't just make sense or be the same.

The superstition of a medieval times villager can probably be translated into "very basic good sense" for a Forgotten Realms peasant... But that doesn't mean anything. The average peasant will be described (and perceived) as ignorant and superstitious in both settings. Even if being scared of your own shadow is VERY reasonable in the latter and not in the first.

Gametime
2011-03-02, 08:14 AM
Fiction should be, and mostly is, based on fact. It's how it always was, and how it should stay, IMO. My "conception" is based on previous examples. Nothing more, nothing less. Where does anyone get this idea, outside of Conan or Conan fanboys.

Well, now I understand your position, and although I heartily disagree, I can see where your objection to the existence of the stereotype comes from.

Jayabalard
2011-03-02, 09:38 AM
By a the latter half of his life Conan was a literate, multilingual adventurer who would wear weild and use whatever was best suited to the task and who 'defeated' foes and situations not at all infrequently by avoiding, outsmarting or in some way negating them rather than by simply hulking out and killing something. It would usually involve killing something eventually, admittedly.
The low int, furry trousered pro-wrestler style Barbarian is more based on the Trope of Conan than the stories thereof, really. Inappropriately aped opinions on magic and so on are merely part of that.That's only in the later half of his life. During parts of his career, Conan distrusted magic, wandered around in furry underpants/loin cloth, didn't wear heavy armour (ie, wearing scale mail), and did indeed Rage: "The fighting-madness of his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning fury wavering before his blazing eyes, <snip>" - Queen of the Black Coast.

They're just basing thier idea of "who is Conan" on a different set of criteria than you are, looking only at the younger version (and likely the movies) rather than on King Conan. That's not a misunderstanding.


AFAIK (in D&D) Barbarians only hated magic in 1E (Unearthed Arcana).

They had limits on what magic items they were allowed to own, and weren't allowed to associate with spellcasters. The restrictions got eased as they went up in levels.

[edit]Hmm, looks like that was already covered...[edit]Barbarians also showed up in Oriental adventures, and iirc they had the same anti-magic fluff there as well.


Except the Norse culture is hardly the only one on which barbarians are based. They're one of the most prevalent, certainly, but not the only. Further, there's no reason you can't take certain aspects of a culture while leaving the others, which is exactly what most fictionalized representations of Norse culture end up doing.Indeed; 1e AD&D oriental adventures had a barbarian class, and it had fluff for several flavors of oriental barbarian barbarians: a steppes warrior (mongols), or a forest and jungle dweller (I forget who these were based on).


Sorcery -- there is no D&D "magic" in Conan's world. There is sorcery -- the art of gaining supernatural power by pacting with unworldly powers. The most common sorcerous form is to summon some monstrous demon to earth -- a giant spider, a man-ant, a living idol -- which is then kept compliant with human sacrifice, usually of attractive nubile girls. Worship of these creatures and "deviltry" in the literal sense is a feature of the civilized lands in Conan's time, but most especially in Stygia. I'm not sure this is correct; for the most part this seems to be specific to worshipers of Set.
Contrast with Pelias: he seems to indicate that what he does is something learned, that it has to do with things that he knows: "I could not remember my sorcery and the words and symbols of my power, with that cursed thing gripping me and drinking my soul with its loathsome caresses. It sucked the contents of my mind day and night, leaving my brain as empty as a broken wine-jug. Ten years! Ishtar preserve us!"

there may be or have been some sort of pact involved, but it looks like wizardry isn't totally unknown.


My bad. Point still remains. There's roleplaying and then there's being a ****.and sometimes they're the same thing.


My point. Some barbarians actually cast. The point that "All barbarians hates its, my preciouses! Gollum! Gollum!" is disproven. This is what is called a "straw-man" argument... it's where you portray your opposition's argument as something other than it is in order to make it easier to refute.


