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

[Starglim]

So then we're all agreed, whoever decided to change the name for Gehreleths back to Demodands, should be dressed up like a giant meat log and tossed otherwise naked into the world's biggest Atkins diet seminar? Yes, I thought so. Demodand, stupid name... and I am oh so biased...

It was probably supposed to sound Vancian.

 

[the Jester]

The pcs imc have recently met a 'riddle-master' npc (5th level bard focused on information and riddling rather than music or combat or spells).

I think where names matter the most to me is in the names of places and things in the world. The setting feels much more real if the naming conventions are consistent, at least across an area (maybe a lot of towns on Forinthia end in '-ton', for instance, or a country's towns mostly end in '-burg').

But as far as calling a ranger a ranger and all that, meh. If a name offends me I change it. More likely than that, if I want to use something with a name that's inappropriate for setting reasons, I'll change it. The Fist of Hextor, for instance, is the Fist of Drakos in my campaign.

 

[JustKim]

Names are one of many things that irrationally influence my enjoyment of the game. A lot of monsters out there have entirely unimaginative names, blood this-or-that is a frequent offender, and I have a hard time taking serious monsters apparently named by ten year olds or Rob Liefeld. How does something like an angry bird get named a blood hawk, really? Probably my biggest peeve when it comes to names are when crucial things like days of the week are renamed for renaming's sake. I was disappointed Eberron did this with dates and promptly changed that back.

 

[Turanil]

In short, when I look at names in D&D, I generally regard them as nothing more than an identifying factor rather than actually providing information about the object being named.

So, am I the only weirdo who takes this approach?

D&D has become its own genre, so names such as fireball, ranger, cleave, etc. have become an integral part of it. Now in some cases I am tempted to modify some names or rather explain them. For example the Barbarian class seems to imply a character from a distant primitive tribe of the wilderness. But why not use this class also in an urban setting, where "it will be generally known as a brawler", or among civilized dwarves where "it will be known as a battlerager".

On the other hand, what I really don't like is when a player chooses what I consider a stupid name for a PC (such as "bob" for an elf - something I did read on these boards once; I would never tolerate this as a DM).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Probably my biggest peeve when it comes to names are when crucial things like days of the week are renamed for renaming's sake. I was disappointed Eberron did this with dates and promptly changed that back.

Surely they're renamed for the sake of not having names derived from Germanic and Roman mythology.

 

[Ormiss]

Well, I take it you're only talking about names in mechanics, Shilsen? When it comes to names for cities, locations, people, items or anything that's campaign specific, it's very important for me to have names that are suitable, flavorful and evocative.

That said, when it comes to game mechanics, I don't care that the ranger isn't like Aragorn even though Lord of the Rings is what brought me into this genre so long ago. It doesn't matter because this is D&D, and there are only so many words in the english language (although as a non-native speaker, I have to say that I'm constantly confounded by the sheer volume of words in the english language...)

However, as Starglim said, a name for a specific game term should give you a good idea of what it is. Aside from that, I don't really care if it's the best possible name or not. You can, and should, as Tonguez said, use your own names for variety in your campaign (or not, if you absolutely don't want to! )

I like the idea of using different names for classes, races and monsters in regions of varying culture and sophistication in a world. Speaking of which, "Blood Hawk" is not the best name, no, but it is honestly quite likely that the citizens of a small peasant village hounded by these vile birds would give it such a boring name. On the other hand, the scholars of the large cities might give it a scientific name similar to the latin taxonomy of our own world.

But! In terms of game mechanics, there is one thing that bugs me about D&D 3E. Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting was renamed to Horrid Wilting! Not only is this an infringement on the intellectual property of the late(?) Abi-Dalzim, but one always has to remember that Abi-Dalzim does not forgive.

 

[Psion]

In short, when I look at names in D&D, I generally regard them as nothing more than an identifying factor rather than actually providing information about the object being named. Or, even shorter - What's in a name? A frenzied berserker by any other name would screw the party just as well.

Sort of.

Speaking of rangers, "spells" is one that seem to trip a lot of people up. For me, spell is a convenient label for a magical or fantastic effect. Some people don't like the concept of spell-using rangers, but I don't see the rangers spells as being equivalent to the incantations of a wizard, rather, canny applications of their woodland lore and closeness to nature.

 

[freebfrost]

Of course names are important in D&D. Anyone who remembers the whole 2nd edition demons and devils mockery when they were renamed tannari and baatezu in acquiescence towards the anti-D&D movement can vouch for that.

And hokey names are even worse. In one 1st edition product (can't remember which one since I am still working on my first cup of coffee), there was a pre-generated character named Fred 9802. That one never was used in my game...

 

[Doug McCrae]

I have my doubts about 'Verbobonc'.

 

[Psion]

Of course names are important in D&D. Anyone who remembers the whole 2nd edition demons and devils mockery when they were renamed tannari and baatezu in acquiescence towards the anti-D&D movement can vouch for that.

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. 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!