Let Warlord be Warlord

[Reaper Steve]

Now that the polls for a new name for Warlord are roaring again and I've put some thought into it, I say leave the name alone.
Three reasons (collected from others. Except the first point below, others convinced me with the following:
1) We're in the second round of proving that no other name fits. It might not be the best, but it's the best we have. (I think 'Warrior' would be perfect, but am almost alone in that. I dread every other name proposed, except 'Marshall,' but that could be confused with Martial powers, and it doesn't fit #2)
2) 'Warlord' is a fantasy archetype, as someone else pointed out.
3) 'Warlord' is a class name you grow into.

So, I think it'll survive because no other option comes close.
D&D will define a Warlord in D&D terms.

 

[Masquerade]

As I posted in the poll thread, I don't personally have any problem with the name "Warlord." I do think it's confusing to have two "Warlo-"s. Otherwise I totally agree.

 

[Umbran]

3) 'Warlord' is a class name you grow into.

That's largely why I don't like it. Even if in 4e, starting PCs are already heroes, they probably aren't leading whole armies in war. Starting characters are not lords of anything, much less entire wars - so the name simply doesn't fit for a large portion of a character's career.

I don't have a better option, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to find one.

 

[kettite]

That's largely why I don't like it. Even if in 4e, starting PCs are already heroes, they probably aren't leading whole armies in war. Starting characters are not lords of anything, much less entire wars - so the name simply doesn't fit for a large portion of a character's career.

I don't have a better option, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to find one.

This was pointed out by another user in the poll thread, but how likely is it that characters in the game would refer to themselves by class anyway? It's just a designation for the meta-game.

With that said I don't care for the name, but whatever. I never really cared for the name of the game when I was younger, but I got over that too. Imagine my disappointment in middle school when I learned what a dungeon was really like.

 

[Piratecat]

That's largely why I don't like it. Even if in 4e, starting PCs are already heroes, they probably aren't leading whole armies in war. Starting characters are not lords of anything, much less entire wars - so the name simply doesn't fit for a large portion of a character's career.

Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. A first level PC is a... wizard.

I'm fine with Warlord on that count. I only dislike the "warlock" similarity.

 

[mhensley]

Like we have any say in the matter.

 

[GSHamster]

Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. A first level PC is a... wizard.

I'm fine with Warlord on that count. I only dislike the "warlock" similarity.

We also have names for very powerful wizards: archmage, for example. Is there a name for a very powerful warlord (that would fit the class)?

 

[lukelightning]

We also have names for very powerful wizards: archmage, for example. Is there a name for a very powerful warlord (that would fit the class)?

Archwarlord! Warlordest! Apocolypselord!

 

[kettite]

We also have names for very powerful wizards: archmage, for example. Is there a name for a very powerful warlord (that would fit the class)?

Embiggen-O-Mancer

 

[Masquerade]

We also have names for very powerful wizards: archmage, for example. Is there a name for a very powerful warlord (that would fit the class)?

General? Khan? Warchief? Matterhorn? Centurion?