What stereotypes, anyways? The Norse, who were the inspiration for a lot of Barbarian fluff, their HEAD GOD was a magic-y person. I see no evidence beyond too many Conan fans on the forum. What does having a god use magic have to do with the acceptable of magic for mortals? Quite the contrary, it's very common for gods to be associated with things that are inexcusable for mortals.

Besides, conan (the young version, pre-king) is quite a bit more of an inspiration for the fluff of the barbarian class than the Norse.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-02, 10:47 AM
{Scrubbed}

FMArthur
2011-03-02, 11:09 AM
So this is your whole point, after all this time? That you don't like this Barbarian stereotype? All right, that's fine.

Listen: I don't like Forgotten Realms. Do I go into Forgotten Realms threads, try to make the point that it doesn't exist (:smallconfused:) and then harrass people about how unoriginal and awful they are for using it? Well, sometimes. But it's utterly pointless and pretty rude. FR being silly and lame might even be true, but that doesn't have to mean anything at all to someone playing it and doesn't affect how much fun they have doing it. There is no real meaningful point to be proven, just that it's bad and I don't like it and that you shouldn't either. I'm not going to convince anyone who likes it to stop liking it. That's not the reason I signed up on a forum to talk about fun games with people, and would be a waste of my time.

Where are you going with this, CycloneJoker? This thread was about discussing a stereotype.

Jan Mattys
2011-03-02, 11:13 AM
sound like whiny Conan fanboys who don't like me pointing out how stupid some ideas were.


I seriously suggest you learn the meanings, not just copying the "cool kids" online.


As I said, Rogue/fighter. Also, he's based of a few of scraps from them, and a lot pulled out of a certain orifice.

Just a few examples why I wrote my comment: so that you know you're coming quite confrontational in your debating tone.

Anyway, to the point: I agree that fighter/rogue is what the original Conan is. Still, Conan surely doesn't have d6s and d&d rogues are the nimble, swift type, which Conan surely isn't.

The barbarian class is based on Conan (you like it or not) and of course also on the Celts and Vikings. And all these characters have different approaches to magic. The Barbarian class, though, is heavily identified with a position on the steel / magic axis heavily in favour of steel, and while they might not strictly hate magic, it's clear where they would put their faith if really asked to. Surely NOT on magic.

And just so you don't identify me as a "Conan teenage fanboy who thinks he can roleplay because he can copy a stereotype": personally, I think the archetype of the Barbarian is Achilles. The Ur-example of Rage. But that doesn't mean squat. Out of 10 people, eight will straight up answer "Conan" if you ask them who is the most iconic figure they associate with the Barbarian class.
I might well be one of the other two, and you might well be the other one, but STILL it doesn't change the fact that the archetype of the Barrbarriunz is Conan for the other eight.

Gametime
2011-03-02, 11:21 AM
Whether you like it or not, most, if not all, of your ideas will be based on some other piece of fiction, or reality. People are inherently unoriginal, even if they don't mean it. Have you hear of accidental plagiarism? Anyways, that base, if fiction, will be based on some other fiction, and go from there. Every myth was either based on something, or explaining something.

This acceptance of the fact that humans are unoriginal seems to conflict with your scorn for people who play characters based on existing characters. If people commit accidental plagiarism all the time, why the disdain for it? Is it only okay when it's a character you like?


Quite honestly, a lot of people who are justifying barbarians hating magic sound like whiny Conan fanboys who don't like me pointing out how stupid some ideas were.

So, wait, now your point is that it is always stupid for barbarians to hate magic, regardless of setting, influence, or magical system? Look, you have your preferences. That's totally cool. No one is saying barbarians should always be played a certain way. But now it sounds like you're actively dictating how other people should roleplay, and that's not at all cool.

Further, I've avoided mentioning it until now, but calling everyone who enjoys the Conan books a "fanboy" was, at best, a veiled insult. It's demeaning to assume that because we enjoy a book that we enjoy it without knowledge of its flaws and weaknesses, or that we defend it unconditionally. Further, calling the people in this thread who disagree with you "whiny" is unarguably insulting and uncalled for.

