Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Matt, its been a very long time since I've read TLR series so you may have me there. Be that as it may, I do believe in both cases its a time of war (and doesn't the ranger description mention rangers are allowed to gather in extreme times. Dont have the PH in front of me. Plus, the ranger is a set of skills, not a race, and just based off the rangers in Tolkiens work. Thats why I say Strider (before we know the race aspect, and his true position) is a better template. Foster, it would be interesting to know if Tolkien didnt get the idea of this character (and the rangers in general) from the legends of the old west (a loner protecting civilization from the savages of the wild).

As for the spying aspect, always reminded me of an Amercian Ranger (of a sort) Nathan Hale.

Contributing his spirit and blood for the country's liberty, Nathan Hale was one of the most famous and renowned heroes of the American Revolution. He set a perfect example of the American liberty and patriotic spirit throughout the nation. Born in Coventry, Connecticut, Nathan Hale was a well organized and athletic person, and earned himself popularity and respect amongst his peers and friends with his friendly personality. After graduating from Yale College (the present day Yale University), Hale took the profession of a teacher at the age of 18. On the eve of the Revolution in 1775, Nathan Hale's patriotism and spirit earned him a position in the Continental Army as a lieutenant. After only a year, Hale was promoted to the rank of Captain in the Rangers fighting group, which was renowned for their bravery and courage in dangerous missions.
In September 1776, General George Washington initiated a plan to send a spy behind the British lines in New York. Acknowledging this plan, Nathan Hale immediately volunteered to his superior Major Thomas Knowlton for the task. Disguised as a Dutch schoolmaster, Hale had successfully penetrated the enemy lines in New York to recover vital military information for the Continental army. Despite a successful mission, Hale never managed to get back home. Just as Hale was preparing to retreat back into friendly territory on September 21, 1776, he was arrested by British soldiers . His arrest was suspected to be linked with the betrayal of his loyalist cousin.

Following his capture Nathan Hale was interrogated by the British Commander in Chief General Howe. From unproved sources, Howe was said to have tried to lure and bribe Hale into joining the British side as a Kings American Dragoons. Hale solidly refused. Hale was later tried as a spy, and was hanged the next day after his arrest. Before his execution, Hale gave his last speech, ending with the now famous quote,"I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Hale died at the young age of 21. Nathan Hale's courageous deeds earned him the respect and envy of many Americans. Even in the present day, there are many monuments and tales around the country that are made in remembrance of Hale's great patriotic deeds for his country.

AxeMental wrote: Matt, its been a very long time since I've read TLR series so you may have me there. Be that as it may, I do believe in both cases its a time of war (and doesn't the ranger description mention rangers are allowed to gather in extreme times. Don't have the PH in front of me.

Not that I can see, the restriction is unconditional:

PHB, p. 24 wrote: 3. No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time.

Whatever the rationale, the idea is to limit the number of rangers operating together at once.

Matthew wrote:

My guess is that it is expected they will begin to construct a stronghold at around eighth level, so at that point they can enlist hirelings and henchmen.

The operative concept here being a ranger does not return to civilization often, no real opportunity to enlist hirelings, and there are probably few who would wish to stay in the wild for such long periods of time.

Alternatively, it may simply reflect Aragorn after Helm's Deep meeting up with the Rangers of the North

This is a nice interpretation.

Well... bear in mind that not all of the Rangers of Ithilien are going to be classed rangers, most will just be 0-level unclassed types, regardless of their status.

Yes, I imagined this to be true as well. I imagined a woodsman from the Gryhwk Glsgrphy. In this way (woodsman: 3in6/surprise) as I interpret it (extrapolating from the ruling on elves in the PHB), a ranger like an elf does not loose his chance to surprise when with non-rangers or non-elves.

That is a bit of a cop out, though, more likely the restriction is mainly there to limit the number of ranger characters for aesthetic reasons, since it does not really match up with the practices of Tolkien's rangers or any other example association of rangers I can think of.

Yah, I just imagine too many men risks giving away your position, more chances to be tracked (as would a horse), more mouths to feed, and less ground covered when great numbers could be divided and dispatched across the lands.

Rogatny wrote:

I believe the original restriction for the OD&D ranger was no more than 2 rather than 3, and the reason for it being there was that the extra hit points made a low-level party full of rangers over-powered.

Interesting observation, too bad, I would have imagined more thought went into the concept.

The fourth issue relates to AD&D's conceit that humanity/civilization = good and monsters/wilderness = evil, which descended from the OD&D conceit that humanity/civilization = lawful and monsters/wilderness = chaotic.

