Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7054181" data-attributes="member: 996">I can't pretend that looks like an unrealistic expectation at this point.  I'd just be disappointed if it ends up making a hollow, cynical lie of 5e's goal of inclusiveness, so I continue to look for indicators that might hold out some hope that this hasn't been the 'h4ter edition' all along. Warlock, sorcerer, and even cleric in the context typically alluded to, come with comparable negative connotations in modern usage.  Warlock and Sorcerer lack countervailing connotations in the positive column.  Cleric has been used in a positive, though not heroic sense in the past, to mean a clergyman and in the form 'clerical' to denote paperwork.  Warlord has been used positively for heroic characters, John Carter of Mars, for instance. That can't really be used as a reason to exclude something, because it too easily becomes a reason to exclude anything. Want something excluded, just make the noise, and you make it 'controversial' and 'a flashpoint.'  By that reasoning, exclusion always wins, there can never be a debate or a fair compromise.  For that matter, we can turn it around:  the exclusion of the Warlord from 5e is a flashpoint of contention, therefor it must be restored to the game.  That 5e's stated goal is to include modular options and be for fans of each past edition, the latter invalid argument seems more reasonable than the former invalid argument.Warlords fight, and they lead or advise or inspire.  There's more and more heroic-fantasy-specifics to them than the dictionary definition, and no requirement for the unpleasantness.  The D&D Paladin heals by laying on hands, supernaturally protects his allies, casts spells granted by a deity from a polytheistic pantheon, and may or may not be a knight in service to a king.  The Paladin's were Charlemagne's personal Knights, in direct service to him, they did not gain power from Pagan gods and probably would have faced severe consequences had they done so.The D&D Sorcerer is also nothing like the dictionary definition, but for claiming to wield magical powers.  And, of course, there's nothing heroic about the RL con-men preying on the superstitious, who are referred to as 'Sorcerers' in the media, today.</blockquote>

Verification