You are not unquestionably correct. You have your opinions about certain stereotypes that are perfectly valid. If you could acknowledge that differing opinions are valid, too, that would be fantastic.


This is called being incorrect. Nice try, though. Here's (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)A good website (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) for reading up on them, but I seriously suggest you learn the meanings, not just copying the "cool kids" online.

This wasn't addressed to me, but it's also quite insulting and condescending. Further, while what you did wasn't strictly a strawman (since you weren't actually responding to an argument at all), your attempt to portray a question as an argument rather than engaging with it as it is was unquestionably in the spirit of strawmanning, at the least.


Um, yeah, almost all religions, including these ancient ones, believe(d) that you're supposed to become closer and more like you're gods.

That's not even close to true. A lot of religions believe that. Not all of them. It's not even possible to become like all the gods in a lot of pantheonic religions, leaving aside the fact that many gods were explicitly for a specific purpose that mortals had no reason or ability to emulate. Moreover, the fact that a god's qualities might be worth emulating for one part of society does not mean that all citizens would wish to emulate that god; witness the already stated fact that sorcery was considered woman's work, in spite of the male god presiding over it. Few religions are as simple as "BE LIKE THIS GUY."

MoelVermillion
2011-03-02, 11:26 AM
It's one of those old, tired stereotypes that persists in memory, but doesn't actually exist, {Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}

You heavily imply here there is a group of unoriginal people who perpetuate a stereo type of a Conan the Barbarian/He-man style barbarian.



A stereotype is like a trope. They get tired and dull pretty quickly, but when subverted/inverted/tweeked/warped/poked fun at, then they can be original and amusing, but the fact that every other barbarian is either Conan or Thog, it get's really dull.

Here you have implied that there is a large number of barbarians at least inside role playing games that are very similar to Conan or Thog.



The fact that it got VERY old VERY quickly. And also, a role doesn't need playing if it's been done, like 50,000 times.

Here you have put forth the idea that the role has been played by many people many times.

While this attitude certainly does not exist in historical sources or most literature but you've already acknowledged that this stereotype exists amongst some players. I do not understand how you can argue against the existence of this stereotype when you yourself say unimaginative players continue to perpetuate it. I don't agree with this stereotype I think that most barbarians would probably have shamans and the such as important members of their tribe and revere magic to a degree but there are clearly some player who do agree with this stereotype. What we want to know is why? Why do these players continue to play bad Conan rip offs?

Jayabalard
2011-03-02, 11:48 AM
This is called being incorrect. Nice try, though. Here's (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)A good website (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) for reading up on them, but I seriously suggest you learn the meanings, not just copying the "cool kids" online.I'm quite familiar with the term. Your link agrees with what I said.


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


In this, the reason that person B portrays person A's argument as position Y rather than position X in order is that position Y is easier to refute. He refutes it and then tries to claim that he has refuted position X.


FMarthur holds the position that it is common for sterotypical barbarians (ie, people who would have "the barbarian" appended to their name as a title) to hate magic.
You presents the position that All barbarians hate magic (which is a distorted version of FMarthur's position). You do this because it's MUCH easier to argue against this position than the one actually espoused by fmarthur.
You attack that position by using a counter example. it's a really easy way to argue against a position like "All X are Y " ... which is the distorted version you used in #2.
You imply that therefore fmarthur's position is false/incorrect/flawed.


Looks like a pretty classic example of a strawman argument.

as a friendly reminder, you might want to check out the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


Um, yeah, almost all religions, including these ancient ones, believe(d) that you're supposed to become closer and more like you're gods.No, certainly not; this borders on a discussion that we can't have on this forum, but in general: gods are allowed to do things that are strictly forbidden to mortals. As far as I'm aware, this is universally the case across all human religions.

pendell
2011-03-02, 11:53 AM
I don't agree with this stereotype I think that most barbarians would probably have shamans and the such as important members of their tribe and revere magic to a degree but there are clearly some player who do agree with this stereotype.


