What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Reynard]

They spend a third of the first book just getting out of the Shire, for Pete's sake.

At the risk of exacerbating this little tangent, I think perhaps if the author spends a lot of time on something, especially it is at the beginning of the work, one might want to consider the likelihood that whatever the author is being "long winded" about is actually probably something important, and may in fact be among the most important things in the books.

It's okay to not like Tolkien or to not be particularly inspired by his work, but when people make such demonstrably wrong claims about his literary skill, what they do is expose their lack of knowledge and understanding of literature. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is "too long": it is a perfectly valid opinion, but also an ignorant and insipid one.

/rant (sorry, literature is something that really matters in culture and there are so few examples of it in "geek culture" that I feel compelled to defend the Professor's work when it is maligned)

 

[ferratus]

(I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)

It all depends on your perspective. I would rather be a medieval peasant than be born poor in some neighbourhoods today, because my quality of life would probably be better. I would certainly rather be born a peasant than born somewhere where egalitarianism was forced by a communist/socialist state in the 20th century.

Also, I generally think Tolkien favours government by good kings, rather than kings in general. After all, it isn't like he doesn't have examples of bad or ruinous monarchs in his work, that lead their people into slavery or disaster.

 

[Halivar]

I think Tolkienn's literary style plays into the original concept of the ranger in very important way. He is a fighter, and a poet, and a naturalist. Tolkienn himself was an ardent conservationist, and very anti-industrial. His hero would naturally have these aspects, too.

For the ranger, it is the milieu (Tolkienn was solidly a milieu writer, hence the baroque prose to accentuate the feeling of antiquity in his setting), not internal struggle or external events, that are the defining aspect of his character. He exists because he is needed, and fulfills the role of protector for a people that both fear and respect him. He is potentiality and destiny; the 1e ranger becomes a lord at level 10, and accrues followers, Aragorn is the future high king. The ranger is the strong and silent type. He is even often overshadowed by his traveling companions, but his own subplot is pregnant with tension, and the milieu itself is anticipating his Crowning Moment of Awesome (thank you, tvtropes).

Anyway, that's my two electrum pieces.

 

[Niccodaemus]

He exists because he is needed, and fulfills the role of protector for a people that both fear and respect him.

This!

 

[LurkAway]

I don't know if you've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Donaldson, but if you haven't you probably wouldn't want to - the principle character rapes the person who first helps him in the fantasy land, and never developed any redeeming qualities in three novels as far as can recall. I read them once, but never wanted to go back to them.

I remember the first book being boring and difficult as you say. It got better. I remembered The One Tree being particularily good -- there are at least two scenes so engrossing that I forgot I was reading in bed.

 

[Tallifer]

Dude. The answer is right here, in this very thread.

So I skipped a few posts. <shrug> Now we can blame David Cook for this travesty?

There is an interesting article on Wikipedia about parrying daggers and off-handed weapons. It seems to support my dismissal of Drizzt, but it leaves the matter open. Parrying Dagger

 

[Tallifer]

Tolkien was long-winded. Extremely freakin' long-winded.

Yes he wrote many pages. But most fantasy novels nowadays are thicker than each volume of the Lord of the Rings, and most "trilogies" nowadays run past three books as well. Jordan, Eddings, Martin, Moorcock all write and write and write (or wrote and wrote). Perhaps we have Tolkien to blame for that.

I do like me some Edgar Rice Burroughs. 100 pages. Gets to the action. . At least the Elric novels were modeled on that.

 

[Anselyn]

(I will add that the older I get and the more I think about history and politics and the way the voice of privilege drowns out other points of view, the more Tolkien's romanticizing of medieval life in general and monarchy in particular grates on me. Feudal monarchy is great if you're one of the aristocracy. If not, it sucks hardcore, and I find myself less and less able to gloss over that fact as I read.)

But Sam's the hero!

Returning to LoTR to read it to my son, I found the echoes of the first world war and the triumph of the ordinary man. Sam is the officer's batman (valet) who stops him failing.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think Aragorn multi-classed, or at least grabbed a paragon path/prestige class, so I don't want to see anything directly patterned after him.

What I'd like to see is a fighting-style-neutral commando/guerrilla style character. As mentioned, Rambo is a good example, and other action heroes like Arnold's character in Predator work quite well.

My ideal ranger class is a cunning, savvy skirmisher that can utilize their environment, full stop. That is all.

The particulars of their combat style and the particulars of their knowledge are not important. I don't care how many weapons they wield. I don't care whether they use poison, magic, or purely martial means. I don't care if they have a pet or not. I don't care if they prefer forests, caves, cities, or Limbo. I don't care if they defend orphanages or a dread lord. Those should all be options, one way or another, but they're just variations of the core concept of the warrior that basically uses knowledge and cunning in place of plate mail and giant muscles.

This should make plenty of room for Aragorn AND Drizzt and plenty of unique but class-identifiable characters.

 

[On Puget Sound]

I think a Tolkien style ranger describes an attitude more than a class. Generic rangers were like FR Harpers - it was their duty and mission that made them rangers, not the set of skills and abilities they had. Aragorn happened to also be the Heir to Gondor, which gave him (uniquely) certain abilities. "The hands of a king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known."

A "generic" ranger could just as easily have been designed as a type of fighter from the beginning, rather than its own class. The easiest shortcut might have been possible in 3e: "Ranger fighter: as fighter, but armor proficiency limited to chainmail; 6 skill points per level; (long list of class skills)."

But for better or worse, the first rangers were designed as if they were all Aragorn, right down to the palantir.