D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll

[jayoungr]

So I've been thinking about this, and I wonder, why is it so hard to find an appropriate name for the class that doesn't imply rank? Should we even try, or should we just say "No, this is about having a type of authority/control over the party" and embrace that?

(Being slightly devils-advocate-y with my phrasing, I admit!)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I've been thinking about this, and I wonder, why is it so hard to find an appropriate name for the class that doesn't imply rank? Should we even try, or should we just say "No, this is about having a type of authority/control over the party" and embrace that?

(Being slightly devils-advocate-y with my phrasing, I admit!)

Well, that may suit many players and tables fine. Its just nice to be able to make the class focus on a less narrow set of characters and such. OTOH personally I'm not too worked up about it, I don't really think class is a 'thing' in the game world anyway, and so a 'Warlord' that doesn't lord it over anyone doesn't concern me. If the class works for the player for their concept, whatever that is, then its fine. They will just call the character what they envisage, not what is in the book.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So I've been thinking about this, and I wonder, why is it so hard to find an appropriate name for the class that doesn't imply rank? Should we even try, or should we just say "No, this is about having a type of authority/control over the party" and embrace that?

(Being slightly devils-advocate-y with my phrasing, I admit!)

Can I take a third option?

As it is, in D&D, we have several names that have been "grandfathered in," despite having only a weak association with the intended concept. "Cleric," for example, is a word still in use today, and even has some set phrases which have nothing to do with religion (e.g. "clerical error.") "Barbarian" is a huge no-no word in modern English; you'd only use it if your intent was specifically to insult another person's culture, and insulting a person's culture is seen as a wholly inappropriate thing to do, even by accident. Both "Druid" and "Bard" specifically single out a particular Earth culture, and "Ranger" singles out a single author's work. Etc.

Thus, I think the problem is more that, with the Warlord, it hasn't yet developed the patina of use that the other words have. It hasn't built up a protective layer of familiarity to cause people to forgive its foibles and accept that the two uses of the word (modern-day and D&D-only) are separate things, which only partially overlap.

Of course, the natural rebuttal at this point would be the Warlock--but it's actually not new, it was a level-title for AD&D Wizards (8th level) as was Sorcerer (9th level). And it's not like "Warlord" is never used in fiction, fantasy or otherwise. (In fact, a series I love quite a bit, the Black Jewels books, uses "warlord" as the general title for all male members of the Blood, people who can do magic, regardless of their social station or the strength of their magic.) So, again, I think the issue is really just that people aren't comfortable with the word, and thus seek to remove it or find something that will be comfortable--but they're almost certainly not going to succeed, just like how trying to replace all of the standard D&D class names would leave most people struggling to find good ones.

If you had to throw out all the traditional words, e.g. not just "Bard" but also "Minstrel," not just "Fighter" but also "Warrior," wouldn't most of the alternatives feel uncomfortable, confining, limiting? Yet if "Bards" had always been known, originally, as Gleemen or Troubadours, would we not be in exactly the reverse position? If "Druids" had always been known as Wardens or Keepers, wouldn't "Druid" be seen as an inappropriate attempt to pigeonhole the class into a single culture's beliefs? If "Fighters" had always been known as, say, Pugilists, might not "Fighter" be seen as an incredibly bland word, discarding all the rich meaning of the name for something that describes anyone who gets into combat?

"Warlord" is just a name that bothers people because it hasn't aged as much as the other names have. In another 30 years--and 3-6 more editions of D&D, I'm sure--I suspect much of the resistance to the name will have disappeared, and we'll be all upset about whatever is the newest new class on the block, probably "cyphers" or "somnambulists" or something like that.

TL;DR: "Why is it so hard to find a name for Druid that doesn't specifically reference Celts? Why is it so hard to find a name for Barbarian that doesn't imply being uncivilized and/or Norse?"

 

[GreenTengu]

"Warlord" is just a name that bothers people because it hasn't aged as much as the other names have. In another 30 years--and 3-6 more editions of D&D, I'm sure--I suspect much of the resistance to the name will have disappeared, and we'll be all upset about whatever is the newest new class on the block, probably "cyphers" or "somnambulists" or something like that.

No, I don't at all think you are right. The problem are that
1) It implies a specific position of power that certainly has not been earned at low levels.
2) It really fails to convey what the class is supposed to do.

Cleric is just another word for Priest, you could call it a Priest and it would be just fine. If you called the class "Pope" or even "Bishop", you'd likely have a problem.
Similarly, Fight is not called "King" or even "Knight"
And if Wizard instead was called "Demigod" or "Archmage" it would have similar problem.

If Bards had been called Troubadours, it probably would have been just fine. "Gleeman" would have been avoided because it fails to describe what they do.

"Warden" might have been a perfectly valid term for Druid. You could also call them perhaps "Geomancers" or they could have been "Shaman" had that word not been used for bad-guy spellcasters who could use both wizard and cleric spells. Although the concept was made specifically based on misconceptions of the Druidic faith and had been ladened with so much very specific lore, I guess it was hard to back off from the name.

