Did Tolkien create the D&D Ranger?

[billd91]

Other than the fact that tracking is associated with Rangers in D&D, the Paladin class better fits the Rangers and particularly Aragon than the actual Ranger does. The hands of the King are the hands of a healer, thus may the true king be known.

I can't say I've ever found that argument convincing. Advanced level rangers have had healing spells available for them since the class appeared in Strategic Review. They were even initially given the power to use any healing items once they reached ranger-knight level. The ranger class, at that point and through 1e, was pretty clearly targeted at Aragorn as its primary influence.

 

[Celebrim]

The ranger class, at that point and through 1e, was pretty clearly targeted at Aragorn as its primary influence.

Oh, I know what it was pointed at. But that's not what I said. I don't at all deny that the designers were trying to make Tolkien rangers. Rather, I deny that they understood the source material they were trying to emulate.

 

[pemerton]

Other than the fact that tracking is associated with Rangers in D&D, the Paladin class better fits the Rangers and particularly Aragon than the actual Ranger does. The hands of the King are the hands of a healer, thus may the true king be known.

Oh, I know what it was pointed at. But that's not what I said. I don't at all deny that the designers were trying to make Tolkien rangers. Rather, I deny that they understood the source material they were trying to emulate.

I agree that a lot of D&D design, especially back in the day, tends to emulate superficial tropes rather than the essence of the material.

That said, I think 1st ed AD&D rangers aren't as far from Tolkien as the class later ended up. A 1st ed ranger is a fighter with some "woodcraft" (surprise benefits, tracking), a damage bonus vs orcs et al, and an alignment restriction. That's not too bad for emulating the exploits of the sons of Elrond and Aragorn's errantry. You just then need to change class to paladin at the crucial moment!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say that while Tolkien did not create the D&D Ranger, he established the aesthetic archetype which was later built upon.

I think the difference is best seen if you compare "the ranger" to "the orc."

Tolkien straight-up invented the orc: a dark and vicious, inherently evil twisting of the beautiful elves. There may have been some precedent in Old English, and in Norse mythology and such, but from the perspective of most modern readers, "orcs" appeared pretty much from whole cloth, and have changed very little, apart from loosening/questioning their "Always Chaotic Evil" status. They've retained their association with being "brutish" (WoW's orcs, the most iconic of the 'modernized' orcs, have slightly more prominent "apelike" features, worship primal spirits, have 'bloodlust' powers, etc.) but they are allowed to be both heroic and villainous. The original orc was copied almost perfectly from Tolkien, and D&D tradition has advanced only about as much as overall cultural perspectives have, considering stuff like the description of half-orc origin didn't really change until 3e.

By comparison, the kind of character Aragorn is...wasn't really invented by Tolkien. He's a returning hero-heir who will become a hero-king. It just happens that, in LOTR, he's not the main character. He's vitally important to the story, and in almost any other tale he WOULD be the main character--which is part of why he gets the smorgasbord of abilities he has. D&D couldn't handle the details of that; there's no *place* for a "hero-heir/hero-king" archetype in a real game, because they require having the narrator's backing to work properly as characters. This is, however, where people get the association with Paladins: the hero-king in a Christianized narrative (which Tolkien, a devout Catholic, would *definitely* be writing) is going to have the touch of the divine as proof of his inheritance, which is closest in D&D terms to a Paladin's deity-granted support powers.

D&D took Aragorn and filed off the serial numbers, but it also had to break the pattern a little bit to have it fit into the game structure. Rangers couldn't be hero-kings, but they could have some 'wilderness lore' that let them support people. They could totally copy the wilderness-friendliness and ability to hunt and track and hide, because those things aren't part of being a hero-king, they're part of Aragorn's "returning from exile" narrative. But the class, as originally designed, was still trying to serve two masters: trying to hold onto what it could from Aragorn's divine blessings, while trying to make a realistic game participant. With the existence of the Paladin, who captured more or less all of the "hero-king" attributes without making them vestigial as the Ranger had, the Ranger could only advance by continuing to distance itself from the original inspiration. Thus we get the animal friendship--a natural extension of the Druid-like spellcasting Rangers already possessed. The emphasis on hunting, and thus ranged combat, made the Ranger a dexterity-favoring character, which is probably what led to the dual-wielding association (since high-dex characters could plausibly have the grace to handle two weapons, I guess?)

Thus, in the end, while Aragorn planted the seed for the modern Ranger, even in its original form it *had* to deviate in important ways from its source material, and continued to do so as time went on, such that the only things they have in common now are "good at hunting, tracking, and forest lore." Beyond that, Aragorn and the modern ranger are very different.

