D&D 4E WotC's made some good 4E names, too!

[Merlin the Tuna]

No, but it means it doesn't have anything to do with WotC's naming policies one way or the other.

They chose to hang on to an existing terrible name instead of making a new one. Choosing to not do anything is still a decision to be made.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Ah Krakosia, I love Krakosia!!

I'm not the only one that thought this...

Designing a Warforged named Viktor right now... barely speaks common.

P.S. Ixitxachitl is an awesome name.

 

[KingCrab]

No, it does not imply anything like that, any more than the presence of Pelor in 3.* PHBs implies that there is Pelor both in FR and Eberron.

All it implies that the default setting of the game had a realm called Arkhosia, or a tiefling empire of Bael Turath. Seriously, this should not be something you have to wonder about.

No. In 3.x the default setting was Greyhawk. It made sense that the material in the PHB (the gods and stuff) were from Greyhawk. If you were using a different one of their settings (or your own) you could change that. Also, more importantly, they didn't put more Greyhawk in the game than they needed to. None of the feat names in the PHB, for example, were specific to Greyhawk.

In 4.x, however, they're doing something strange. In which of their settings did Arkhosia exist? Is their implied PHB setting different from all of the settings that they plan to release? If so, why go wild with the setting specific feat names? They're releasing FR next, so perhaps they'll squeeze all the fluff in the 4e PHB into the realms history? I don't see the logic and don't like or get what they're doing with the (very campaign specific) PHB.

 

[Kaodi]

The thing about Arkhosia is that it does not sound like something somebody who was part " lizard " would call their city. Bael Turath is okay, if a little contrived. They both sound okay though, non contextually.

 

[Rechan]

No, but it means it doesn't have anything to do with WotC's naming policies one way or the other.

Just because it doesn't wouldn't stop the complaints.

 

[Malk]

The thing about Arkhosia is that it does not sound like something somebody who was part " lizard " would call their city. Bael Turath is okay, if a little contrived. They both sound okay though, non contextually.

Aren't they all contrived though? I mean really they have to make up a string of sounds and apply it to everything they name. The names seem ok to me, but if my group doesn't like them, we will just change them.

 

[Goobermunch]

No. In 3.x the default setting was Greyhawk. It made sense that the material in the PHB (the gods and stuff) were from Greyhawk. If you were using a different one of their settings (or your own) you could change that. Also, more importantly, they didn't put more Greyhawk in the game than they needed to. None of the feat names in the PHB, for example, were specific to Greyhawk.

In 4.x, however, they're doing something strange. In which of their settings did Arkhosia exist? Is their implied PHB setting different from all of the settings that they plan to release? If so, why go wild with the setting specific feat names? They're releasing FR next, so perhaps they'll squeeze all the fluff in the 4e PHB into the realms history? I don't see the logic and don't like or get what they're doing with the (very campaign specific) PHB.

The implied setting is different from all the settings they plan to release.

AFAICR they never released a 3.* Greyhawk campaign setting.

More importantly, they goobered Greyhawk everywhere in the spells, so putting default setting in the feats isn't quite the catastrophe you make it out to be.

--G

 

[Imban]

The D&D Gazetteer and Living Greyhawk Gazetteer were a "Greyhawk Campaign Setting", for what it's worth.