I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

[Shortman McLeod]

The "war" part of warlord is fine, it's the "lord" part that doesn't fit - it sounds more like a prestige class.

Well said. "Lord" conveys a very specific sense of authority and majesty that first level PCs typically would not have.

Unless they're changing D&D more than we realize . . .

 

[mach1.9pants]

The name "warlord" doesn't imply that he gets to boss around other characters any more than the name "cleric" implies that the character is Muslim.

WTF? Cleric is a WESTERN term applied to a musilim 'churchman', it can apply to any religion. It has nothing to do with Muslims at all. Cleric is a term coming from the middle ages: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cleric

 

[HatWearingFool]

That's hardly a war. That is a hit-and-run raid. Where are the armies?

Well apparently the americans are fighting a war on terror in which only one side has an army. How is this any different from a pc group using hit and run tatics (terrorizing those damn goblins)?

How about the war on drugs? I don't either side really has an army although the american DEA might sorta count.

How many (4, 8, 16 per side) need to fight in a gang war to make it officially a gang war?

and according to google definitions war is :

Definitions of war on the Web:
1 - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war"
2 - a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring"
3 - an active struggle between competing entities; "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare"
4 - a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime"

I'm thinking 1,3,4 can easily apply to first level characters.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Well apparently the americans are fighting a war on terror in which only one side has an army. How is this any different from a pc group using hit and run tatics (terrorizing those damn goblins)?

There are no countries or governments represented. Your example of the "war on terror" involves the U.S. government using its military against various enemies. This is a central idea in "war"--countries, kingdoms, governments . . . all are involved.

How about the war on drugs? I don't either side really has an army although the american DEA might sorta count.

More of a metaphorical use of "war" than literal. You may as well ask about the term "ratings war" in television circles.

How many (4, 8, 16 per side) need to fight in a gang war to make it officially a gang war?

Once again, that's more metaphorical than anything. The very fact that the term "gang" is placed before "war" suggests an awareness that this isn't a real "war" in the proper sense. If you heard, "There was a war in the park last night" it would sound mighty strange, since we all know that "war" involves countries and governments. But if you heard "There was a GANG war in the park last night," you'd think, "Oh, I get it. They're just using the term 'war' in a different and non-traditional way."

and according to google definitions war is :

Doesn't prove much of anything. The real meaning of a word is how it is used by the general public, not what a dictionary necessarily says. The fact is that almost every English-speaking person who hears the word "war" thinks: Country 'A' versus Country 'B'.

 

[Gundark]

Alexander the Great?

Octavius?

Any other brash, young noble thrust onto the world stage and made to be a cunning and ruthless military commander?

Sure, nowadays you won't see college-drop-out generals, and the "wizened old warrior" is a great fantasy stereotype, but so is "brash and charismatic youth."

In the Game of thrones series the oldest Stark child (can't remember his name) was in his late teens and was able to lead his house to military victories over other houses.

 

[Gundark]

Well said. "Lord" conveys a very specific sense of authority and majesty that first level PCs typically would not have.

Unless they're changing D&D more than we realize . . .

Sweet...Birthright!!!!!!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which navy?

The only one that matters.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but my "American ethnocentrism radar" just went off.

... And that should, hopefully, blow your radar out.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Of course it is. "Fighter" and "Wizard" are simply far more generic than "Warlord".

How about this: "Emperor" as a base class. Are you okay with that?

Great example! "Emperor" requires that the title-bearer is the leader of an empire. So no, it doesn't make sense as a base class.

To go with your example, I'll grant that "Warlord" implies that the title-bearer is the leader of a warband. Which he is, if you consider the party to be a warband.

So the class name "Warlord" is the perfect descriptor for a martial character class that fills the "leader" role in a D&D party.

 

[Xyl]

WTF? Cleric is a WESTERN term applied to a musilim 'churchman', it can apply to any religion. It has nothing to do with Muslims at all. Cleric is a term coming from the middle ages: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cleric

I just got a funny vision of an aspiring barbarian. "I used to be a scribe, but then I thought, hey, why not get an axe!"

Oh, wait, I think I stole that idea from Terry Pratchett....

It's not that hard to imagine. "Cleric" comes from the same root as "clerk".

 

[Gloombunny]

Great example! "Emperor" requires that the title-bearer is the leader of an empire. So no, it doesn't make sense as a base class.

To go with your example, I'll grant that "Warlord" implies that the title-bearer is the leader of a warband. Which he is, if you consider the party to be a warband.

So the class name "Warlord" is the perfect descriptor for a martial character class that fills the "leader" role in a D&D party.

"warlord" does not imply "leader of four other guys".

This thread is getting absurd.