So while I would absolutely say that Tolkien created the D&D orc, I would say that Tolkien *at best* was the inspiration for the Ranger (in the same way that Charlemagne's Paladins were, at best, the inspiration for the D&D Paladin). It might be more accurate to say that Tolkien revealed that such an archetype was a meaningful niche, and thus the designers felt a need to address it.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I’m not sure when the term ‘Ranger’ was employed, but medieval tales like The Canterbury Tales have plenty of wandering warrior types in them. Is a medieval Yeoman, basically a Ranger of sorts?

 

[pemerton]

I’m not sure when the term ‘Ranger’ was employed

The OED has occurrences from the 16th century for "a wanderer" and from the 15th century for "a forest officer/gamekeeper".

Tolkien's usage combines both these meanings: the rangers wander (moreso the rangers of the North than of Ithilien) and they are forest officers, although in this context patrolling the wilds to eliminate threats to people, rather than to keep out people who would threaten game.

the kind of character Aragorn is...wasn't really invented by Tolkien. He's a returning hero-heir who will become a hero-king.

<snip>

D&D couldn't handle the details of that; there's no *place* for a "hero-heir/hero-king" archetype in a real game, because they require having the narrator's backing to work properly as characters.

I'm not sure I agree: I think this sort of character could be done in D&D.

For instance, in 4e you would start as warlord with paladin multi-class, or vice versa; take a background and/or theme that gives you Nature and/or Perception; take the Knight Commander paragon path (to lead your troops) and then take the Legendary Sovereign Epic Destiny (to rule wisely in your twilight years).

The details would, of course, be contingent upon how play actually turns out, but that's true for any desired PC destiny.

 

[Hriston]

And by this I mean, was the "Medieval Ranger" archetype extant prior to the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien?

I'm not sure what is meant by the "Medieval Ranger" as an archetype. Such a thing is described on this medieval re-enactment website. I wouldn't be surprised if it owes much of its existence to the D&D Ranger in the first place. Given that you're posting in an FRPG forum, I suppose you could be talking about the Ranger as a character class archetype as referenced in this Wikipedia article. Once again, such a thing would most certainly derive from the D&D Ranger as the first of its type, all of this coming many years after the writings of Tolkien. Of course, this doesn't preclude the existence of figures that we might identify as falling into this archetype at some earlier time, but the labeling of any of these figures as "Rangers" is obviously quite modern and seems to be following the Professor's example.

As far as I understand, the medieval English ranger was a kind of game-warden that protected the king's forests from poachers and the like. I suppose, in some incarnations, Robin Hood could be seen as holding Sherwood Forest in the name of the true king, but I don't know if he was ever referred to as a ranger, falling much more into the archetype of the yeoman archer. And while the figure of the medieval ranger certainly stands behind Aragorn and Co., Tolkien's creation was so much more.

His use of the word ranger is also quite nuanced. It not only has the historical meaning of a king's official forrester, but also describes the action of far wandering for which Aragorn is known. According to a comment on this website, a third meaning derives from an archaic usage, synonymous with the word rake, with the meaning of "an idle or dissolute person." Obviously, Tolkien's use of the word with reference to the character of Aragorn is an invention in itself, given the multi-faceted nature of the Dunedain Rangers as the shadowy representatives of an unknown king and guardians of civilization, inhabiting the wild places, seen by some as scruffy and homeless vagabonds. On this last meaning, compare the description of the Ranger found in the first sentence of the entry in the 5E PHB, p. 89, "Rough and wild looking". Can there be any doubt that D&D designers are still intentionally using Aragorn as a touchstone for the image of the class?

I believe that Tolkien coined this particular usage of the term ranger, so the question, then, is whether we can find any evidence that Joe Fischer modeled his Ranger on the Professor's work, or if the similarities are superficial, or even coincidental. Joe Fischer's unofficial Ranger appeared in The Strategic Review #2, in the Summer of 1975, but it is nearly identical to the official version that showed up in the 1E PHB. Minimum ability requirements included a Constitution of 15, reminiscent of Aragorn's legendary toughness. The first real clue that the Ranger is meant to emulate Tolkien, however, is the second level class-title, "Strider." This type of cursory reference to Tolkien is found throughout D&D, 1974, so it isn't surprising. EGG, himself, later admitted to having included elements of Tolkien's work to induce fans of Tolkien to try his game. What might be surprising is that Gygax left the reference in when making the Ranger official, at a point when many of the references to Tolkien had been expunged, or at least obscured.

