Zardnaar
Legend
[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION], you're spending a lot of time and effort the class names but you give us very, very little hint as to what your criteria are and why, and are sometimes outright confusing. You say the mystic "implies spellcaster or perhaps something religious" -- why is that a bad thing? You say of the warlord "if you have not played D&D this name is very bad" -- why? Noble: "title/job description" -- isn't that precisely what class names are supposed to be? Occultist: "could almost be anything" -- really? Mystic again: "terrible on all kinds of levels" -- what levels, and how? Warlord again: "you hear the name warlord what are you going to think?" -- what do you think we're going to think and why is it bad?
What are you trying to communicate to us? Can you give us any general advice that might let a hypothetical designer of some future class select a "good" name, or at least spell out the sorts of mistakes that make for a "bad" one so that they may be avoided?
Generally the name should give you a hint at what the class does at least in broad terms. THe occultist for example is more of a shifter class where you get traits that replicate werewolf/vampire/construct.
Things like Swordmage, Mageknight kind of hint at what they are about. Occultist kind of implies magic but the class is more of a shifter. Mystic is fine name by itself not for a psion though IMHO. The older classes have the benefit of being around long enough that they get grandfathered in even if the names not ideal. Basically if you have played D&D you probably know what the barbarian is about. If you have not its not to far out from left field once you read the book.