Let Warlord be Warlord

[Elphilm]

Knight is a word that I'm warming up to for the class.

What seems to bug people with a name like knight is that it implies social status in addition to describing the combat role of the class. Now, I don't personally have a problem with that, and I actually use a homebrewed Noble class in my games to fill a role that seems close to what the Warlord will be filling in 4E (with the caveat that we don't know a lot about the Warlord's powers and abilities, of course).

In any case, I think noble is a better term than knight simply because it is the more generic of the two. For example, if you are running an Oriental campaign, samurai are not exactly knights but they certainly are nobility. Moreover, the societies of elves, dwarves and other races might not have a social class of warrior nobility that corresponds with the term "knight", but they surely have nobles of some kind.

The downside is that the word "noble" has heavy connotations of its own, and certainly not all of them include leading people in battle.

 

[Gargoyle]

What seems to bug people with a name like knight is that it implies social status in addition to describing the combat role of the class. Now, I don't personally have a problem with that, and I actually use a homebrewed Noble class in my games to fill a role that seems close to what the Warlord will be filling in 4E (with the caveat that we don't know a lot about the Warlord's powers and abilities, of course).

In any case, I think noble is a better term than knight simply because it is the more generic of the two. For example, if you are running an Oriental campaign, samurai are not exactly knights but they certainly are nobility. Moreover, the societies of elves, dwarves and other races might not have a social class of warrior nobility that corresponds with the term "knight", but they surely have nobles of some kind.

The downside is that the word "noble" has heavy connotations of its own, and certainly not all of them include leading people in battle.

Yeah, as I mentioned, knight has its own connotations...it implies land ownership...fealty...lawful organizations...but fantasy worlds often buck those traditions, and D&D can easily have its own style of knights.

I see knight as iconic to D&D in the way noble is to Star Wars. Noble as an NPC class (perhaps demoted to a "role" in 4e?) works for me in D&D.

 

[Gargoyle]

You've sold me here. 'Knight' is a superb name for a 'leader fighter' type of character. But I think this is all academic, isn't it? The books are gone to press and all that sort of thing. We're probably stuck with the warlord. (Sigh)

Oh well, at least all the 12-year-olds will get 'stoked' playing their 'phat warlordz' getting all their 'f**king sweet killz'.

Yeah, I don't think anyone can change what it will be at this point, but the discussion is interesting to me. I might change the class name in my campaigns. I might not. It really depends on the class description. WotC might just write a killer description that illuminates why "warlord" is a perfect name for the class, though I doubt it.

I wish they'd put the warlord class description on their website, even if it's without game mechanics. It would make crafting a 4e campaign a bit easier to know how all the core classes fit in.

 

[Kobu]

I wish they'd put the warlord class description on their website, even if it's without game mechanics. It would make crafting a 4e campaign a bit easier to know how all the core classes fit in.

I don't think they will at this point. It would just invite more criticism that may impact their initial sales.

The playtest that mentioned the warlord made it sound like they had to go out of their way to create a plausible backstory for the character. I have trouble believing there's going to be a reasonable explanation of how a character can decide one day that he will be a warlord and then goes off to join an adventuring party.

 

[Baduin]

What seems to bug people with a name like knight is that it implies social status in addition to describing the combat role of the class. Now, I don't personally have a problem with that, and I actually use a homebrewed Noble class in my games to fill a role that seems close to what the Warlord will be filling in 4E (with the caveat that we don't know a lot about the Warlord's powers and abilities, of course).

In any case, I think noble is a better term than knight simply because it is the more generic of the two. For example, if you are running an Oriental campaign, samurai are not exactly knights but they certainly are nobility. Moreover, the societies of elves, dwarves and other races might not have a social class of warrior nobility that corresponds with the term "knight", but they surely have nobles of some kind.

The downside is that the word "noble" has heavy connotations of its own, and certainly not all of them include leading people in battle.

You know, Japanese didn't call samurais "knight" because they were speaking Japanese. Similarly Germans called them "Ritter" etc. The meaning is generally the same. Japanese and Chinese had a feudal system - which is actually very seldom outside Europe. (I think no one else had it, except the ancient Armenia).

As regards the noble and knight the difference is that the knight fights, and noble usually don't. Knights now are often nobles of some kind (often lower nobility), but it wasn't so originally. In England they are only gentry, in Germany they started as unfree knights or bondsmen - ministeriales.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-58102/Germany#297082.hook

Originally, a knight (or samurai) was simply a fighting men who followed some lord. Later, in some places they were transformed into a specific social class. In Europe "knight" become not a social class, but a professional group or calling. You were never born a knight, you had to be dubbed a knight- and a commoner could become one.

 

[Elphilm]

You know, Japanese didn't call samurais "knight" because they were speaking Japanese. Similarly Germans called them "Ritter" etc. The meaning is generally the same.

Heh, of course it is, and even the root of both words is similar ("servant" in case of knight, and "to serve" in case of samurai, I believe). I personally wouldn't have a problem if, for example, an Oriental campaign represented the samurai with a Knight class - I just think that many others would. Knight is a word with European connotations, and no one bats an eyelash when "Chevalier", "cavalieri", or "Ritter" are translated as "knight". However, I've rarely seen the word samurai (or bogatyr, Kshatriya, Xiá, and others) translated as knight, simply to avoid the familiar image of the medieval European knight.

 

[trancejeremy]

How about "Sergeant"?

It implies a leadership role, but at the same time, doesn't imply much else (no nobility like Knight). It also has medieval roots.

Okay, it might conjure up images of R. Lee Emery, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, either.

 

[Nebulous]

How about... dum, dum dum... Warduke!

Anyway, this discussion's gettying pretty tiring. Every single suggestion is lamer than Warlord. Especially suggestions like Herald, which have absolutely nothing to do with the intended class role. The Warlord isn't supposed to carry messages, nor is he supposed to work on heraldry. So why change his name to Herald? May as well call him the Jester class. It makes about as much sense.

Just imagine what went on behind closed doors at WotC for weeks, months, maybe a year! Endless debates, pro and con lists, scratching off names, adding names, arguing about names. If Enworld is any indication i'm sure they had their own problems coming to a conclusion as well. For better or worse.