tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post8755640782234893985..comments2024-03-29T00:32:33.920-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: The "Real" RangerJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-42167328502618395742010-07-20T16:10:32.243-04:002010-07-20T16:10:32.243-04:00Perhaps a little bit. But I think the major reason...Perhaps a little bit. But I think the major reason for the perceived affinity (apart from traipsing about in the woods)is that rangers can use druid spells.<br /><br />I don't think the problem is so much in seeing the ranger as acting more like the druid. I think the problem lies in a common misunderstanding of druids.<br /><br />THEY ARE NOT CUDDLY ANIMAL LOVERS.<br />THEY ARE NOT PEACEFUL HIPPIES.<br />THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL-GOOD. <br /><br />They are a bad-ass hardcore cult who has no interest in most of humanity, unless it encroaches on their terrain. In the rare areas where they DO hold political or religious sway over whatever populace is around, their judgments are remote, final, and sometimes harsh.<br /><br />Rangers on the other hand, exist SOLELY to serve humanity and other civilized races. They are civilization's agents, who tame the wilderness, even as a part of that same wilderness.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922044893048543042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-25301044621205393412010-07-19T21:05:42.875-04:002010-07-19T21:05:42.875-04:00I think the real problem with people thinking that...I think the real problem with people thinking that the ranger is a druids best friend comes from 3rd edition where 1st level a ranger has animal empathy then 4th he gets an animal companion. No matter what came before a lot of people seem to not really had much to go on in early editions and then all of the sudden he's a warm and fuzzy animal lover able to understand their "feelings" and gets a companion from the wild that acts just like the druids companion except instead of getting better with every level it goes at half the rate.Akhier the Dragon Heartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01982936563965623813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77286796643567412012009-05-11T09:14:00.000-04:002009-05-11T09:14:00.000-04:00Lots of good points in this thread. I think Gary’...Lots of good points in this thread. I think Gary’s half-elf Ranger/Druid PC indicates that he abandoned the concept of evil-tending Druids fairly early; I suspect it was a bit of throwaway reasoning when he put that early alignment chart together. Later he made them very clearly agents of Balance within the Greyhawk world. Neutrality is a distinct “side” in the cosmic struggle as depicted in his novels, and the one Druid we see acts in its interests, as part of a distinctly hierarchical organization. <br /><br />Personally I think there’s room both for Rangers to be protectors of humanity in opposition to a hostile wilderness, and for them to be protectors of both, straddling the line between wilderness and civilization. In the latter role, friendship with Druids and with elves makes perfect sense. Again, coming from the perspective of the class being based on Aragorn,.he is clearly taught his wilderness lore BY the elves and by his fellow Dunedain, who are closely allied with the elves. Aragorn does not oppose the wild places/creatures by any means. He opposes evil things that live in the wilds; but the wilderness is never equated with evil. Quite the opposite in Tolkien.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14385790691785202472009-05-10T13:52:00.000-04:002009-05-10T13:52:00.000-04:00...as for the slave trader and smuggler thing, wel......as for the slave trader and smuggler thing, well, that's a bit too much reality, and our objective here is fantasy, so I agree that it's inappropriate.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-87418406455630450152009-05-10T13:09:00.000-04:002009-05-10T13:09:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50973363494040052652009-05-10T13:08:00.000-04:002009-05-10T13:08:00.000-04:00Jim BowieI just meant the archetypal backwoods/fro...<I>Jim Bowie</I>I just meant the archetypal backwoods/frontiersman character - Davy Crockett would have been rather better, I guess, although what I'm really referring to is the dime novel frontiersman, so an entirely fictional one, rather than a fictionalised one with all the messiness of actual biography to get in the way, would be better yet.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41483243986897304212009-05-10T12:57:00.000-04:002009-05-10T12:57:00.000-04:00The archetypal ranger then is Jim Bowie
