[Suggestion] Rename Duelist Class to Knight Class

​I'm proposing to rename the Duelist class to the Knight class. While Duelist suggests a flamboyant fencer, the name Knight is more thematic for a professional soldier. This shift would solidify the class as the premier master of both One-Handed and Two-Handed Swords.

100% never have i felt such a strong agreement.

Oh great and wise GGG please heed these words and consider renaming duelist to knight.
For the love of all that is awesome i hope they hear this.

"

PseudoErekt#9714 wrote:

consider renaming duelist to knight.

Agreed, knight class sounds so much better than duelist.

"

CharlesJT#7681 wrote:

​I'm proposing to rename the Duelist class to the Knight class. While Duelist suggests a flamboyant fencer, the name Knight is more thematic for a professional soldier. This shift would solidify the class as the premier master of both One-Handed and Two-Handed Swords.

I gather some info was datamined, but is it even known if it's intended to be a heavily armored archetype? If not then Knight makes no sense.

Duelist does not imply heavily armored, so even if you don't like 'duelist' curious why Knight would be the way to go, vs Sword Saint, Kensai, Blademaster, or many other possibly more suitable choices.

A duelist is someone with high agility and a light, thin blade. Knights are known for heavy armor and larger, heavier weapons. It makes no sense at all to rename a duelist to a knight.

A knight is pretty much what the heavily armored warrior is. Why not just play warrior if that's what you want?

And why are you so concerned with class names in the first place? The word that sticks out most from your post is flamboyant. And you don't want to play as a warrior for some reason.

... ooohhhhh.

"

AbyssianOne#1625 wrote:

Knights are known for heavy armor and larger, heavier weapons. It makes no sense at all to rename a duelist to a knight.

That's not true. A knight was a professional soldier and over time became less about the act of fighting and more about social class and chivalry. By the late Middle Ages, many knights were wealthy landowners who never seen a battlefield.

Knighthood became a title given for service or birth. You could be a knight and never fight in a war. This is where the modern British "Sir" comes from.

Sir Patrick Stewart is a knight. Knighthood is about a title awarded by a monarch, not about the armor they wear.

So instead of a class name which indicates a fighter who stares death down on the reg, you want to rename it to... an aristocratic title because that would be less flamboyant? The title evocative of Patrick Stewart?
Because being a Duellist isn't bad-ass enough for you?

I understand history, and find it hilarious that you're arguing that the stereotypical mental image most people have when they hear the word "knight" isn't accurate when that stereotypical image was the entire basis of your post in the first place.


You: "Duelist suggests a flamboyant fencer, the name Knight is more thematic for a professional soldier."

Also you: "By the late Middle Ages, many knights were wealthy landowners who never seen a battlefield.

Knighthood became a title given for service or birth. You could be a knight and never fight in a war. This is where the modern British "Sir" comes from.

Sir Patrick Stewart is a knight. Knighthood is about a title awarded by a monarch, not about the armor they wear."

Fantastic consistency of thought. Duelist sounds effeminate to you though it's a person who who specialized in fast, agile combat. Knight sounds more manly and not-gay to you even though some recent famous knights are Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Stephen Fry, and Sir Elton John.

But of course you need a class of warrior who uses big thick swords and is beefy and badass looking who isn't the Warrior. He'd be perfect except that one visual issue you can't stand.

It's okay, buddy. It's <current year> and it's now socially acceptable for you to admit the reason you like a big burly sweaty man grasping the hilt a large shafted blade firmly with both hands and ramming it deep inside others doesn't really necessitate any lack of flamboyance.

"

AbyssianOne#1625 wrote:

It's okay, buddy. It's <current year> and it's now socially acceptable for you to admit the reason you like a big burly sweaty man grasping the hilt a large shafted blade firmly with both hands and ramming it deep inside others doesn't really necessitate any lack of flamboyance.

Your argument becomes null and void when you start personal attacks. You sir win the award of Deflection.

Please stay on topic, I'm not going to entertain your theories.

It's quite telling that you see that as being attacked.