What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[NoWayJose]

Hussar, I don't even know where to begin with responding to that. You issued a slew of non-sequitors that have nothing to do with anything. You get absolutely massacred by Wicht and BryanD and desperately latch on to any other meagre points you have left. I feel that if there was a reading comprehension test on the last two pages, you would have gotten an 'F'. Because if you weren't so obtuse, you'd realize that the answer to the viking/barbarian thing is just as irrelevant as the shaolin/buddhist thing. Then again, I would also get an 'F' with your posts as I find it difficult to understand what on earth you're aiming at.

 

[caelum]

On definitions. I tend to trust the OED, so, this is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say:

That you may not make the connection is fine. But, its certainly a common connection to make.

Just to be clear: the definition you quoted is NOT the OED definition, it is the (popular press, vastly simplified, no more authoritative than any other source) Oxford World Dictionary definition. The full OED is only available online by subscription, and it actually makes no mention of Islam. Here's that definition (only including the noun form):

Cleric: n. A clerical man, a clergyman. Often used instead of the earlier CLERK (in sense 1), to avoid the ambiguity of that word.

1621 W. SCLATER Tythes (1623) 36, I haue now to deale with a Clericke. 1737 R. CHALLONER Catholic Chr. Instr. in Sacr. 7 In case of necessity..baptism may..be administered by any person whatsoever. In which case a cleric, though only in lesser orders, is to be admitted preferably to a layman. 1786 BP. HORSLEY Serm. Sons Clergy (L.), The cleric who is..the most addicted to a life of study and devotion. 1875 M. PATTISON Casaubon 417 The professors and governors are all clerics.

Sense 1 of clerk (without etymology) is:

Clerk 1. A man ordained to the ministry or service of the Christian Church; a churchman, clergyman, or ecclesiastic. (For greater distinction, CLERIC is now often substituted.) a. Before the Reformation, and in the R.C. Church, a member of any of the eight orders (though sometimes excluding the bishop). Hence, the distinction, clerk in holy orders, clerk in minor orders: see quot. 1844.

b. Since the Reformation, in England generally = ‘clerk in holy orders’, i.e. a deacon, priest, or bishop. Now chiefly a legal or formal designation.

And, for completeness, here is clergyman:

Clergyman 1. A man of the clerical order; an ordained minister of the Christian church; one in holy orders. (In England, unless otherwise qualified, commonly meaning a minister of the Church of England.)

b. transf. Applied to priests of non-Christian religions. (Cf. CLERGY 1b.) Obs.

So "cleric" is used to refer to anyone in a religious hierarchy, although (being an English word) of course it began with Christianity. Sunni Islam has no formal hierarchy, so I do not believe there are official words for "ministers" - "imam" is usually used, but it has formal meaning only in Shia Islam, if I understand correctly. So probably the generic cleric is often used just for lack of anything more specific.

 

[Woas]

Barbarian is a greek word, not latin. It means 'anyone who isn't greek'.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Barbarian is a greek word, not latin.

It's both, actually. The Romans adopted it from the Greeks, as they did so many other things. And it really means "anyone who isn't us."

 

[Korgoth]

"Barbarian" has it's roots in Rome, which was sacked by barbarians several times - by Gauls, Vandals, Ostrogoths and Visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was done for by 476 AD.

Romans were considered "barbarians" as well.

Barbarian is a Greek word. It means literally "the bar-bar ones", i.e. the people who say "bar-bar". That sound, "bar-bar", was what some foreign languages sounded like to Greek ears.

So Woas is right: a "barbarian" is originally someone who simply doesn't speak Greek (and is therefore an obvious inferior).

 

[Remathilis]

While playing English & Etymologies (E&E) is fun, we should either fork this or get back on topic.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame).

What?

Dude, don't blame anyone but yourself for your failure of imagination.

A 1st level warlord might be the eldest son of a chieftain, robber baron, governor, noble, etc. Brought up to lead men in war.