I've been reading through the first six collected volumes of "Savage Sword of Conan", this week, and you're right. While the Cimmerians of Conan don't have any of those things, their arch-enemies the Picts do. "Beyond the Black River" and other stories show heroic Cimmerians relying on their swords against the savagery and sorcery of the picts. Then you have "civilized" sorcerers like Thoth-Amon from Stygia or other people reading the forbidden book of Skelos or what not. The civilizations are more degraded and practice sorcery. The Picts are just as savage as the Cimmerians but also practice sorcery. Only the Cimmerians don't because they're Just So Awesome.

It seems to me that Conan really is an iconic figure and doesn't really have much to do with either real-life barbarian tribes or other barbarians before him in fiction. Which is ironic, because Conan has pretty much wiped out all the other barbarian stereotypes in western fiction.

Wulfgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_the_Hall#Wulfgar) from Forgotten Realms seems like a reasonable way to fit a conan-type character into a D&D verse.

An earlier poster made a valid point: The later Conan of Robert E. Howard's stories was fairly sophisticated. But that's not the Conan either of the early books or of the later Conan stories, written by other authors for other publishers or even Marvel Comics. Those stories are all pretty much from the same mold: Guy in fur shorts fighting monsters and saving the girl. Later thinly-veiled pastiches of Conan such as Thundarr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr) or Rastan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastan_%28arcade_game%29) or Barbarian for the C 64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ORMf6SjTc) continued this tradition.

It is to this Conan-archetype, rather than the actual Conan of Robert E. Howard's books, that we owe for D&D magic-hating barbarians.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-02, 12:02 PM
It is to this Conan-archetype, rather than the actual Conan of Robert E. Howard's books, that we owe for D&D magic-hating barbarians.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This pretty much sums it up, really.

CycloneJoker
2011-03-02, 12:09 PM
{Scrubbed}

Boci
2011-03-02, 01:00 PM
{Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}

You haven't proven anything, you have just stated your opinion and said that anyone who plays otherwise is doing it wrong. It is quite possible to imagine a setting where all barbarians hate magic for valid or ignorant reasons. For example barbarians could be the desecendants of pilgrims who travelled to a plane of dead magic because they believed that merely being in the proximity of magic corrupted the body and soul, and this teaching has stayed in their culture. It wouldn't happen in my setting where reflavouring is not considered a big deal, but I wouln't say a DM is wrong for using the above idea.


{Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}

The general consensus seems to be 1E barbarians.


{Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote.}

Because for many people it made sense for the only class that cannot read by default?

Roland St. Jude
2011-03-02, 01:11 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please stop replying/reacting to CycloneJoker.

Eldan
2011-03-02, 01:49 PM
So, because I Think this discussion is, a few slips aside, generally interesting, a different question to keep it going:

Can anyone think of any fantasy literature depicting barbarians that are respectful of magic? I can't really think of any, to be honest. The women of Fafhrd's tribe were apparently pretty good at ice-magic and cursing their men, but the men certainly didn't love it. And Fafhrd generally seems rather disdainful towards all kinds of sorcerers and priests.

Jayabalard
2011-03-02, 02:14 PM
So, because I Think this discussion is, a few slips aside, generally interesting, a different question to keep it going:

Can anyone think of any fantasy literature depicting barbarians that are respectful of magic? I can't really think of any, to be honest. The women of Fafhrd's tribe were apparently pretty good at ice-magic and cursing their men, but the men certainly didn't love it. And Fafhrd generally seems rather disdainful towards all kinds of sorcerers and priests.In the darwath series (Barbara Hambly) there are barbarians (Icefalcon's people, can't recall the in-world name), and I seem to recall that they're respectful of wizards (Ingold in particualr)... but it's been ages since I read them.