I don't imagine that is much of a conceit. Civilization is really about cities and the concept of humanity being possible because of the leisure and surplus afforded by its invention. This articulation of 'civilzation' begins with Plato and Aristotle. Even in the case of the later concept of noble savage it is the gods who incarnate the noble savage not ideas or laws. The gods when we get to cities have to finally be humanized and the animal spirits/gods tamed and made essentially mascots.

It's a good reminder that rangers aren't warrior for the wilderness, but rather warriors against the wilderness,

I don't agree, this is certainly not in the character of Aragorn (or Tolkien for that matter), and does not square with his close relations with elves, nor the class's tutorship in the ways of druid magic.

where "wilderness" equals those things that spoil crops, steal livestock, and eat babies.

Indeed, sustainable agriculture and surpluses of food and resources and man power allow for civilization.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: Matt, its been a very long time since I've read TLR series so you may have me there. Be that as it may, I do believe in both cases its a time of war (and doesn't the ranger description mention rangers are allowed to gather in extreme times. Don't have the PH in front of me.

Not that I can see, the restriction is unconditional:

PHB, p. 24 wrote: 3. No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time.

Whatever the rationale, the idea is to limit the number of rangers operating together at once.

Sure, but the implication is this is done rarely (you get the impression rangers do this only when they have to). The class was probably based loosely on the TLTR class, its not a clone.

AxeMental wrote: Sure, but the implication is this is done rarely (you get the impression rangers do this only when they have to). The class was probably based loosely on the TLTR class, its not a clone.

Right, but that is the opposite implication of the one you made above, is it not? That is to say, rangers only ever operate in groups of 1-3, and no provision for larger groups exists, whether in time of emergency or war. It is a hard limit, for whatever reason, which is not particularly related to LotR. It could be viewed as a limitation on group size for stealth reasons, but then rangers can operate with any number of other classes, so really all it does is limit the number of rangers.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: Sure, but the implication is this is done rarely (you get the impression rangers do this only when they have to). The class was probably based loosely on the TLTR class, its not a clone.

Right, but that is the opposite implication of the one you made above, is it not? That is to say, rangers only ever operate in groups of 1-3, and no provision for larger groups exists, whether in time of emergency or war. It is a hard limit, for whatever reason, which is not particularly related to LotR. It could be viewed as a limitation on group size for stealth reasons, but then rangers can operate with any number of other classes, so really all it does is limit the number of rangers.

Matt, I think the max of 3 is the high-end limit for times of war (and 3 would probably be discourged by whatever organization of rangers that exists...assuming there is one). So in that way its different then TLOTRs ranger (but they both insinuate the same trend). I think its a game element (to make sure the players don't all take ranger -loosing the special feel of course attributes make this unlikely anyway), and in game- its probl. also a "don't put all your eggs in one basket" approach.

Sep: "I don't agree, this is certainly not in the character of Aragorn (or Tolkien for that matter), and does not square with his close relations with elves, nor the class's tutorship in the ways of druid magic"

I think you miss-understand. Both druids and rangers act to protect civilized humans that are in balance with the wild and allied to their cause ie. basically not psycho (druids are supposed to protect their followers, help with crops etc. remember). Rangers and druids can be friendly to both sides (those in nature and those on its borders) and be enemies with either as well.

In the AD&D world, humans aren't nec. the enemy. Think of the huge number of Celts that were part of the Druid cult...it was their one religion and it occupide half of Europe. Anyhow, humans in 1E are small potatoes compared to trolls and goblins etc.

I think this change in focus comes from the "Environmentalist Movement" where rangers and druids are picked by players to act this out (rather then acting out Strider). Rangers probably just "fit" the wilds like a civilized man fits a city. Both are capable of helping travelers in their turf...if they so choose (and clearly a ranger chooses to).

Rangers (including Aragorn) would probably fight the occasional elves that were hostile to civilization (but would use non-violence first for obvious reasons). Who is in the right and who is in the wrong is all important (they are good guys).

A few more examples (though not so purpose specific as a 1E ranger): Hawkeye from LOTM, he's raised Indian and white, but fits into neither well (the skills of the savages mixed with the temper and interests of a white). He has relations with most of the tribes, knows how to operate around them, but will kill to protect the good (be they other Indians or whites).

Tarzan is another example of someone with intimate knowledge of the wild, part of it, yet also has a connection with civilzation. When he finds whites destroying nature (butchering elephants for ivory say, or burning down a small tribes village) he will try to stop that (as would a ranger). If he finds a crashed plane filled with Europeans, he will try to get them to civilization, even if they are being hunted by tribesman he's otherwise friendly with.

