D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll

[Tony Vargas]

Most D&D classes fall into two big categories: descriptive and occupational.

Now, what about "Warlord"? Descriptive. Few people would describe themselves AS a warlord (probably the same amount that would introduce themselves as "rogues") but it does punch up a warrior/leader vibe without denoting a specific military rank or government position. As for negative connotation; its probably on par with "rogue" or "barbarian" or "warlorck" as far as those go.

That also said, it might be easier to integrate a more focused class into an ongoing game since the class isn't trying to cover a wide swath of archetypes all at once

There's a broad swath of archetypes that need that kind of coverage, though, and 5e tends towards fewer classes with broader concepts (except when it comes to arcane spellcasters, anyway).

Also, with a 'Descriptive' class name, you can have concepts that reach beyond those immediately suggested by the name, another plus when it comes to using the class alone or as an MC to build to a character concept.

 

[Fedge123]

Warlord? I don't like the name. I don't even like the concept.

If there was ever a disconnect between the name of a class and the features of a class, this is it.

Warlord isn't a class, it's a title.

Ghengis Khan is a Warlord. Some first level guy in a tavern isn't a Warlord, he's a Wannabe.

If you must have something then stick with the Fighter Battlemaster track or the Purple Dragon Knight or whatever, and leave it at that.

Warlords aren't made when you create a character, Warlord is something you earn adventuring with your mates.

 

[Uchawi]

I will not question someone liking or disliking a particular concept but any class name is what a character aspires to be if they survive the ordeal. Otherwise every class name must change as the character levels from stable hand to squire then knight.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Otherwise every class name must change as the character levels from stable hand to squire then knight.

Odd choice, since Knight isn't a class. It's a background. And therefore is a title.

 

[Uchawi]

I should have been more specific i.e.Purple Dragon Kinght, but the same principle applies to Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian, etc.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well, you don't become a PDK until 3rd level at the earliest. Until then the character is just a fighter (which is not a title, rank, or position). So a 1st level character might indeed be a stable hand at 1st, a squire at 2nd, and finally a PDK at 3rd. <shrug>

 

[Aldarc]

Another possibility: how about the 'Herald' for a class name?

A herald was an officer of arms, the leader of an armed force. A herald proclaims and commands. A herald may be a prophet, a messenger, a bannerman, a military commander, an ambassador, or a noble. A herald exists as both a noun and a verb, much like 'marshal.' 'Herald' lacks negative modern connotations.

And when you look at the synonyms listed, it includes many of the alternative names and related concepts proposed, including even the core idea of "supporter":

advocate, advocator, apostle, backer, booster, champion, expounder, espouser, friend, gospeler (or gospeller), exponent, hierophant, high priest, paladin, promoter, proponent, protagonist, supporter, true believer, tub-thumper, white knight

The 'herald' is also broad enough of a concept that it could easily work with a variety of backgrounds. The 'herald' could be a prophetic acolyte, a noble messenger, a military captain, a knightly cavalier, a hermit (whose voice cries out in the wilderness), the outlander outrider, or even the charlatan who cries wolf.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two problems with Witch.

1) When people hear Witch they think of an ugly monster woman, and as the majority of D&D players are men it's kind of a bad idea. I know a lot of the guys in my group would be iffy in playing a witch over a warlock. And come to think of it the "ugly" connotation is going to be a turn off for people too, even if its baseless in the actual game.

2) There are people in the world right now who consider themselves to be Witches as a member of a religion. So it's kind of a problematic word, especially when the crossover of Wicca folk to gamers is probably high.

I don't grasp either of these points. Witches aren't all ugly old women, as anyone who's ever watch "The Wizard of Oz" knows. Its not as if there aren't plenty of connotations that may or may not hold for a given PC embedded in other classes either. I guess the "I'm a guy and I don't want to play a class that is ugly girls" might actually be a valid point, but I'd say THAT is a lot more sexist logic than anything in point 2, personally.

As for point 2, 'Witch' and 'Warlock' being simply the female and male terms for the same thing one is not more or less offensive than the other. Beyond that you might well wish to play as something you identify with IRL, its not clear to me that making a 'Witch' class is going to add some new offensiveness on the whole. Nor has D&D historically worried too much about that, as clearly the majority of people in the US are Christians and much of D&D could be found offensive to them, at least some of them.

Of course I have no idea what went through people's minds when 'Witch' was or was not considered as a class name at some point, any of your points might have been taken. I just really doubt that the game would actually offend any net greater number of people if 'Witch' was a class vs 'Warlock'. IMHO.

 

[El Mahdi]

I always saw Heralds as just a spokesperson - a mouthpiece - someone who only participates or influences behind the scenes, but is mostly just a spokesperson and messenger. Besides, Herald was an AD&D 2E Bard Kit. One of my favorites, btw. I have an awesome Rakasta Herald character. Kind of a medieval James Bond - except he's a humanoid cat...


I'll include Herald on the next updated list, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I absolutely hated the name Warlord...until this. You've swayed me quite a bit in its favor. And you're right, strictly by definition, even feudal lords were Warlords. Central authority was a very tenuous and variable thing in feudal Europe.

Honestly, with Warlord actually a fairly modern word and the negative connotations a mostly modern aspect, maybe it's not as bad as I've previously judged it.

Though I still prefer Consul.


What I'll likely do is keep Warlord as the name of the dedicated class for the Warlording the Fighter thread (seems only fair, and the poll is leaning that way anyways and was mostly only for fun), obviously keep Battle Master and Valor Bard/College of Valor for the archetypes, but name the Prestige Class Consul (a member of the College of Consuls).

Then throw it all at the wall and see what sticks.

The Prestige Class won't be as martial focused as the dedicated class, and even less martial focused compared to the Battle Master. Since the Prestige Class is something meant for any class to be able to multi-class with, I think the concept of a "counsellor with tactical, strategic, and leadership training - and maybe the proxy/liaison of someone with authority - but doesn't have the personal implication of authority" works really well. It can fulfill the concept of Leader Rogues, Leader Rangers, Leader Barbarians, Leader Clerics and Paladins, even Leader Druids, etc...

You mean I made a post on a Warlord thread that didn't piss everyone off? lol.

Consul just seems so ROMAN, like super-Roman. Its a cool word, and I'd very much us it in some sort of pseudo-Roman context, OTOH it just comes across to me as too context-specific, especially when D&D tends towards a pretty early medieval sort of default milieu.