Hunh?! T...<I>The archetypal ranger then is Jim Bowie</I> <br /><br />Hunh?! The guy was a slave trader, smuggler, and real estate scam artist whose career climax was to die in his bed at the Alamo. <br /><br />I get your overall connection to the American West, but I don't follow how Bowie would be a ranger at all other than some "man of action" connection to a hostile frontier.Chris Kutalikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01414743509426875792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10301933462022405652009-05-10T11:29:00.000-04:002009-05-10T11:29:00.000-04:00James, you are a deep thinker on these topics and ...James, you are a deep thinker on these topics and once again I think you've uncovered an aspect of D&D that Americanises it and makes me like it less. The idea that the wilderness itself represents a threat to civilisation that must be mastered is pure early modern/early colonial: to the extent that there is a split between the "medieval" and the "modern," I think it's fundamental. If D&D's creators buy into this (armed) opposition (and I don't see why they shouldn't) then D&D's ranger should be its boundary policeman. The archetypal ranger then is Jim Bowie, friend to Johnny Appleseed who aggressively pollutes native forests with introduced species, so that travelers and settlers should always find a familiar (European) fruit, and enemy to the Druid, who is some noble savage amalgam of a northern European Beltane figure and a Native American shaman. <br /><br />FWIW I'm pretty convinced that Tolkien's rangers went looking for the devil (Sauron/Morgoth/Witch King of Angmar) building up his power base out of sight of Man, and that's what took them beyond the bounds of civilisation - so the wilderness/nature is just an environment that can support Man and his Other, which has secret pockets that rangers have to delve into.<br /><br /><I>Rangers represent whatever category Aragorn fits into, plus whatever category Robin Hood fits into.</I>That makes perfect sense to me, and as a king-of-the-forest-in-hiding, Strider has much in common with Robin. Of course, it's another story after he decloaks, but massed battlefields, while they might involve rangers, really aren't the business of "ranging."richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-90093204615935044712009-05-10T09:42:00.000-04:002009-05-10T09:42:00.000-04:00Kevin said . . .
"To make matters worse, someone ...Kevin said . . .<br /><br />"To make matters worse, someone realized that Robin Hood ran around in the woods too. So they grafted an archery option onto what is already a Frankenstein class. So Rangers represent whatever category Aragorn fits into, plus whatever category Robin Hood fits into."<br /><br />Actually, if the intent was a Tolkien style Ranger then archery does fit. Faramir and his men were all Rangers and all archers. <br /><br />In fact, I think, Aragon is the exception being the only ranger in the book not using the bow as primary weapon.<br /><br />However, I have no idea where the magic comes into it?Lee Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01127805337560546059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86981173945477863722009-05-10T09:40:00.000-04:002009-05-10T09:40:00.000-04:00I think no class should have moral or meta-objecti...<I>I think no class should have moral or meta-objectives built into them.</I>New sub Classes should be reflective of their setting. A bag of classes for a swords & sorcery setting will be different than one for a one inspired by Tolkien. <br /><br />Some classes will span settings simply because they will be present wherever sentient beings are involved (fighters). <br /><br />In skill based systems, like GURPS, use templates. A template groups skills together that reflect a given profession or organization. Some have progression information in them. For example apprentice, wizard, mage, arch-mage etc. <br /><br />I view OD&D classes in much the same way. But with the condition that the full class treatment is needed only for those with adventuring potential.<br /><br />Plus classes don't have to be balanced in terms of game mechanics. I have found that a better than normal class can be adequately balanced through setting and roleplaying.<br /><br />However if setting and roleplaying are not important to your game then mechanically balanced classes are important.Robert Conleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03863009007381185340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63416693147457133122009-05-10T06:37:00.000-04:002009-05-10T06:37:00.000-04:00http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/03/...http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/03/eco-ranger.html<br /><br />for my take on rangers, as the indigines edgeHerukahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02720816377998559903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12550617963661784212009-05-10T03:15:00.000-04:002009-05-10T03:15:00.000-04:00It is not surprising that so many see a druid ---&...It is not surprising that so many see a druid ---> ranger connection, since Gary himself had a rather famous half-elf druid/ranger multi-class PC.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922044893048543042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-21967061759960493362009-05-10T02:55:00.000-04:002009-05-10T02:55:00.000-04:00Some more thoughts on Rangers: Are Rangers the Cla...Some more thoughts on Rangers: <A HREF="http://ewilen.livejournal.com/25780.html?thread=118708" REL="nofollow">Are Rangers the Clancey-esque Special Ops of AD&D?"</A>. I didn't quite catch on to the Ranger/Druid opposition, though.