Tvtyrant
2011-03-02, 11:01 PM
So, because I Think this discussion is, a few slips aside, generally interesting, a different question to keep it going:

Can anyone think of any fantasy literature depicting barbarians that are respectful of magic? I can't really think of any, to be honest. The women of Fafhrd's tribe were apparently pretty good at ice-magic and cursing their men, but the men certainly didn't love it. And Fafhrd generally seems rather disdainful towards all kinds of sorcerers and priests.

I think it all depends on what we consider "barbarians." Wild elves could easily be construed as barbarians and they essentially are magic.

If we narrow if to just human barbarians.... The Sword of Truth series has almost every tribal group revolving around a unique form of magic that they use to remain independent of civilization.

Zaydos
2011-03-02, 11:19 PM
I will reiterate that the main reason comes from: older editions, such as the 1e Oriental Adventures barbarian who couldn't use magic items and got XP for breaking them; Conan,who despite being fully literate and highly intelligent throughout his career [read The Tower of the Elephant first Conan story Howard wrote and chronologically 2nd, he is already multilingual and can read several languages, and who had a growing hatred of magic because it came from dealing with demons and mages were always Chaotic Evil; and Norse mythology where if a girl is Finnish she's a witch (okay I've only seen 2 of those in the Sagas I've read), everyone who uses magic is a little bad, and Odin is mocked as unmanly for practicing the womanly art of sorcery (although both Grettir's Saga and Hrolf Kraki's Saga have a man use magic).

None of these actually apply to 3.X. Barbarians have no anti-magic nature. Wizards are not Always Chaotic Evil. And magic is not viewed by society as a woman only thing.

Serpentine
2011-03-02, 11:34 PM
Can anyone think of any fantasy literature depicting barbarians that are respectful of magic? I can't really think of any, to be honest. The women of Fafhrd's tribe were apparently pretty good at ice-magic and cursing their men, but the men certainly didn't love it. And Fafhrd generally seems rather disdainful towards all kinds of sorcerers and priests.I can't really think of any specific fictional examples (I think I just don't really read those sorts of stories much...), but as I said before your typical, classic, stereotypical "barbarian" tribe will generally include a shaman/witch doctor type member, a mystical "wise woman" type, and/or the "wandering bard/mystic" type member. That goes for stereotypes of real-world "barbarians"* - the Indian mystic, Native American spiritualism, African voodoo-religion, that sort of thing.
I do think, though, that it is usually what would be translated in D&D as divine magic.



*Speaking strictly in the historical perception sense. For the Romans, for example, the "barbarians" were a specific group of people whose main defining characteristic was that they were not Roman.

IthroZada
2011-03-03, 12:20 AM
*Speaking strictly in the historical perception sense. For the Romans, for example, the "barbarians" were a specific group of people whose main defining characteristic was that they were not Roman.

It's the beards.

Eldan
2011-03-03, 03:32 AM
There seem to have been a few Greeks with beards, though. And those weren't barbarians either.

Killer Angel
2011-03-03, 03:52 AM
None of these actually apply to 3.X. Barbarians have no anti-magic nature. Wizards are not Always Chaotic Evil. And magic is not viewed by society as a woman only thing.

Barbarians respect divine magic and strong clerics / shamans.
Barbarians are illiterate peoples, they favor physical strenght on all, their god is often Kord... probably, they can admit the power of arcane magic, but certainly they won't respect a physically weak wizard, that isn't able to lift and use properly a sword.

Spiryt
2011-03-03, 04:27 AM
Guys, Romans were cleanly shaven mainly in Asterix, too. :smallwink:


Linky (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/3537540666_8d756016fb_o.jpg)

Serpentine
2011-03-03, 04:35 AM
Guys, Romans were cleanly shaven mainly in Asterix, too. :smallwink:


Linky (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/3537540666_8d756016fb_o.jpg)...yes? They were saying that it was the wearing of beards that made them barbarians, so... So?

