What does it mean to speak poorly?

[OrcFighterFTW]

I really like the idea of Barbarians as Half-Giant/Giant-blooded/Giant-descended! It's sort of like how Biata are descended from griffins. Maybe the Barbarians were originally the smaller giants who were forced out of the mountains by the big, mean ones and then settled the plains and forests to hunt and herd animals. Over time, their size grew smaller until they became human-sized, but they still had the giant's blood in them. It would add a lot more to the history of why they are not humans, explains their way of life, and further distinctly divides those races. Those who make such decisions on rules/racial backgrounds should really be told this great idea!

 

[Madhawk]

Just to clear things up a bit...

I said "That could describe anything from a Neanderthal to a Viking in my opinion."
The key word here is "describe". I was simply stating that the description was so vague that you could bucket Neanderthals and Vikings together.
"Talk poorly": Vikings had poor speech as viewed by other cultures. Neanderthals possibly had basic language.
"Dress in furs": Vikings sometimes wore furs or garments made of furs to keep themselves warm. Neanderthals didn't have much else to wear.
"Look primitive": Vikings were unruly and lacked etiquette as viewed by other cultures, thus primitive. Neanderthals were just plain primitive.

So Vikings, as described by other cultures, fit the bill of the "barbarian" race in Alliance as do Neanderthals. This doesn't mean that you should play either of those if you're trying to play a barbarian character.

But the point of that post was mostly to say that the prejudice that people were discussing was in fact stemming from the description in the book.

 

[Connal]

I'm going to disagree intensely with all 3 of your points. Forgive me, I'm not trying to pick on you, just clear up a misconception.

1, No, they didn't. Let me reiterate "The Norsemen and the Anglo Saxons spoke the same language, and had no problems speaking to each other." When some of them landed at France, Took Normandy and then later, became the Normans, they didn't have any problem making the French king aware of their terms. Seriously...They had no problems with communication. They traded as far as Constantinople and the Rus. you can't trade without communicating.

2, There are only a few records of fur clothing. there are mentions made of bear and wolfskin clothing, but only in regards to berserks, who were WIDELY disliked. In 1015 King Erik of Norway outlawed Berserkers. (there's an entire religious/cultural thing about berserkers that I'm not going to get into here) Their main articles of clothing were Wool tunics, wool pants, and woolen winnegas, leather was largely used for belts and shoes, and cloaks were made also of wool. There's not much material culture found to support fur clothing, outside of the Rus having a tendency for peaked fur caps. Sorry, there's just no evidence of it.

3, While widely disliked in parts of Europe for their tendency to raid, as in point 1, above, They traded goods far and wide. They were accomplished merchants. In one case there was a crocodile skin bag found in a ship burial in, IIrc Norway, which suggests trade with Egypt as well. They were well traveled, able to make business deals with foreign powers, and dressed largely like everyone else.

Viking isn't the name of a people, it's the name of an action, That action being raiding the coastlines of other countries, performed mainly by the early AD people of Norway, Sweden, Greenland, Iceland, etc. There is no more a viking culture then there was a pirate culture. It would be largely if England decided to spend their winters raiding the US coastline for riches.

This largely illustrates my point. "everyone knows" the vikings were inarticulate, fur wearing, primitives, despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that stating that might be say, offensive to anyone descended from 5 or 6 countries in europe. The same way that "Gypsys" are of course, thieves, Kidnappers, prostitutes, etc. This is an unfair, largely wrong and potentially offensive stereotype.

If you want to play a viking style Barbar, Do it up! Do it right, do some research into their actual culture. but FFS, don't go by "everyone knows" because what "everyone knows" is usually entirely wrong.

 

[jpariury]

from what i understand, the original meaning of "barbarian" was merely Non-Roman, and is akin to how Americans use the word "foreigner"

I'm reasonably certain that no one has meant "barbarian" to refer to a 70's/80's era rock band headed up by Mick Jones. (60's garage band, sure...)

Kind of like how people in Boston can understand people in Texas, and vice versa. They both speak a dialect of English.

To be fair, having grown up in Boston from '88 to '92, and lived in Dallas from '97-99, most Bostonians I know think Texans speak funny, and vice versa, and both think the other speaks poorly, so I think you're arguing against yourself now. Understand each other? Sure, but that's worlds different from not speaking poorly (as respectively understood by the cultures).

Maybe someone oughta throw the whole "what you mean 'speak poorly'?" thing to the ARC, particularly given that it seems to contradict the example given the race packet, and the race packet makes no mention of a requirement to do so. Or, alternatively, maybe the intent is to allow local chapters to determine what that means for barbars coming from their chapter - like maybe Alliance Wobegon Barbars have to speak with a lisp, while Alliance Jupiter Barbars talk like Bizarro.

 

[James Trotta]

I guess that's another angle to the question: speak poorly from a linguist's perspective or from the perspective of someone who just doesn't like a "foreign" accent? And are barbarians allowed to crowd the accent thing anyway or is that just for gypsies?