Pugilist is a word for a boxer-- someone who wears no armor and fights with their fists. That would have been an absolutely horrible name for the Fighter, but it might have been a possible name for the Monk.

Warrior/Fighter partially had a generic name because it was the absolute go-to default class. 90% of NPCs in 1st and 2nd edition were described as being fighters of some level if casting spells or stealing things wasn't specifically part of their concept. It was also the class that had no special requirements and that all races could be without question.

It is also worth nothing that the very narrow concept of "Thief" was replaced with the far broader concept of "Rogue" despite the fact that the "Thief" class had been around for quite some time by the time the name was replaced.

On the other hand, the simple descriptive name of "magic-user" was replaced with "wizard"-- but that was at least partially because they wanted to break the concept up into "wizard" and "sorcerer".

 

[Remathilis]

No, I don't at all think you are right. The problem are that
1) It implies a specific position of power that certainly has not been earned at low levels.
2) It really fails to convey what the class is supposed to do.

war·lord ˈwôrˌlôrd/ noun. a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy.

Military commander: guy has some military background (on par with a fighter) and issues commands that improve team coordination. Check. aggressive regional? Most PC warlords tend to be the "take the fight to the enemy" types. Check. Individual autonomy? Check.

Seems the name is plausible, and certainly on par with Barbarian, Druid, Monk, or Paladin in terms of specificity.

Cleric is just another word for Priest, you could call it a Priest and it would be just fine. If you called the class "Pope" or even "Bishop", you'd likely have a problem.
Similarly, Fight is not called "King" or even "Knight"
And if Wizard instead was called "Demigod" or "Archmage" it would have similar problem.

You're assuming Warlord = High level. Commanding people isn't a trait only high-level people have, if it was Joan of Arc and every West Point graduate would have to be 10+ level.

If Bards had been called Troubadours, it probably would have been just fine. "Gleeman" would have been avoided because it fails to describe what they do.

They weren't, and the 1e Bard was very much in line with the Celtic concept of the Bard (right down to the druid spells). Later on, they took on the trappings of the English Minstrel.

"Warden" might have been a perfectly valid term for Druid. You could also call them perhaps "Geomancers" or they could have been "Shaman" had that word not been used for bad-guy spellcasters who could use both wizard and cleric spells. Although the concept was made specifically based on misconceptions of the Druidic faith and had been ladened with so much very specific lore, I guess it was hard to back off from the name.

Druid was a very specific class, from the Mistletoe to the fighting for levels to the True Neutral alignment. You could make a class that filled the druid's role as "nature-based spellcaster" but I'm sure it wouldn't look anything like the druid.

Pugilist is a word for a boxer-- someone who wears no armor and fights with their fists. That would have been an absolutely horrible name for the Fighter, but it might have been a possible name for the Monk.

It would have worked for the monk if and only if we've stripping out all the mystical/shaolin stuff. Again, it would have been a very different class.

Warrior/Fighter partially had a generic name because it was the absolute go-to default class. 90% of NPCs in 1st and 2nd edition were described as being fighters of some level if casting spells or stealing things wasn't specifically part of their concept. It was also the class that had no special requirements and that all races could be without question.

Most NPCs were NPCs: either 0 level characters with 1d4 hp or some other generic HD mix. the 2e Monstrous Manual had dozens of humans listed (berserker, pilgrim, dervish, sailor, priest, etc) and every demihuman race had a "generic" HD only version in it too. And fighter's DID have a requirement of 9 Strength, for what that's worth.

Fighter NPCs were supposed to represent competent warriors true, but not EVERYONE was a fighter; the vast majority were simply not.

It is also worth nothing that the very narrow concept of "Thief" was replaced with the far broader concept of "Rogue" despite the fact that the "Thief" class had been around for quite some time by the time the name was replaced.

While rogue DID supplant thief, Rogue did little to broaden the archetype. I think it was more an attempt to remove the "stigma" of thief from a "heroic" class.

On the other hand, the simple descriptive name of "magic-user" was replaced with "wizard"-- but that was at least partially because they wanted to break the concept up into "wizard" and "sorcerer".

2e referred to all magic-user classes as "wizards" with Mage and the 8 specialists (abjurer, diviner, illusionist) under the same broad overclass. Sorcerer had nothing to do with it. Like Thief above, the Magic-user/Mage absorbed its overclass title. (While Fighter and Cleric did not; no Warrior or Priest classes).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, I don't at all think you are right

Remathilis covered most of my responses, so I'm only going to add a couple things.

First: I noticed that you completely ignored the Barbarian, which was intentionally one of my centerpiece classes. That specifically entails being "uncivilized," and is still used as an insult in modern times ("their treatment of prisoners is barbaric!") It also doesn't have any specific association with anything the Barbarian does, because "not civilized" has nothing to do with "gets super angry" nor "contacts supernatural beings for aid." And the primary alternative--Berserker--is only the former, and very narrowly Norse to boot (coming from the plural berserkr).