Spiryt
2011-03-03, 04:38 AM
...yes? They were saying that it was the wearing of beards that made them barbarians, so... So?

Those are Roman Barbarians?!? :smalleek:

Serpentine
2011-03-03, 04:42 AM
Oooooh. I think I get what you were saying. Did you mean that the main place Romans are depicted as clean-shaven was in Asterix?
Cuz you're still wrong, but it makes more sense that way :smalltongue:

IthroZada
2011-03-03, 04:45 AM
The beard thing was sort of a joke, but it's said (although I'm not sure how accurate the etymology of it i, because there is a very similar Greek word that means foreigner) that barbarian is based off of the Latin word for beard. Because civilized people shaved, and barbarians don't.

Spiryt
2011-03-03, 04:46 AM
Oooooh. I think I get what you were saying. Did you mean that the main place Romans are depicted as clean-shaven was in Asterix?
Cuz you're still wrong, but it makes more sense that way :smalltongue:

Of course that's what I mean. :smalltongue:

And this relief is definitely not the only place they were portrayed with beards, just as there are depictions with shaved face too.



The beard thing was sort of a joke, but it's said (although I'm not sure how accurate the etymology of it i, because there is a very similar Greek word that means foreigner) that barbarian is based off of the Latin word for beard. Because civilized people shaved, and barbarians don't.

That's hard to picture, because as I mentioned, praetorians and emperors were depicted with beards.

I'm pretty sure that Greek words was about mumbling and babbling, not sure about Latin one.

Eldan
2011-03-03, 04:52 AM
From that picture alone, it seems to me that it's mainly the common soldiers wearing beards and the people in the middle, who seem to be more upper class (note that they are not working) that are shaven.

Spiryt
2011-03-03, 05:47 AM
Well, how about Antonius Pius sculpture made apparently during his life (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Antoninus_Pius_Glyptothek_Munich_337.jpg/397px-Antoninus_Pius_Glyptothek_Munich_337.jpg)?

This sculpture of Aurelius (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/rome/marcusaurelius/0030.jpg)

Or this one (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/rome/capitolinemuseumone/0083.jpg) - from about 300 BC, not to stick to the one century.

Generally in the period of say 200 BC - 200 AD being clean shaven seemed to be very popular in Rome, but in no way having beard could be a sign of Barbarian or Non Roman, as plenty of Romans were depicted with them. :smallwink:

Eldan
2011-03-03, 06:05 AM
Oh, I wasn't saying it was a sign of being a barbarian. Just that a lot of upper class romans seemed to have been shaven clean. I guess other cultures would have beards more often, during that time. (I'm currently playing Europa Barbarorum, a Rome: Total War mod, and they show a lot of pictures of kings of various European and Asian cultures of the time, mostly on coins. A lot of them had beards).

Serpentine
2011-03-03, 06:10 AM
Well, they also thought women should be chaste and docile. Doesn't stop some women from being quite the opposite.
There is often a dramatic difference between ideals/perceptions and reality. But the fact of the latter doesn't change the former.
And for the record, I actually don't know whether the beard came into their perception of their "barbarians". I do know that the Persians were considered unmanly because of their beards and pants... Doesn't mean no Roman ever wore either.

Gametime
2011-03-03, 09:49 AM
Actually, the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek onomatopoeia "bar bar," which corresponds to the modern "blah blah." Greeks took a very dim view of anyone speaking gibberish - i.e. anyone not speaking Greek - and dubbed the whole lot of them "barbarians." The value judgment associated with the word varied according to writer and time period, though; it wasn't until later that "barbarian" became universally negative, instead of just a Hellocentric word for "foreigner."

So says my Greek Political Theory professor and Wikipedia, anyway.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-03-03, 03:53 PM
Actually, the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek onomatopoeia "bar bar," which corresponds to the modern "blah blah." Greeks took a very dim view of anyone speaking gibberish - i.e. anyone not speaking Greek - and dubbed the whole lot of them "barbarians." The value judgment associated with the word varied according to writer and time period, though; it wasn't until later that "barbarian" became universally negative, instead of just a Hellocentric word for "foreigner."