None of the comparisons are exact (Strider being the closest), but you can see the "archetype" (somewhat of a loner by choice or not) operating in nature to protect the good living near its borders or traveling threw it). They are part of it, yet are also part of civilization and care for some reason about the innocent stuck in it. This gives them purpose (which is the destinct difference between them and some mountain man or hermit, North American Indians or Elves, who don't concern themselves). Rangers (and this archetype in general) are shunned/respected by both civilized and uncivilized for being not wholey one or the other. That is their special mojo.

Clearly a ranger does both: protect nature and protect civilization from nature. But if you had to say which does he do more, what is his primary purpose: its the later. At least in this game where nature isn't in a shortage, and the main threat are monsters.

AxeMental wrote: Matt, I think the max of 3 is the high-end limit for times of war (and 3 would probably be discouraged by whatever organization of rangers that exists...assuming there is one). So in that way its different then TLOTRs ranger (but they both insinuate the same trend). I think its a game element (to make sure the players don't all take ranger -loosing the special feel of course attributes make this unlikely anyway), and in game- its probl. also a "don't put all your eggs in one basket" approach.

In a way? It is completely different!

Well, anyway, the PHB says nothing about the significance of 1-3 rangers, whether time of war, emergency or whatever, it is just a limit thrown out there. It is certainly reasonable to decide in a given campaign that it is very unusual to see more than one ranger about his business, though.

sepulchre wrote: The operative concept here being a ranger does not return to civilization often, no real opportunity to enlist hirelings, and there are probably few who would wish to stay in the wild for such long periods of time.

Could well be the case. I guess it becomes a question of hex clearing and what the ranger does when his stronghold is not in the wild. Possibly, it becomes his "home base" or the area of civilisation he does return to. Maybe it is a less conventional stronghold situated in an untameable wilderness area. I guess at that point we are looking at Aragorn the king.

sepulchre wrote: This is a nice interpretation.

Yeah, it is not too bad, but it does beg the question what do rangers do when they restore Arnor? They are, after all, only really rangers because their land is virtually occupied and their power broken. Tough to reconcile.

sepulchre wrote: Yes, I imagined this to be true as well. I imagined a woodsman from the Gryhwk Glsgrphy. In this way (woodsman: 3in6/surprise) as I interpret it (extrapolating from the ruling on elves in the PHB), a ranger like an elf does not loose his chance to surprise when with non-rangers or non-elves.

Exactly so.

sepulchre wrote: Yah, I just imagine too many men risks giving away your position, more chances to be tracked (as would a horse), more mouths to feed, and less ground covered when great numbers could be divided and dispatched across the lands.

Quite likely. I very much like the Conan version in Beyond the Black River and Wolves on the Border.

Matt are you one of those crazy Tolkienites?

AxeMental wrote: Matt are you one of those crazy Tolkienites?

Some days! (but never to the extent that I would find going to the grave of Tolkien and his wife to sing the Lay of Beren and Lúthien anything but insanely obsessive).

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: Matt are you one of those crazy Tolkienites?

Some days! (but never to the extent that I would find going to the grave of Tolkien and his wife to sing the Lay of Beren and Lúthien anything but insanely obsessive).

People do that? Wow.

I must be a little bit insane, then. If I had the occasion, I would go to Tolkien's grave, and seeing the tomb stone, I'd have a hard time not thinking about the Lay.

AxeMental wrote: People do that? Wow.

My reaction exactly.

Odhanan wrote: I must be a little bit insane, then. If I had the occasion, I would go to Tolkien's grave, and seeing the tomb stone, I'd have a hard time not thinking about the Lay.

Thinking about it is one thing, making a pilgrimage there to sing it on the anniversary of his death or birth or whatever is quite another, especially given that in interviews he made it clear he would not encourage such behaviour. There was a documentary on Tolkien that showed these things. It might have been the same one in which Pratchett came over as very "holier than thou", but it was some years ago now and I forget the details.

Matthew wrote:

Odhanan wrote: I must be a little bit insane, then. If I had the occasion, I would go to Tolkien's grave, and seeing the tomb stone, I'd have a hard time not thinking about the Lay.

Thinking about it is one thing, making a pilgrimage there to sing it on the anniversary of his death or birth or whatever is quite another, especially given that in interviews he made it clear he would not encourage such behaviour. There was a documentary on Tolkien that showed these things. It might have been the same one in which Pratchett came over as very "holier than thou", but it was some years ago now and I forget the details.

OK, point taken, that is very different indeed.