Gygax moved away from Tolkien, however slightly, when he replaced the Cleric spells that Fischer had given the Ranger at level 8, with Druid spells, possibly to put the Ranger more into the mould of a warrior aligned with the forces of nature, an idea that is not as present in Fischer's version. The Clerical spells had been included by Fischer, presumably, to mimic the healer's arts possessed by Aragorn, as was the ability, gained at the same level, to use magic items that heal or cure disease.

Then there are the restrictions on possessions and hirelings; Aragorn had no possessions to speak of and did not travel with a body of men-at-arms or servants. Also, there is the restriction on more than two Rangers operating together. Aragorn undergoes all of his formative adventures alone, and only in the events leading up to the climax of the novel is he joined by others of his order.

Then there is the superior tracking ability of the Ranger, which made its way virtually unchanged into the official version. This is textbook Aragorn in one of his greatest moments, i.e. tracking the Uruk-hai across the plains of the Eastfold, not to mention the tracking and capture of Sméagol.

Next we have the fighting advantage versus "giant class" humanoids. This emulates not only the many battles against orcs throughout the book, but also the climactic event of Aragorn's trajectory as an action hero, the single-handed slaying of a black troll at the Battle of the Black Gate, in which he nearly loses his life. The wounding of the troll's foot as it comes down on Aragorn's throat mirrors the wounding of the heel of Morgoth when he fought with the elven-king Fingolfin in giant form, so it's an important, symbolic moment in the book.

There is the ability to use all magic items that deal with telepathy, etc., gained at 9th level. Compare this with Aragorn's claim to the Palantir of Orthanc.

Finally, there are the followers. Among the possible results are a dwarf, an elf, and two hobbits, as if upon attaining 8th level, the Ranger will attract its own "Fellowship" to lead through the wilderness on an epic quest. The inclusion of a lawful werebear in the list of possible followers also seems to be a clue to the reader that this is a Tolkien-themed character class.

As I said above, much of this made its way into the official version relatively unchanged, and much of it remains, in some form or another, even in the 5E version. I hope Joe Fischer was paid well for his ideas, but I think it's pretty obvious where he drew his inspiration from.

 

[Hriston]

Is a medieval Yeoman, basically a Ranger of sorts?

No, a yeoman was a peasant-proprietor, or a small land owner. The yeomen of England and Wales were known for their skill in archery and would serve as archers in times of war. Robin Hood, despite attempts to re-make him as a nobleman, was originally a yeoman archer. Sometimes yeomen would hold minor official duties, including ranging duties.

 

[Hriston]

If I'm looking for who or what influenced Tolkien to create his medieval rangers, I'm looking primarily at two individuals.....



1) David of "David & Goliath" fame (circa 1019 B.C.) . Why? Because Goliath was said to be a giant, and "Giant Killer" is one of the defining characteristics of the medieval ranger.


2) Beowolf (circa 700-1000 A.D.). Why? Because Grendel was either an ogre or a giant and Grendel's mother was some sort of dragon.




Granted, only the latter of the above two examples can be defined as "medieval". Are there more of these examples out there?

As an extension of #1 above, I'd have to say Jesus of Nazareth is another strong influence on Tolkien in creating Aragorn. Thus the healing ability, the coming out of the wilderness, and the nearly-forgotten or obscure royal lineage. Of course the King David referencing works to support this. We also see Aragorn being Christ-like in his decision to directly assault the Black Gate, very likely sacrificing himself to give Frodo a chance to save the world.

Another would be King Arthur.

 

[Dan_T_Head]

I don't think Tolkein invented the Ranger. In fact, I would argue that this idea of the lonely ranger, living apart from civilization but protecting it from the dangers of the wild unknown, is actually an American invention. Certainly it makes more sense in the context of the American West.

James Fennimore Cooper invented the archetype with his novel THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS. It's reappeared constantly since then and is the basis for about half of the superheroes in pop-culture today. Aragon fits the pattern, although his is a distinctly British take.

Or you could argue in favor of Robin Hood, a legend which is clearly older than either Tolkein's work or Cooper's. But Robin Hood is more of a poacher living illegally on the King's lands, which is interesting as a form of medieval social commentary but not exactly what's described by the idea of the Ranger class IMHO.

The key points in the class design are the wilderness (i.e. the American frontier) and the softness of society, which needs to be protected from these dangers. Cooper's work was the first to capture this in a literary context, and it's hard to go back much further because an unsettled frontier is required as a part of the concept. Plus, that whole "softness of society" thing was a huge movement around the turn of the 20th century. Prior to that, "society" didn't have enough industrialization to make the idea of getting "soft" sensible at all.