• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

I just realized what bugs me about Warlords . . .

What if I'm running a 1st level human character who is 21 years old? Can I make him a "Warlord"?

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."

I imagine a fourteen year old girl, a god-princess in her homeland, carried on a litter by sycophantic worshipers who swear she's the incarnation of a goddess of battle, and who loyally serve her every whim without question -- those who dared to question have their skulls hanging from the sides of her palanquin, and maybe she's just been lucky, or maybe there's more to her than you can see...

In fact....I'm adding that to next week's game! Neat!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Kamikaze Midget said:
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."

I imagine a fourteen year old girl, a god-princess in her homeland, carried on a litter by sycophantic worshipers who swear she's the incarnation of a goddess of battle, and who loyally serve her every whim without question -- those who dared to question have their skulls hanging from the sides of her palanquin, and maybe she's just been lucky, or maybe there's more to her than you can see...

In fact....I'm adding that to next week's game! Neat!

That's good for games involving giant armies...but how does that work in a game that revolves around a small party of 3-6 individuals? Plus, most players don't like being told what to do just because one guy decided to play a "Warlord".

A less "I outrank you!" name would be better and would help to sidestep these sorts of issues.
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
Alexander the Great?

Octavius?

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

So first level Warlords get armies? Sweet! In your face, familiar-having-wizards and animal-companioned druids!
 

That's good for games involving giant armies...but how does that work in a game that revolves around a small party of 3-6 individuals? Plus, most players don't like being told what to do just because one guy decided to play a "Warlord".

A less "I outrank you!" name would be better and would help to sidestep these sorts of issues.

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.

Furthermore, the role is (probably) that of a Leader, and "Warlord" is a suitable leader-y name, cementing the class's relationship to its role. Having a name that didn't imply that the class filled the role of a Leader would weaken that relationship. People follow a warlord. Likely, teammates will follow the Warlord-class character, too (because the mechanics of the Leader role, I assume, will encourage it).

Also: "This barbarian warlord from the Northlands has joined our sacred quest for the McGuffin!"

Also: "We have recruited one of the warlords from the orc tribes to help us tame the goblin infestation."

Also: "The wizard knows a warlord who has helped him before."

I mean, to me, "warlord" implies that you rule directly through military might a rather small force. That force probably isn't the other PC's, but it could easily be some of the rabble outside of the cities (or even some of the rabble inside the cities -- generals, guard-captains, etc. could all be good warlords).

And given that the names of classes are obviously not meant to be taken entirely literally (cf.: your cleric isn't a Muslim), I'd say this shouldn't be much of an issue. :p

Sounds good, but she's clearly a divine leader, making her a cleric, right?

#1: If a 14 year old girl could kick my ass, I'd probably whip up an elaborate mythology quick to explain why. ;)

#2: The line between "divine" and "heroic" is blurry at the best of times. :)
 

So first level Warlords get armies? Sweet! In your face, familiar-having-wizards and animal-companioned druids!

Well, if 4e 1st level is kind of like 3e 4th level, I'd say a watered-down version of the Leadership feat with 1st level followers (the kind that housecats slaughtered in their thousands back in 3e) would be entirely appropriate. ;)

Methinks something like "mook rules" will come into play in 4e. Check out SAGA edition nonheroics.

But even if they're just able to motivate people into bloodshed, they'll be good warlords, because they'll attract an impromptu army like a magnet. :)
 


Kamikaze Midget said:
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.

"Cleric "is not directly tied to Islam. "Cleric" is a pretty general term for a religious specialist, and is often the best translation for various religions' leaders/officators/etc.

"Warlord" does imply bossing around. In common usage a warlord is a military commander who rules through force of arms, often with connotations of aggression and tyranny. A warlord is not a protector or defender, it's a power crazed leader.
 


And I suppose Duellist bugs you because he doesn't really fight any duels.

A class name is supposed to evoke some sense of images that you want your PC to aspire too, and is not supposed to be an accurate description of the character at first level. "Warlord" inspires people to play the class a lot more than commander does.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top