Let's talk about Lacrymas' homebrew fantasy setting where paladins are eunuchs

[ERYFKRAD]

No, men not being allowed to join a sisterhood is the same as men not being allowed to join an all-girls school or a nun convent.

Having barbarians as a sisterhood the same as being retarded

Your buttons cannot save you Lacrymas of Bulgaria

 

[Lacrymas]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

The legitimate argument is that you cannot teach recklessness nor barbarity to people. Using grief as fuel for rage is pants on nose retarded considering that no barbarian rage stems merely from some animus of injustice of the world or whatever the fuck you called it. And you have a school for barbarians ffs.

 

[Storyfag]

No, men not being allowed to join a sisterhood is the same as men not being allowed to join an all-girls school or a nun convent.

Having barbarians as a sisterhood the same as being retarded

Your buttons cannot save you Lacrymas of Bulgaria

fantadomat git over here. Lacrymas' shamefur dispray gives Bulgarians bad rep. Could you do something to him?

 

[Cryomancer]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

Fighters have formal training, Barbarians doesn't. That is the point which makes Barbarians different (and better) than fighters. Is the most basic of the class fantasy. They live in clan and most of then are chaotic neutral. If you wanna a sisterhood, maybe making a society for "shieldmaidens" for fighters would make more sense. This and trying to make druids go to church are indicators that you have a strong "lawful" bias and IMO Barbarians and Druids needs to hate civilization and see it as a corruption of the natural order.

Is like trying to pick a class all about discipline like Monk and try to make it into a savage guy who hates civilization. Makes no sense. Fighters need formal training. Monks needs a lot of formal training. Barbarian doesn't.

 

[SoupNazi]

I don't understand what's going on here. It's a D&D setting, why does everyone expect it to make sense according to man's history? Have you guys ever played D&D in a custom setting, or even in a standard one? I know many of you have, so this entire discussion baffles me. Usually, when you create a custom setting you start from a particular idea and try to expand on it, following a chain of causes and consequences as much as you can. But obviously, since we aren't professional writers, something has to slip up. More often than not, for every detail that makes sense, ten others wouldn't be justifiable even in a million years.

Yeah, medieval people wouldn't behave that way. So? Medieval people didn't live in a fantasy setting whose only purpose is to give people a chance to explore interesting ideas.

I agree, though let's be honest, half of it is Lacrymas' fault for even engaging in those discussions and trying to justify his decision (whatever they might be) with his (admittedly often flawed) logic.

 

[Lacrymas]

The legitimate argument is that you cannot teach recklessness nor barbarity to people. Using grief as fuel for rage is pants on nose retarded considering that no barbarian rage stems merely from some animus of injustice of the world or whatever the fuck you called it. And you have a school for barbarians ffs.

You are trying to apply D&D lore to my setting. They aren't teaching anyone recklessness or barbarity, they are teaching them to be fighters first of all (if they aren't some sort of fighter/barbarian multiclass for some reason) and how to channel their rage to Rage second. It's not a school, it's a sisterhood that doubles as a training academy.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

If you need to train in a monastery to master your way of fighting then by definition you're not a barbarian. They simply don't fit the definition of the word in any way, shape or form.
You've taken a decent idea and presented it in the worst way possible. People would have much less issues if you've just said that your setting has a local all-female version of WFRP Flagellants and that since they use anger in combat and typically don't wear heavy armor you've decided that the barbarian class template would be the best suited for them.

 

[Lacrymas]

What has "actual history" have to do with any kind of invented setting?

It has a great deal to do with any setting that wants to be grounded at all.

This is the only part of that verbiage soup worth responding to. I'd ask the question "grounded in what context?" My goal is to create a setting which is internally consistent with the foundations I have set up, or the cultural foundations the people have developed for themselves. The logic then follows from those foundations. If I were to create a setting which follows the geographical, economic, political, and philosophical tradition/trajectory of our own history, then I'd rather choose an ancient civilization I like and play that instead of wasting my time retelling history as we know it.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

"Desert setting. Resource scarcity. Theocracy. Forced resettlements" Let me invert Lacrymas setting.

• Tundras instead of deserts. With a lot of dangerous carnivorous animals.
• Resource abundance. There are plenty of food, mines, fresh water and etc thanks to the implementation of magic in agriculture and resources gathering
• Magocracy + Tribal societies. There are city states governed by a magocracy which doesn't exert any strict control over their subjects and act like a Marid on D&D, arrogant but don't care about imposing their will on another people. They have no religion, some respect and admire Mystra but they don't worship anyone but themselves. The bulk of their military forces are death knights and golems.
• Barbarians has supernatural powers, but their are nothing like arcane casters. Their believes are more about ancestral worshiping and they have some supernatural bodies, more strong than polar bears and they don't need any clothing to survive in the coldest freezing winter. They have natural regeneration, can move at superhuman speeds and a lot of vigor. Hence they can enjoy week long orgies(much better than chastity + castration). They also don't pray to their Gods. Like Crom, they see praying as a symbol of weakness.
• Instead of forced resettlements, people value their soil a lot. And defend their soil with everything from hordes of Jotuns, Trolls and Angels which tries to convert then into a sissy egalitarian moral shamming religion. Soil is sacred for barbarians, since their ancestors are buried there and for mages, results of generations and generations of magical research and infrastructure which they depend upon are there. Both prefer to die than to leave their "settlements"
• The world alignment is "chaotic neutral" and a central point in a cosmic conflict between law X chaos.

