Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms

[WhatGravitas]

I like eladrin. Sounds like the elvish name for "elf" to me.

Perhaps because it draws on the Tolkienish 'Eldar' ('Star'-'People')? And because Tolkien subsumed the entirety of Elven languages under 'Eldarin'? And because Warhammer basically reused the name?

Personally, I only have a minor quibble with Warlord, and I can accept Eladrin, it's a fine-sounding fantasy name, there are much worse fantasy names. Though I strongly dislike certain wizard traditions...

Cheers, LT.

 

[rounser]

I can accept Eladrin, it's a fine-sounding fantasy name, there are much worse fantasy names.

It sounds like it's from a specific world, though, in a way that "elf" doesn't. D&D is many worlds, and the implied setting should cater to the construction of many worlds.

I don't see why so many people keep harping on this "classic sword & sorcery fantasy" nonsense; is it just grognardism?

It's a matter of taste. Some folks like non-standard takes on fantasy that compromise the mythological tropes it's based on, like robots in Eberron, or use of psionics or sci fi in their fantasy...others don't. What I do know is that the more that D&D caters to this crowd in the core PHB, the more removed from relevancy to someone who's a fan of S&S fantasy in general it will become. In a supplement such stuff is fine, because their range of influence on the implied setting is much smaller, easily ignored, and completely optional.

Eladrin is not a name with a mythological basis (not even Tolkien etymology helps here, IMO), and sounds very specific. YMMV, but I don't want core D&D to be that specific - these "eladrin" will exist in every D&D world and game, more ubiquitous than even orcs, because orcs won't be in the PHB. It would be better if they'd chosen a generic fantasy name, something like Faerie. That would have been fine. But no.

 

[olshanski]

I think "warlord" is just fine.

Pelor though should be changed to "Pol Pot"
They could replace generic "Wizards" with "Einsatzgruppen"
Monks should be changed to the more flavorful "Tonton Macoutes"

In all I think those would be good messages and a healthy change to D&D.

 

[TheArcane]

I can see the OPs point. I think it's similar to making Tieflings a core race and then reasoning - well, all the Tieflings popping up need to have something to do, so let's make a core Warlock class to complement them. And it's not my opinion, it has been quoted somewhere. Such a move and such reasoning - making assumptions regarding demographics and flavor, are more fitting for a particular campaign setting, IMHO.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

... a generic fantasy name, something like Faerie. That would have been fine. But no.

No. Just, no. Faerie would have been a terrible name, simply because they're far too removed from the assumed form of a faerie. They aren't 1 foot tall with big, gossamer butterfly wings. Is a name like Eladrin *really* going to cause that much of a stumbling block for new players? I, for one, don't think so.

Some folks like non-standard takes on fantasy that compromise the mythological tropes it's based on, like robots sentient living-constructs in Eberron, or use of psionics or sci-fi in their fantasy, others don't. What I do know is that the more that D&D caters to this crowd in the core PHB, the more removed from relevancy to someone who's a fan of S&S fantasy in general it will become.

And the more it caters to low-magic, Tolkienesq and/or low-magic, Howardesq fantasty tropes the more removed from relevancy it is for someone who's a fan of D&D as it's own genre first, fantasy novel worlds second.

Look, D&D has never been a low magic game. Sure, 1e/OD&D borrowed a lot from Tolkien, Howard, Anthony, and Vance. Know why? There wasn't all that much else to borrow from at the time. Now, we've had an extra 30+ years of excellent fantasy to english-language* for the game.

Also, we tried to come up with alternate names for the Warlord a while back. Then, we made a generally unscientific poll. The results were that, even though less than 50% picked the name Warlord, it was still the run away favorite.

As if the implied setting wasn't already quirky and idiosyncratic enough...

You talk about how these new names and such don't work for a classic swords and sorcery setting, then you talk about the new (far, FAR more S&S style than any previous assumed setting) setting as idiosyncratic? So very confused.

Pelor though should be changed to "Pol Pot"
They could replace generic "Wizards" with "Einsatzgruppen"
Monks should be changed to the more flavorful "Tonton Macoutes"

Oh, come on now. Being glib is one thing, but if you don't like the name Warlord, you don't have to go down the dictatorial route. Personally, I don't like the word Cleric, but I deal with it; so you can deal with Warlord.

*(It's been said that the english language borrows from other languages. This isn't true. English follows other languages into dark alleys, mugs them, and rifles through their pockets looking for words to steal. Used in this way, english-language is a verb, meaning "to blatantly steal with no apologies".)

-TRRW

 

[Stalker0]

I agree the problem with warlord is that it invokes something NOT described by the class, that of a big leader of armies, often taking over lands by force.

But Eladrin I'm fine with. If I ask a player what a warlord is, they will tell me something different from the phb. If I ask them with an Eladrin is, they won't know. I'll show them the entry, they will nod and say ok, and then fill in the imagery with that word. I don't have a problem with players gaining new fluff over 30+ years, and the word isn't a bad one to use.

 

[deClench]

I like the names Eladrin and Warlord.

This is my Warlord. (WotC wasn't the first to associate the name with Sword & Sorcery; Travis Morgan first appeared in 1975. I think he was my first comic.)

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Eladrin is fine.

Warlord needs to go!

Tactician?

Soldier would be a good one if it fits the feel of the class abilities. Strikes me that a character oriented around enhancing the tactical abilities of his allies through this own combat expertise makes a good soldier candidate.

 

[Fifth Element]

Is this another humour thread? It can't be serious, but I don't get the joke.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

D&D is already full of D&Disms, but generally they're optional and can be ignored, by not using that supplement. By moving them to centre stage and putting them in the PHB you don't even really give people an option to ban them, because it's a pain in the neck to state that such and such parts of the PHB don't apply to this campaign.

Read the newest Campaign Workbook article on DDI. He doesn't want tieflings (a core race from the PH) in his starting town because they don't fit. So as DM he asks his players not to play one right out of the gate. This is the best way for a DM to handle the situation. A player may defend his reasoning for wanting to play something you've asked him not to, but then he will either fail to change your reasoning and the decision still stands or he may change your mind and give you new ideas for your campaign. We can all contribute to the development of a campaign world, not just the DM.

Or have to put up with the annoyance of reading "eladrin" and "warlord" every time if you rename them.

Well they have to name them something and no matter what they choose someone will be annoyed. Easier to just go with the name that feels right to you and let others change it in their campaign as they see fit. They can't cater to everyone.

A lot of people play D&D as a sort of Sim S&S Fantasy World game, and by pushing your brand as a specific, non-generic entity with a specific, extremely quirky implied setting you may find that aspect of D&D's ability to deliver on that suffering. Thus far it's hewed fairly closely to Tolkien, who stuck to mythology, which was okay (everyone knows what a dwarf is)...

Since when has D&D been the generic fantasy game? That would be GURPS. D&D has always had some implied setting and I think its good that they put some setting behind their rules. Whenever they release a rules-heavy book they gets threads full of cries of too much crunch. Seems they can't win.

Also, "a lot" isn't clearly defined. Sword & Sorcery is just one in many types of games that people play out there. And most groups I've played with couldn't even label their game as one particular genre. It seems you want a D&D that caters to the genre you like. Well, to get a game that you like out of D&D you need to do what most people do - work with the ruleset and fluff to put together the type of game you like. Every group (and yes I feel very confident saying every) has to do this to some degree.