Yeah. That's a problem that many people bring up. It's not the defense you think it is.
Ah, so we should eliminate Druids, because that's a narrowly-specific single-culture semi-priestly archetype which has
jack-all to do with transforming into animals.
And we should get rid of Paladins, because "Paladin" derives from "a protector of the Palatine hill" (from Latin, via French) and has jack-all to do with keeping sacred oaths or bringing good and beauty into the world.
And we should get rid of Clerics, because "cleric" refers either to a specific type of leadership among priests, or to scribes (e.g. "clerical error"), which the in-game Clerics have absolutely no relationship to.
And we should get rid of the Monk, because it's narrowly specific to one single
subculture of one single religion (specifically, Shaolin kung fu Buddhist monks).
And we should get rid of "Warlock," because in Wicca, that's a term for wicked people who use magic
specifically for evil ends.
And we should get rid of Bards for the same reason as Druids, except worse because it's intentionally conflating two completely different concepts (Celtic priest-leaders and post-Celtic minstrel-entertainers).
And we should get rid of Rangers because that's literally just a ripoff of a character from a single series (Aragorn), which then got a whole bunch of other mechanics stapled to it for no reason (dual wielding, animal taming).
And we should get rid of Artificers, because not all fantasy settings have devices and magic and tinkering.
Finally we'll be free of classes that have ridiculous over-specific commitments or unfortunate implications, left with only the ones
pure enough to qualify as valid interests for players to play!
Or, y'know, we could recognize that what allows something to qualify as "a class" is not, and has never been, a logically-consistent thing. That there are classes baked into D&D's structure that would
never have been acceptable if they were erased from existence and then proposed three editions later. That easily,
easily half of all classes are things that the very same people who defend them to the hilt today as vitally necessary parts of D&D would scoff and dismiss them outright without the weight of tradition behind them.
The vast majority of opposition to a "Warlord" class boils down to, "It's not what I'm familiar with, so it doesn't fit." That's a craptacular excuse for why it shouldn't be allowed to exist, both because the "reason" is inherently self-serving, and because it creates, as I've said in may prior threads, a guaranteed catch-22 for creativity and innovation: it's unfamiliar so it should never be allowed, but things can only become familiar by being allowed.
Now, that doesn't mean
absolutely everything should be added. I get that being profligate with game elements is bad. My point is not that we should become profligate; it is that we should avoid being
miserly.