That's actually sounds pretty great.

 

[Lacrymas]

If you need to train in a monastery to master your way of fighting then by definition you're not a barbarian. They simply don't fit the definition of the word in any way, shape or form.
You've taken a decent idea and presented it in the worst way possible. People would have much less issues if you've just said that your setting has a local all-female version of WFRP Flagellants and that since they use anger in combat and typically don't wear heavy armor you've decided that the barbarian class template would be the best suited for them.

I am using the Barbarian D&D class template for them because it started as (and it still is) a setting in which D&D is played. When I create my own RPG system, I'll see whether the sisterhood's warrior-adherents are worth renaming.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

If you need to train in a monastery to master your way of fighting then by definition you're not a barbarian. They simply don't fit the definition of the word in any way, shape or form.
You've taken a decent idea and presented it in the worst way possible. People would have much less issues if you've just said that your setting has a local all-female version of WFRP Flagellants and that since they use anger in combat and typically don't wear heavy armor you've decided that the barbarian class template would be the best suited for them.

I am using the Barbarian D&D class template for them because it started as (and it still is) a setting in which D&D is played. When I create my own RPG system, I'll see whether the sisterhood's warrior-adherents are worth renaming.

Wait, they're are called barbarians in-setting?

 

[Lacrymas]

I have no idea actually. I was thinking maybe Warrior-Acolytes (/Adherents) of the Sisterhood as an official name, and barbarian as a sort of slang/casual term that has arisen due to their savagery and recklessness in combat.

 

[fantadomat]

No, men not being allowed to join a sisterhood is the same as men not being allowed to join an all-girls school or a nun convent.

Having barbarians as a sisterhood the same as being retarded

Your buttons cannot save you Lacrymas of Bulgaria

fantadomat git over here. Lacrymas' shamefur dispray gives Bulgarians bad rep. Could you do something to him?

He is a german now.

 

[fantadomat]

I'm still waiting for a legit argument against the sisterhood of barbarians.

Well barbarians are a tribe of marauders,it makes no sense to have sisterhoods and brotherhoods. Those things are part of civilized society,of which barbarians are not.

 

[Reinhardt]

Well barbarians are a tribe of marauders,it makes no sense to have sisterhoods and brotherhoods. Those things are part of civilized society,of which barbarians are not.

Nah, just look at injuns. They had plenty of this shit. Usually men gathering around their warboss and chilling between raids. Each group had their rituals, warpaint, decorations etc.

 

[fantadomat]

Well barbarians are a tribe of marauders,it makes no sense to have sisterhoods and brotherhoods. Those things are part of civilized society,of which barbarians are not.

Nah, just look at injuns. They had plenty of this shit. Usually men gathering around their warboss and chilling between raids. Each group had their rituals, warpaint, decorations etc.

Didn't say that they weren't separated lol. Sisterhood implies an organization that have goals and ideals. Women doing home chores and gossiping around doesn't make it a sisterhood lol.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I have no idea actually. I was thinking maybe Warrior-Acolytes (/Adherents) of the Sisterhood as an official name, and barbarian as a sort of slang/casual term that has arisen due to their savagery and recklessness in combat.

People would be less confused if you've started with this sort of explanation.

 

[Reinhardt]

Well barbarians are a tribe of marauders,it makes no sense to have sisterhoods and brotherhoods. Those things are part of civilized society,of which barbarians are not.

Nah, just look at injuns. They had plenty of this shit. Usually men gathering around their warboss and chilling between raids. Each group had their rituals, warpaint, decorations etc.

Didn't say that they weren't separated lol. Sisterhood implies an organization that have goals and ideals. Women doing home chores and gossiping around doesn't make it a sisterhood lol.

No, i'm talking about brotherhoods and barbarians. For example injuns always tried to carry their dead and wounded from battle risking their lives.

 

[Lacrymas]

People would be less confused if you've started with this sort of explanation.

I said they are Barbarians as in the D&D class from the very beginning.

That is why I said it's Barbarian as in the class/mechanics, not as a way of life. Well, it kind of becomes a way of life when a woman decides to join their school. The woman has to have lost a child (as in it died), however, in order to be allowed in the sisterhood.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

People would be less confused if you've started with this sort of explanation.

I said they are Barbarians as in the D&D class from the very beginning.

That is why I said it's Barbarian as in the class/mechanics, not as a way of life. Well, it kind of becomes a way of life when a woman decides to join their school. The woman has to have lost a child (as in it died), however, in order to be allowed in the sisterhood.

That parts will makes everyone confused.
Notice how the whole discussion is about "why can't nuns be barbarians" rather than "why can't I use barbarian class for my warrior nuns". For the last 29 pages nobody complained that it seems stupid to use that mechanic for nuns, just that they aren't barbarians. Since they are not.

 

[Lacrymas]

It's a way of life because they devote themselves to the sisterhood and to being a mercenary/adventurer. There are no barbarian tribes as in chieftains and wooden huts in the mountains. Also, they aren't nuns, the sisterhood and by extension the academy aren't a religious institution.

 

[Bara]

Might as well just call them paladins at this point that just get rage features.

 

[fantadomat]

No, i'm talking about brotherhoods and barbarians. For example injuns always tried to carry their dead and wounded from battle risking their lives.

So did many other tribes in human history. If by brotherhood you mean men solidarity and tribal cohesiveness,then yeah they did had it. If you mean brotherhood as organized militaristic structure,then no they didn't have one. Standing by your mate is only natural for normal men.