D&D ranger = Texas Ranger?

[Felon]

The Mexicans typically called the Texas Rangers "Los Diablos Sangrientes", the "Bloody Devils".

Well, it's a good thing they had the heroic Poncho Villa looking out for them, eh?

 

[diaglo]

That's quite some spin you've put on it. Too bad it doesn't bear any relation to the character in the book. Perhaps it's another Aragorn?

that's the way i would be looking at it from the steward's perspective.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Aragorn's character is clearly based on the Texas Rangers. Remember in the movie when he kicked that one orc and then gunned down three more with his .44?

Wait a second. Aragorn was NOT played by Chick Norris.

Damn, have to remember not to watch several movies when I'm dead drunk. Things tend to blur. Like the time when I wondered what scene the guys from Ocean's Eleven got their Hanzo Swords in.


Back to being serious: I don't think that you can call rangers racial, not more or less than any other class. Sure, they can get bonuses for enemies of a certain race or type, but that means that they have studied those creatures more, maybe because they are the major problem in the area.

And favoured enemy isn't an excuse to attack everyone of that race, either. D&D is not that black-or-white, IMO.

 

[Desdichado]

IIRC, Tolkien, himself, did a stint as a cavalry officer, and was well acquainted with fieldcraft. While Roger's Rangers may not have been his inspiration, the skills that they had would have mirrored Aragorn's, quite well...

He did. His job was breaking in the horses that later went to field officers. Some folks have theorized that that's part of the inspiration for the Rohirrim; tacking together Anglo-Saxons, cavalry, and a romantic notion that if the English had had cavalry, they would have beaten William at Hastings in 1066 and avoided the subsequent "Frenchification" of England under the Normans.

Not entirely sure I believe that, but certainly it's a common notion...

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Back to being serious: I don't think that you can call rangers racial, not more or less than any other class. Sure, they can get bonuses for enemies of a certain race or type, but that means that they have studied those creatures more, maybe because they are the major problem in the area.

Ummm... do you understand what racism is?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ummm... do you understand what racism is?

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So, what is the ranger guilty of?

I doubt that you can say that the ranger is guilty of point 1. He doesn't say "Elves are superior to Humans" or anything like that. Individual rangers may be, but it isn't in the class description

Point 2 doesn't really hit it, either. Nowhere do the rules state that the rangers have a prejudice or discrimination based on race.


The rules do state that rangers study one race - or even type - of creature and from that knowledge gain insight into the behaviour and nature of said creature race/type. This they can use to be more effective in dealing with those creatures. No racial tendencies in here, except those the individual player/character brings with him.

The ranger may say that "all humans are filthy beasts, worse even than monsters, who foul the lands", or he may say: "we had our share of criminals here, and most of them were human (maybe because other races are very rare in the area) and with time I have come to know their limits and habits." The rules don't state either way.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Easily #2. Ranger's "Favored Enemy" is racial profiling, plain and simple.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Easily #2. Ranger's "Favored Enemy" is racial profiling, plain and simple.

Then the rules themselves are racist. "Elves are frail." is "racial profiling", too.

No, Favoured Enemy isn't inherently racistic. Knowing more about a race doesn't mean that you discriminate the race, or that you are prejudiced against the race (in fact, the exact opposite: You know a lot about the race, so your judgement isn't based on sheer preference, but on knowledge.)

The Zoologist who studies the habits of wild geese isn't racist against geese, either, is he? And he will know much about the "race" of wild geese, including their habits, weaknesses, how to study them without them noticing, and so on.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Ahh but how often is the Zoologist hunting down and destroying Geese with extreme prejudice? The Ranger basically picks a type of creature and against that type gains bonuses to Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks - as well as +2 weapon damage. These can stack everytime you get another favored enemy. I think the key word here is enemy - Rangers don't pick Favored Knitting Partner, or Favored Poker Buddy - it's enemy. When you single out a whole subset of creatures as your enemy, that's racist.

 

[Klaus]

So just call it Favored Target or Favored Foe.

Enemy sometimes just means "someone who's not on your side". For a prey, it's the predator, and vice versa.

If a ranger takes Favored Enemy: Animals, does it mean he hates their guts? That might be true in 2e, but in 3e it became less "I hate 'em so much I wanna slay 'em all!!!" to "I know how they think and act, so I can predict their actions better, and I know their anatomy, so I can hurt them if I want to".