Let Warlord be Warlord

[rounser]

I don't recall playing a thief who steals stuff in 1E.

Probably why it got renamed rogue. Broader, allows a lot more archetypes under that banner, less specific meaning. Unlike, say, "warlord".

And more people fight and assassinate than just fighters and assassins.

And your point was...?

 

[hong]

Probably why it got renamed rogue.

I also recall rogues who weren't very roguish. Almost grey, in fact. They could have been spies.

And your point was...?

A role definition is important not just in what it entails, but also what it excludes.

 

[rounser]

A role definition is important not just in what it entails, but also what it excludes.

Perhaps, but it can also just denote a specialty. A rogue might perform an assassination, but a trained assassin would probably pull it off better...similarly to how the same said rogue might be able to fight well enough, but his mate the fighter does it better, because he specialises in it.

Things get a bit more blurred when we move out of "mundane" territory (e.g. climbing walls and swinging weapons) into the supernatural, where the restrictions seem to get a bit more draconian, and your point seems to stand better.

 

[hong]

Perhaps, but it can also just denote a specialty. A rogue might perform an assassination, but a trained assassin would probably pull it off better...similarly to how the same said rogue might be able to fight well enough, but his mate the fighter does it better, because he specialises in it.

And a warlord specialises in leading people. For war, or at least the sharp end thereof.

 

[Turjan]

And a warlord specialises in leading people. For war, or at least the sharp end thereof.

Which means whoever chooses the warlord class is automatically the party leader and can give everyone else commands? Sounds silly, but we already have a class like that (though not in the core), and I don't like that one, either.

Which means that I find the name dumb, because of its connotation, and I don't have much hope for the mechanics, either.

 

[Baduin]

And a warlord specialises in leading people. For war, or at least the sharp end thereof.

Unfortunately, not. "Warlord" has a specific meaning - a warlord is a man who governs some area by purely military means. Warlords actually seldom take part in formal wars against organized armies, and when they do, they lose badly. Their typical activity is commonly known as "killing people and taking their stuff"; although more efficient ones actually prefer "not killing people, but still taking their stuff". If you think that is the essence of D&D, the name kind of fits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7050506.stm

"A Congolese warlord has been flown to the International Criminal Court at The Hague where he is to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Germain Katanga, who led the Forces for Patriotic Resistance (FRPI) in Ituri, was flown from the capital, Kinshasa.

Mr Katanga is the second Congolese militia leader to be sent to The Hague.

The warlord Thomas Lubanga was flown there last year to face charges of recruiting child soldiers in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

'More prosecutions'

Prosecutors say Mr Katanga - known as Simba - led the FRPI in Ituri in north-eastern DR Congo in 2003. He was arrested two years ago.

He is accused of murder, sexual enslavement and forcing children under 15 to fight as soldiers. "

 

[hong]

Which means whoever chooses the warlord class is automatically the party leader and can give everyone else commands? Sounds silly, but we already have a class like that (though not in the core), and I don't like that one, either.

Which means that I find the name dumb, because of its connotation, and I don't have much hope for the mechanics, either.

Well, come up with an alternative. That everyone likes.

 

[BASHMAN]

To me, warlord has always had a negative connotation. When I think of a warlord, I think of a rebel/terrorist leader using child soldiers to kill missionaries/charity workers in Africa. Or rival gangsters in Manchu period China killing one another over opium/arms/etc. It does not have very moral connotations-- certainly not heroic ones to me. It has an extra-legal, amoral significance to it in my mind.

I could see a D&D fantasy version of a warlord-- but it would be a self-proclaimed orcish king who rules through tyrrany, executions, and fear-- not some brave hero. Not that all warlords have to be heroes-- but they certainly in D&D shouldn't be bullying scumbags-- and that is the sort of person in real life that we tend to describe as a warlord.

Personally, I think captain or commander are both good. Marshal was fine, but too confusing with the Martial power source I am sure.

 

[BASHMAN]

Still voting for Myrmidon. That was used for the "professional soldier" kit back in 2e, so it's already in the game.

I think this is a good idea too.

I also like: Brigadier, Leftenant, Commander, Captain, Tactician, Centurion (since I played one once), or even Noble, or Lord. Heck even "Hero" could be an acceptable name-- even evil has their own personal heroes that inspired the ranks to go and do more evil.

Actually, of all those, I'd say commander is best because:

1. it is a military title w/o being attached to a very specific military. There are no commanders in the army-- so it gives the impression of commander of men than the specific rank of Commander. At sea, of course, where commander is a real rank, I could see this as a problem.

2. It could also not be a military title-- simply a statement of what the class does--- issuing commands. A command could be the headman of a group of brigands as well as the leader of a cavalry unit...

 

[Wepwawet]

Let Warlord NOT be!

Think of it, why there should be a Warlord in the game?
This class doesn't make any sense, it doesn't bring anything really new to the game, nor does it fill any specific niche.

The paladin class should deal with the stuff the warlord is supposed to do, it's the most adequate for this leadership skills, healing and buffing auras.

My guess is they changed the Paladin name to Warlord (bad choice of name, obvioulsy) to make it the any-alignment paladin.