....most Bostonians I know think Texans speak funny, and vice versa, and both think the other speaks poorly, so I think you're arguing against yourself now. Understand each other? Sure, but that's worlds different from not speaking poorly (as respectively understood by the cultures).

 

[Connal]

I agree. "speaking poorly" to me at least, does not include a regional dialect. A regional dialect can lend flavor, make someone "more folksey, more uptight, better educated," etc, but only based on the Region and social status _of the listener_. This is a far too broad distinction IMHO.
"Me Am (take action)" isn't a regional dialect, it's a base problem with the tenses used in the language as spoken, and a basic breakdown in use of the the first person.
"Ah'm a'gonna (take action) is a regional dialect, and while it may sound a little funny to someone form outside the region, still follows basic sentence structure and uses first person.
For the above examples, I am using Regional dialect and Accent as one and the same.

The way I see it, Barbarians have to pay extra for Read write based on coming from a culture rich in Oral tradition, and possible lacking a written language, like may "primitive" cultures. A combination of Dance, art, and costumes likely accentuate their culture stories and historic retellings.
IE, they don't write crap down, but can learn to.

As they _can_ learn to read and write, they should have no problem speaking like a normal person. Unless their language center is scrambled somehow, and I'd rather not consider the impact of an entire race of functionally brain damaged people.

This said, I feel it's much more important to define your barbar by how they ACT rather than how they dress, or talk. Do they act like a person from a primitive culture? Do they believe things that Civilized people find silly, even childlike, (despite being possibly true)? Do they believe in them as deeply as we here in the modern US think slavery is wrong, and children should be protected? Do they ignore Civilized norms, and instead act upon their own culture's norms? Does they resist changing those norms, as they are "right" for them?

This,I feel defines them as a Barbarian more than any amount of Fur, or any amount of sounding stupid, and allows them the dignity they deserve.
In effect, this, will prevent them from being a "joke" race, and lend them a certain sense of gravity, while simultaneously increasing the amount of ACTUAL ROLEPLAY needed to play them.

 

[jpariury]

I agree. "speaking poorly" to me at least, does not include a regional dialect. A regional dialect can lend flavor, make someone "more folksey, more uptight, better educated," etc, but only based on the Region and social status _of the listener_. This is a far too broad distinction IMHO.
"Me Am (take action)" isn't a regional dialect, it's a base problem with the tenses used in the language as spoken, and a basic breakdown in use of the the first person.
"Ah'm a'gonna (take action) is a regional dialect, and while it may sound a little funny to someone form outside the region, still follows basic sentence structure and uses first person.

"Me" is still first-person, but I get your point. That said, despite what our school teachers might wish to impose as truth, the rules for language are not handed down from on-high. Habit, custom, and acceptance are the only thing to define "proper" language use.

I also agree that roleplay is important in defining the race, but, the rule is the rule. No matter how you roleplay, if you don't speak in an accent, you can't be a gypsy. By the same token, no matter much you wear fur and eat with your fingers, if you show perfect elocution, you can't be a barbar. Ergo, the discussion.

 

[Connal]

Well, yes, but in this particular case,the rules for language _are_ handed down on high, and are defined very nebulously. Hence this discussion.

Gotta say though, a significant portion of the barbars I've met in game "aren't playing" their Fur wearing race in 80+ degree weather, and for good reason. Fake sideburns, feathers, ears, horns, or a strap on beard don't contribute to heat prostration.

Honestly, These seem less like hard Rules and more like a Suggestion, or an Example for folks with little roleplay experience. IE, "these are things a barbarian might do". Not, "If you don't do these things, you aren't a barbarian". Though I may need to reread that section again.
Wheras, the gypsy details the preferred clothing style requirement of color and requirement of an accent (without defining what that accent is).

 

[jpariury]

Honestly, These seem less like hard Rules and more like a Suggestion, or an Example for folks with little roleplay experience. IE, "these are things a barbarian might do". Not, "If you don't do these things, you aren't a barbarian". Though I may need to reread that section again.

Here's the full quote (pg 40, ARB, under Barbarian):
In order to be identifiable as a barbarian, you should talk poorly, dress in furs, and otherwise look primitive. Decorative face paint may also be applied (underlining mine)

 

[Connal]

God, that's a dogs breakfast of boring stereotypical BS. As a suggestion of a direction to go in, it's not bad. As an On high mandate that you must wear furs and talk like Og the caveman.....

You know what... I'm done. This topic isn't worth my time anymore.

 

[markusdark]

The issue with having to have the 'cookie cutter' requirements to play a barbarian is in order to separate the character enough so that they cannot be mistaken for a human wearing leather and furs. Back in the day, gypsies and barbarians weren't required to have any type of special costuming/accents. Then that was changed to slight alterations. Finally, in order to make them into an identifiable separate race, more restrictions/requirements were put upon them. SF used to have a couple of old time gypsy players who haven't played for a number of reasons but one of them was having to use the accent. When they played, they were identified by facial makeup/tattoos.