Second: If a connotation of authority is a problem, you should have just as many issues with Cleric (the most common English translation of the Arabic word imam, religious authorities in Islam), Druid (religious authorities of the pagan religions of Britain), Bard (social/religious authorities in pre-Roman Britain), Monk (absolutely an authority of some kind on religious matters, typically Christian or Buddhist), and especially Paladin (one of Charlemagne's twelve peers). Particularly since "Druid" has nothing to do with summoning plants or turning into animals, "Bard" has nothing to do with being a performer, and "Paladin" has no special association with religion...oh, except because of D&D, in EVERY case. (Monk is something of an edge case.*)

The fact that "Warlord" (dude who leads an army, often in a lawless/anarchic region) is only somewhat related to the concept (dude who leads/advises a 'squad' of combatants) isn't anything new in D&D terms. It is, in fact, not particularly unusual. Hence why I said what you quoted: in time, I suspect this will blow over as people get used to it. Just like people will get used to dragonborn and tieflings. Will some cantankerous animosity remain? Undoubtedly. But I think the major anger/vehemence will pass, and it will become like "Barbarian"--a name that leaves many uncomfortable, but which sticks around (in part because it's familiar, in part because better alternatives are hard to come by). The concept has already been lodged enough in the general gamer psyche for it to be imitated in other systems; that's enough proof to me that it's gonna stick around.

*The vast majority of the time, when a Westerner speaks of a "monk," they mean a Christian monk, who is almost nothing like the D&D Monk. However, "monk" IS also used to refer to male ordained Buddhists, of which an extremely small subset are of the Shaolin sect and thus trained in martial arts. I still think it's hard to argue that the Shaolin link was enough to justify the name when alternatives existed. Like the FF choice: "Black Belt."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Captain is the only good name for the warlord.

Seriously.

YEs, it still implies some manner of authority, but banneret or bannerman are just, not good names, and they are the only alternatives that hit the right note without implying authority.

Captain, on the other hand, was commonly used without any regard to a rank of the same name, and just hits all the right notes. No negative connotation, it's a common term, it can be and has been a very general term for a type of person. It's at least as good as rogue or fighter.

 

[GreenTengu]

Hence why I said what you quoted: in time, I suspect this will blow over as people get used to it. Just like people will get used to dragonborn and tieflings. Will some cantankerous animosity remain? Undoubtedly. But I think the major anger/vehemence will pass, and it will become like "Barbarian"--a name that leaves many uncomfortable, but which sticks around (in part because it's familiar, in part because better alternatives are hard to come by). The concept has already been lodged enough in the general gamer psyche for it to be imitated in other systems; that's enough proof to me that it's gonna stick around.

Yeaaahh.... You seem alarmingly ignorant of something very basic.

People might possibly get used to it if it wasn't so off-putting that it actually remained in the game.

Instead, it was wholly torn out of the game as literally the only base class of any edition that didn't make it in. The closest one got was an alternate Fighter build which is a 1/3rd support class and 2/3rds a straight-combat class which mostly clearly is not a correct replacement for a full non-spell slot using support class. But so long as the concept is called "Warlord" that is literally as close as you EEEEEEVEEEER are going to become. Meanwhile, Tieflings and Dragonborn remained in the game.

You seriously somehow totally missed that when you opened up your PHB and flipped through it, didn't you? Like-- you just fully didn't understand the whole reason this subforum exists at all, it totally escaped you.

People CANNOT get used to a term that they are never using because it was tossed in the garbage along with the whole concept. It is going to remain in that garbage and everyone is going to think of it as garbage no matter how long you stick to your bizarre idea that the longer it rots away in the trash, the more people will appreciate it with the label it has been stuck with.

And all the parts of the class remained in the game. Pretty much everything you need is spread across the Fighter, Bard, Paladin and Cleric, it is just utterly impossible to multiclass in a way to properly get the parts in a working fashion as you are forced to pick up tons of junk you don't want in the process that end up becoming the majority of what makes up your character.

So it really isn't any of the mechanics anyone who can accept this edition is rejecting to. It is fundamentally the packaging that has fundamentally prevented it from appearing in the game as an option, and so as long as it retains that packaging it cannot come back.

If you actually want to come back, then you will stop acting so ignorant and actually contribute towards repackaging the concept in a way that will make it less offensive to those who have rejected so boisterously that the designers of the game ultimately decided to side with them. And the most important first step in doing that is to choose a new name.

 

[Satyrn]

What if we hijacked Monte Cook's ideas and called this thing a Warmain?

 

[jayoungr]

@TheHobgoblin: Yikes, no need to get aggressive about it!

This does spark one thought, though: Maybe the implication of rank wasn't such a big deal in 4E because that edition already had a whole group of classes called "leaders." The implication of rank was already in the game, but it was spread across a few different classes.

EDIT: Then again, I just idly clicked a link to a warlord name poll from 2007 that appeared at the bottom of my screen after I typed this post. Seems the name was somewhat controversial back in the day as well.