Did Tolkien create the D&D Ranger?
I don't know. The closest thing I can think of would be game wardens and similar roles.
I would take issue with your premises. The D&D ranger is kind of a jumped-up or bastardized version of Tolkien's rangers. Tolkien's rangers were simply members of an organization, much like Harpers in the Forgotten Realms (as far as I understand Harpers, which ain't far). We don't see many of them in Tolkien's work, but the ones we do see (I'm counting Faramir and at least some of his followers, though I can't remember if they were actually members of the same group Aragorn was) are simply outdoorsmen on top of whatever else they were, much like you might have found in Robin Hood's band of Merry Men. If I were writing up the rangers in D&D, I'd make them like any other character, but members of an organization. Fighters, mostly, but I'd see members of most PHB classes as eligible.
D&D rangers are mostly a case of using Aragorn as a class, plus some hyperbole. I'd stat him up as a fighter with a new feat or two, personally.
Lecture over, guess I just felt like gassing a bit there. I'm sure someone well-versed in Tolkien could do a better job of expounding on this.
Edit: on the other hand, I'm sure we could find a whole bunch of interesting history paralleling the rangers if we focus on the organization part. The Crusades would be the first place I'd look. The rangers strike me as a lot like Crusaders; upper-class men, often 2nd+ sons with a lifetime of martial training and nothing to inherit, with maybe an idealistic/zealous bent, or maybe a colonialist bent, going off to a wild and dangerous place to bring it order and righteousness.
I would take issue with your premises. The D&D ranger is kind of a jumped-up or bastardized version of Tolkien's rangers. Tolkien's rangers were simply members of an organization, much like Harpers in the Forgotten Realms (as far as I understand Harpers, which ain't far). We don't see many of them in Tolkien's work, but the ones we do see (I'm counting Faramir and at least some of his followers, though I can't remember if they were actually members of the same group Aragorn was) are simply outdoorsmen on top of whatever else they were, much like you might have found in Robin Hood's band of Merry Men. If I were writing up the rangers in D&D, I'd make them like any other character, but members of an organization. Fighters, mostly, but I'd see members of most PHB classes as eligible.
D&D rangers are mostly a case of using Aragorn as a class, plus some hyperbole. I'd stat him up as a fighter with a new feat or two, personally.
Lecture over, guess I just felt like gassing a bit there. I'm sure someone well-versed in Tolkien could do a better job of expounding on this.
Edit: on the other hand, I'm sure we could find a whole bunch of interesting history paralleling the rangers if we focus on the organization part. The Crusades would be the first place I'd look. The rangers strike me as a lot like Crusaders; upper-class men, often 2nd+ sons with a lifetime of martial training and nothing to inherit, with maybe an idealistic/zealous bent, or maybe a colonialist bent, going off to a wild and dangerous place to bring it order and righteousness.
Last edited:
Tuzenbach
First Post
With this I disagree. Robin Hood was more of thief/revolutionary/redistributionist than a creature slayer. Though the "forest terrain" archetype is clearly present.
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?
Thanks!!!
Last edited:
Tuzenbach
First Post
Morrus, is there evidence out there, possibly an interview or autobiographical work, citing Tolkien as having been influenced specifically by Robin Hood when creating the ranger?
Thank You!!!
The question you asked was whether the D&D ranger was created by Tolkien. The D&D ranger was also clearly influenced by Robin Hood. The 2E PHB specifically mentions Robin Hood, amongst other archetypes. Jack the Giant Killer was another example mentioned.
I've no particular opinion on what influenced Tolkien to create Aragorn.
Last edited:
Yes.
Tokien's avowed goal was to create an "English Mythology" that would be comparable to works like the Kalevala. The intellectual tradition that he belongs to is that of 19th century historical linguistics (philology), which saw the study of language as not just a technical study of logic and grammar but as the study of the development of cultures and literary traditions. It was scholars like him who, in the nineteenth century, "rescued" folk tales and shaped the emerging national languages of Europe.