A 1st level warlord might be a mercenary captain. He might be a mercenary sergeant. He might be a fresh untried mercenary with a bevy of natural talent.

A 1st level warlord might be an old retired centurion called back into service in his twilight years. Not every starting adventurer is a 16-year-old sprig, you know.

A 1st level warlord could be a pretty princess who shouts panicked commands to her bodyguards, friends and allies- never attacking herself, but just directing the flow of battle.

And how many movies or books or comics or tv shows or plays have shown us the image of the wounded hero, seemingly taken out of the fight- until an ally/friend/loved one/commander pleads, "DON'T GIVE UP!!" and somehow, the hero struggles to his feet despite his wounds, given the sheer mettle to keep fighting without closing a wound? Not to mention that being at 0 hit points doesn't have to mean you're lying in a pool of blood with your guts stretched around you.

If there is a problem with the warlord, it is in peoples' unwillingness to stretch their imagination just the tiniest bit, not in the class design. And really, that tiny tiny stretch? There are tons of examples in pretty much every type of media that will paint a picture of a 1st level warlord... not to mention history. Even as a fresh-faced youngster! Octavian, anyone? For something more modern, how about 15-year old Burmese warlord Mohammed Humayan? There are plenty more.

However, some people have made up their mind that the warlord MUST BE (fill in your vision of the warlord), and therefore it just. doesn't. work.

That's fine; everyone has their preferences. But think about it- if you'll play an elf, you look pretty damn silly bitching about how a warlord is unrealistic.

 

[Umbran]

Barbarian is a Greek word.

Technically correct. But stated more to highlight the fact itself than how it strengthens the point about linguistic change. In failing to connect to the point, you've also demonstrated how showing off linguistic minutiae in and of itself does not get the discussion very far.

Folks, if the the thread is now about small points of the meaning and origins of words, this should be forked to Off Topic, or just closed.

Please get back to something gaming-related. Thanks.

 

[Wicht]

That's fine; everyone has their preferences. But think about it- if you'll play an elf, you look pretty damn silly bitching about how a warlord is unrealistic.

I don't think the problem with the name has anything to do with the class itself. Its just the fact that the word "Warlord" tends to conjure up an image of a guy with a big army: one who is leading it to war.

It would be like having a seafaring class, and naming it "Admiral." So your first level Admiral swabs the decks and at 10th level you get to captain the ship and not until 20th level are you expected to have multiple Captains working under you. Its just a weird usage of the word.

Edit: And to make it slightly OT, yes, the name Warlord for a class was just one of several things that initially made me wonder about 4e. Changing the high elf to the Eladrin was another such silly little thing. Not to mention the whole demon/devil fiasco.

 

[the Jester]

Hang on a tick. Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere. Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person.

If by "pretty commonly understood" you mean "I use it this way", I'll buy that. However- and I'm reasonably well-educated and well-read- I have never heard this assertion before. Let's check around a bit, shall we?

A clerk, a clergyman.

1. a member of the clergy.
2. a member of a clerical party.
3. clerics, ( used with a plural verb ) half-sized or small-sized reading glasses worn on the nose, usually rimless or with a thin metal frame.

a member of the clergy

a clergyman or other person in religious orders

However, Wikipedia has this to offer regarding the term "cleric" and Islam:

A cleric (from Ancient Greek κληρικός - klērikos[1]), clergyman (pl. clergymen), or churchman (pl. churchmen) is a member of the clergy of a religion, especially one who is a priest, preacher, pastor or other religious professional. It is often, and incorrectly, used to refer to the religious leadership in Islam, where the term "priest" is not accurate and where terms such as "Alim" are not widely understood in the English-speaking world.

If you're going to split hairs about the meaning of words, you might do well to make sure you understand them yourself first. That said, your point (rpgs redefine words all the time) is correct, and I agree that choosing one or two terms to object to on some weird principle of linguistics is awfully limiting. Like I posted above, stretch your imagination! If you don't like a thing in your game, that's fine, but don't pretend that it's some principled objection over the term "warlord".