<br /><br />(Also, the ensuing discussion can be safely ignored after the first post or two.)Elliot Wilenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100832825053274916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43472317268820930282009-05-10T00:12:00.000-04:002009-05-10T00:12:00.000-04:00James- Sorr 'bout the delay in responding. Aware o...James- Sorr 'bout the delay in responding. Aware of your issues with PJ's interpretation.<br />Surely there was some better illustrator out there, though. Whatever LOTR Trilogy's flaws, it can't be worse than that rotoscoped nightmare.Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61811633707876381222009-05-09T19:56:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:56:00.000-04:00I agree that a proper swords-and-sorcery game ough...<I>I agree that a proper swords-and-sorcery game ought not to have such things, but, of course, OD&D isn't a pure S&S game by any means. The door to other types of fantasy was introduced very early with the inclusion of first the cleric and then the paladin.</I>I agree. The openness of D&D is maybe it's biggest strength, and that's way it's the most popular game, because it can accommodate vastly different styles of play.<br /><br />With regards the cleric, it can be of ANY alignment, and follow ANY god, with ANY kind of tenets. That's why I think it can fit S&S gaming without any of the problems many see in the class.Santiago Oríahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06004778441776946649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41483588077858570782009-05-09T19:39:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:39:00.000-04:00If you are using "Tolkien" as the basis ...<I>If you are using "Tolkien" as the basis for the ranger class, then it seems to me nonsense to exclude elves, and especially half-elves, from being rangers. The sons of Elrond are obvious contenders on that score, and the Dunedain themselves appear to have the characteristics of D&D half-elves, rather than men.</I><BR><BR>Certainly but the <I>D&D</I> ranger is, like so many other things in the game, this weird amalgam of inspirations and influences. The Tolkien connection is there and it's powerful, but it's just the base of the class, at least in my interpretation of it.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22340432546914904632009-05-09T19:36:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:36:00.000-04:00I think no class should have moral or meta-objecti...<I>I think no class should have moral or meta-objectives built into them.<br />This, for S&S style of game.</I><BR><BR>I agree that a proper swords-and-sorcery game ought not to have such things, but, of course, OD&D isn't a pure S&S game by any means. The door to other types of fantasy was introduced very early with the inclusion of first the cleric and then the paladin.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-83015548641285814052009-05-09T19:30:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:30:00.000-04:00It's an article from way back in The Strategic Rev...<I>It's an article from way back in The Strategic Review #6 (Feb. 1976), and reprinted in The Best of The Dragon vol. I (pp. 26-28).</I><BR><BR>Ah yes, thanks for the reference. I should have remembered that chart, since I references several others from the same article not that long ago.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-72376543177203063492009-05-09T19:29:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:29:00.000-04:00James, I would say in your interpretation of the r...<I>James, I would say in your interpretation of the ranger hobbits/halflings are a natural class to allow. They are all about orderly country side which is what the ranger is trying to preserve. Not to mention Aragorn, the prototypical ranger, began as Bounder, a hobbit.</I><BR><BR>True. I don't use halflings in my <I>D&D</I> games generally, so I tend to forget about them. I do agree with your point, however.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-11481943567127033512009-05-09T19:28:00.000-04:002009-05-09T19:28:00.000-04:00Do check out the S&W Companion White Box Range...<I>Do check out the S&W Companion White Box Ranger - it is based on the same source material.</I><BR><BR>That's eerily similar to the class I've been constructing ...James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23556557580497297962009-05-09T13:48:00.000-04:002009-05-09T13:48:00.000-04:00In the 1st edition PHB, there were no elven ranger...In the 1st edition PHB, there were no elven rangers...only human and half-elf. In light of your article this makes a lot of sense (humans or human-blooded beings being the antithesis of chaotic nature).<br /><br />Very good food for thought, thanks!<br /><br />By the way...there was a hunter class presented in a pre-Unearthed Arcana, non-TSR supplement. It's been so many years, though I may be mis-remembering and confusing it with an "archer" class that I believe was 1st presented in Dragon.