So says my Greek Political Theory professor and Wikipedia, anyway.

DARNIT EYEWITNESS, YOU LIED TO ME!

Honestly, in Eyewitness: Human Machine, the narrator states that the word "barbarian" came from the Latin "barba" for beard. It's possible that the word has both origins though. Perhaps the Romans and Greeks developed similar sounding terms with the different origins, and after decades of the Romans intermingling with and copying off the Greeks, the two words eventually became a single one? Just thinking out loud.

Gametime
2011-03-03, 05:47 PM
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian):


Eventually the term found a hidden meaning by Christian Romans through the folk etymology of Cassiodorus. He stated the word barbarian was "made up of barba (beard) and rus (flat land); for barbarians did not live in cities, making their abodes in the fields like wild animals".

Eldan
2011-03-03, 05:54 PM
Ah, yes. Isn't propaganda wonderful?

"These gauls are huge, and hairy like animals, and they fight naked and screaming, with their bare hands, for they do not know weapons and armour..."

I forgot who said that.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-03-03, 05:57 PM
So it IS both! Thank you!

On topic, I'd say that the core reasons for the stereotype that barbarians distrust magic are pretty thoroughly covered. It's mainly a reference to Conan and his unlucky knack for running into evil magicians and killing them.

Honestly? I think I'd like to play this trope to the hilt at some point, blaming wizards for any sort of mishap he encountered and seriously advocating the destruction of magical items they couldn't use themselves. And I'd fully expect people to call him out for hypocrisy in using enchanted weaponry.

Then again, there weren't any real magical swords in Conan's stories, but in D&D, +1 longswords are a dime a dozen.

Serpentine
2011-03-03, 11:59 PM
So it IS both! Thank you!Erm... No... The Wikipedia article says that the beard thing is a later retroactive explanation, not the actual origin.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-03-04, 12:23 AM
Erm... No... The Wikipedia article says that the beard thing is a later retroactive explanation, not the actual origin.

Okay, sure, get technical. I'm just glad the "hairy" etymology isn't just a myth.

Serpentine
2011-03-04, 12:29 AM
But it is. It's just an old one :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2011-03-04, 08:11 AM
Then again, there weren't any real magical swords in Conan's stories, but in D&D, +1 longswords are a dime a dozen.well ... his sword winds up enchanted in "the phoenix on the sword" ... and when translated into AD&D (in the latter of the 2 official modules) he wound up with a magic sword as a result of that.

soir8
2011-03-04, 09:35 AM
(Incidentally the book Conan had next to no interest in fighting 'honorably.' He fought savagely, and if he had the opportunity to kill an enemy by surprise he wouldn't pass it up.)

Apart from when it came to picts, who he looked down upon as primitive scum. The one where he teamed up with the people trying to kill him because he didn't like seeing white men killed by picts, for instance.....:smallfurious:

Gametime
2011-03-04, 11:24 AM
well ... his sword winds up enchanted in "the phoenix on the sword" ... and when translated into AD&D (in the latter of the 2 official modules) he wound up with a magic sword as a result of that.

That one doesn't last long, though. Most magic items in the stories endure only as long as they need to to a) destroy a demon or b) fail to continue controlling a demon, resulting in the sorcerer who summoned it getting torn apart.

Jayabalard
2011-03-04, 02:23 PM
That one doesn't last long, though. Most magic items in the stories endure only as long as they need to to a) destroy a demon or b) fail to continue controlling a demon, resulting in the sorcerer who summoned it getting torn apart.It retained it's power even after it was broken. And then there are items like thoth amon's serpent ring; it was stolen rather than destroyed iirc. So there are some magic items, they just aren't nearly as common as they are in 3e.

Trying to re-create this style of fantasy is why you'll see people playing at vastly under WBL.