How much do names in D&D matter to you?

[Ferret]

I regularily refer to clerics as Priests, Holy man or Withdoctor
I'll call a Wizard a mage or Enchanter or even (horrors!) Warlock!, a Fighter with a bow IS an Archer and a bard can a troubador if that takes my mood

Gorgons ARE metal plated bulls with fiery breath (Medieval bestiary)

The Gorgon sister did not all have a petrifying gaze (nor in some versions snakes in their hair)

Nonetheless with things like Ranger you expect some kind of wilderness connection (which you get with the spells and abilities) NOT two sword ninja (hence 3.5 Archery path is a great improvement)

SO yep names don't matter but image does..

Yeah, my view. I like the idea of introducing yourself in character rather in peeking at people sheets and reading the class. That way you get lovely scenes where everyone expects the knight-in-shining-armour and horse to be a paladin. Much more fun to call your self a mercenary then fighter (or any other class), or anything else.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I actually like the Tanar'ri and Baatezu names. Agreed, the original intent was ill founded. But the PS crew took the names and ran with it, and produced a much richer take on these creatures that were formerly little more than sword fodder.

 

[Philip]

And now, I think to retract names in favor of the titles "demon" and "devil" assigned to them by naive primes would be a little like insisting that Germans stop calling their country "Deutchland" when we self enlightened foreigners know it's really called Germany!

This self enlightened foreigner calls the German's country neatly "Duitsland", but for some reason those other misguided foreigners call me "Dutch", like I'm living in "Dutchland" or something.... go figure

Names for in-game places and persons are very important to me. About naming game mechanics, its nice if a particular name evokes some sense of wonder or stirs your imagination, but to met it's not required. As long as players don't refer to the game mechanics in-game, I'm fine.