I agree that the "Templar" is utterly ridiculous, especially since they coud simply go with established Elder Scrolls Paladin class.

I even created a thread about it, a year ago or so...

Dragonknight? Well thats solely for purpose of "WOW" effect (nothing to do with Blizzards mmo, its a marketing phrase), in other words, coolness and leetness. Reminds me the ZOS post beta surveys with all their "my character felt powerful"... doh...

I agree

Sorcerer should be called Cartman

Templar should be Jew

Nightblade should be Token

And Dragonknight should be called Stan

1. Dragonknight has nothing to do with dragonborn except for the fact it deals with dragon aspects.

2. Nightblade is a rogue-based class last I checked; just because you plan on using it to play differently means nothing.

3. Sorcerer may be the only legitimate complaint, as sorcerers are historically an extremely rare magic-based class (anyone can become a wizard, but to become a sorcerer is something only one in a thousand births done).

4. Templars throughout both fantasy and history are regarded as healers or some sort of holy knight akin to Paladin, and since TESO takes place in a high-fantasy setting most easily related to the medieval times you have absolutely no room to stand on for this.

Templar describes them just about perfectly. A militant group affiliated with religion. I suppose they could have called them paladin or some such. But that sounds awfully close to D&D.

I'm not really a fan of the Templar name. Should have been Paladin or something else that wasn't the name of a real-life religious group. But I'm not going to cry about it. The others are all fine in my opinion.

Does it really matter?

They're just labels.

I'd prefer to have no classes, make my own with the skills available.

Templar is decent.

Sorcerer is decent also

NB and Dk could have been named better

I totally agree OP.

Why do you always ask questions that are written in poison pen?

The classes are lore friendly and fit into the era, what harm is there?

But that's not all. Considering the classes from Morrowind to Oblivion and to Skyrim were never the same, why would you expect the same old thing for ESO on debut, I know If it were me designing it, I'd want fresh classes and not just a rehash of older games.

Yes, there are a tonne of classes that could have been used, but then that does't work well with the new skill trees and passives and the premise that ANY character can be the EVERY character. Want a sorcerer (mage if it makes you sleep better) wearing heavy armour? No problem, done!

In previous games you could have a Warrior, or a Thief. Maybe a Witch Hunter or a Knight, perhaps a Crusader is more your thing, or a Barbarian. There are tonnes of them, and while they very aptly describe a character and might give more options, the options now in ESO are clearly in the skill trees and passives themselves. It's semantics really, forget the class NAMES and look at what you want to create. I got stuck more than a few times with a char that was rubbish at XYZ skill because the character didn't have the ability. Go a barbarian styled player and try using magic in some games...

I'm not saying this is the best way to do things, but it is different, fresh and new for TES and I like it. Plus it makes more sense with an MMO as the possibilities are limitless.

I know this might sound strange or weird to you, but I'm using my imagination with character creation and I'm not having a problem, maybe give that a try.

You actually have some good points here. The names have sunk in for me, so no going back. But in a pure sense, these names are sub-optimal!

With the versitility in classes they should hace just gone with

Mage
Rogue
Warrior

What the hell else is there really? It starts from these three basic portfolios..