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08532311924539491087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-13788357299870031762009-05-09T12:06:00.000-04:002009-05-09T12:06:00.000-04:00My first exposure to the Ranger was in 2nd Ed. Re...My first exposure to the Ranger was in 2nd Ed. Reading between the lines, it seemed clear that, behind the scenes, someone really wanted to be able to make Aragorn within the rules. Instead of just saying "no, pick something that fits with the rest of the game" or "make it as a custom class with the rules in the DMG," they created a class with an incongruent backstory and set of abilities.<br /><br />The ranger class, then, represents whatever category of adventurer Aragorn fits into. That definition is meaningless outside of Middle Earth, which leaves us going through contortions to articulate what the category is.<br /><br />To make matters worse, someone realized that Robin Hood ran around in the woods too. So they grafted an archery option onto what is already a Frankenstein class. So Rangers represent whatever category Aragorn fits into, plus whatever category Robin Hood fits into.<br /><br />That in turn creates a weird state of affairs where rangers make better archers than fighters. I enjoy playing archers, but have always rankled with all the baggage that comes along with being a ranger.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315715886823365629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-32800157657951376422009-05-09T11:56:00.000-04:002009-05-09T11:56:00.000-04:00You know your own business maybe, but in your plac...<I>You know your own business maybe, but in your place I wouldn't take up with a Ranger out of the wild...</I>Keith Sloanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319879076978887933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-55694153695196017512009-05-09T10:49:00.000-04:002009-05-09T10:49:00.000-04:00Here is my take on Rangers versus Druids. They do ...Here is my take on Rangers versus Druids. They do protect the human civilization from the wilderness, but not in the sense of the wilderness being trees and bears and wolves. This about how D&D world differs from our own. In here, WE humans are dominant species and the dominant intellect, the only civilization. Speaking from a Druid point of view, AD&D divides human-like creatiures into Man-centric "good" demi-humans and "evil" typically more bestial humanoids. But in reality, there is a wide variety of intellects and civilizations competing to be dominant in the AD&D Universe on the daily basis. Think Beholders, Mind Flayers, Demons, Devils, Dragons. How many of these are competing agains man as a dominant species. How many of them would consume man as we do chicken or would enslave humanity to serve their physical, economic, or magical/theologic purposes? <br />The difference between Druids and Rangers is that Druids viee all this from poiint of viee f protecting Natural Environment (Dragons hoarding wealth and undead running amok would be as much a threat for them as industrialization of the forests and magical pollution by elves). Rangers primarily operate protecting smaller rural communitiies about these threats to HUMANITY. Ultimately the demarkating line between Demi-humans and Humanoids is that Demi humans will value all sentient life as we do human life in the democratic societies, while the evil humanoids will treat other non-species sentient life as just more meat, or like the early colonialists treated native populations.<br /><br />To this end, in my setting, Rangers are a semi-secret society, like thieves' guild, and all rnagers undergo an apprenticeship with a more experienced hunter to deal with one of the following threats ("Race enemies" in AD&D) As Rangers advance in lever, their study of the opponent moves agaisnt the more powerful creatures. Here are the specific threats that Rangers (Jaeger Knights) learn to track and destroy: Wildrness Abominations (Un-natiral beings taking root in the wild - Gibberlings, Giant Spiders, Giants, Fungi and Molds, Trolls, Lycanthropes, Dragins); Magical Monstrocities (Imps, Doppelgangers, Medusae and Basilisks, Elementals, Efreeti, Golems, Demons); Terrors of the Undead, from Zombies to Liches; Humanoid Menace - Humanoid tribes from Goblins until Giths, Rangers learn all about their tribes, tribal alliances and politics, like anthropologists, and can ost effectively negotiate with them should they approach a settlement. Nightmares of the Underdark, includes Ettercaps, Dueregars, Dryders, Drows, Umber Hulk, Floating Orbs, and Illithid threat. As Rangers grow in level, heir sklills move away from outdoors towards the knowledge related to the specific threat they are learning to defend humanity against.Brooser Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487438364129415650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-2612423288573578192009-05-09T08:43:00.000-04:002009-05-09T08:43:00.000-04:00If you are using "Tolkien" as the basis ...If you are using "Tolkien" as the basis for the ranger class, then it seems to me nonsense to exclude elves, and especially half-elves, from being rangers. The sons of Elrond are obvious contenders on that score, and the Dunedain themselves appear to have the characteristics of D&D half-elves, rather than men.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.com