Given this, Tolkien was not creating tropes out of whole cloth. He was consolidating and integrating them into a consistent story cycle. In my view, the best way to think of the LotR is as taking fairy tale tropes (goblins, demons, fairy queens, princes trying to reallise their kingdoms etc) but presenting them within the framework of the naturalistic novel; Tolkien knew from experience that there was a limit to how seriously modern audiences would take non-naturalistic, non-novelistic stories (eg Beowulf, Gawaine and the Green Knight).
In Tolkien's story cycle there are a number of rangers: Turin Turambar (a human prince, fostered by an elven king, whose unhappy life ends in tragedy); Aragorn (a human prince, fostered by an elven king, whose heroic life results in him gaining his kingship and wedding the elven king's daughter); Faramir (a human prince, mentored by a wizard who is close to the elves, who is separated tragically from his flawed father but in the end comes into his inheritance in part because his wise mentoring allows him to understand the true nature of his inheritance as a steward and not a king). (There are also the various bit parts, like the sons of Elrond, the rangers who join Aragorn and ride with him through the paths of the dead, Faramir's offsiders like Mablung et al.)
The idea of a prince having to go into the wilderness to be fostered before coming into his inheritance is not invented by Tolkien. Romulus and Remus (fostered by a wolf) provide one example. Siegfried in Wagner's treatment of the Nibelungenlied (fostered by a dwarf) provides another.
And there is the most famous English example:
I think it's obvious.
Robin Hood is the most famous of English woodsmen. There are versions of the story which identify him as himself a noble in hiding, or waiting to come into his true inheritance; and other elements of Robin Hood tales include his loyalty to the "true king" (Richard the Lionheart). Robin Hood doesn't have the fairy-tale dimension, however - he takes refuge in the wilderness but is not fostered by it.
I think the aspect of the ranger archetype that is unique to Tolkien, and hence whose presence in D&D is attributable solely to Tolkien, is the idea that they are true descendants of the "men of the West" and hence able to claim and use the Palantiri. Though when this appears in AD&D as the ability to use crystal balls once reaching 10th level, some of the mythological resonance has been lost!
The trope actually probably goes all the way back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu - the idea that a ruler or hero of men is not complete without tempering and influence of the natural world.
And there are examples that are not old mythology, but hard to consider irrelevant (either as influences, or as branches from the same root): Tarzan comes to mind.
Well, that the true rulers of men are a slightly different race, and are more worthy and powerful than run-of-the-mill (even "degenerate") humans is hardly unique to Tolkien. That idea is found alongside pretty much any bloodline-monarchy. Tolkien merely demonstrates this fact via the palantiri.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I agree that Robin Hood ended up being a big influence on the D&D ranger. I don't agree that Robin Hood was a big influence over the Tolkien ranger. For that matter, I think 'Hank the Ranger' from the D&D cartoon has a huge influence over the later trajectory of the ranger in D&D.
And despite the obvious intention of the 1e designers, I don't think that the D&D ranger ended up being very much like the Tolkien ranger.
To understand Tolkien, you'd have to figure out the etymology. I've never encountered essay on the evolution of the ranger as a concept in the Tolkien legerdemain, but the word itself is high medieval English from the 14th century meaning 'ones that ranges', and was applied to game wardens. The modern equivalent would be a 'park ranger' or a 'forest ranger'.
One big difference that has to be taken into account, is that in the modern association, a forest is a center of goodness, health, and life. In the medieval conception, a forest was a fearsome wilderness associated with darkness, death, and sickness - wild spaces were associated with evil and expressly with Satan. In the modern conception of a 'ranger' we are thinking of someone whose job is to protect the forest from people. As a game warden, there was much of that as well (particularly, preserving the economic value of wild game for the exclusive use of the nobility), but equally this is a person whose job is to protect the people from the forest and the wild beasts (and men!) that might breed there.
Sam Gamgee, as the chorus and archetype of the common man, voices that view of things when Tolkien has Sam in his suspicion of 'Strider' note that he's never heard of anything good come from the wild.
I suspect that its this idea that informs Tolkien's thinking when he 'translates' his thoughts into the English word 'ranger'. The idea of ranger carries with it the idea of a magistrate or law-bringer - a policeman of the forest if you will. They were the agents or representatives of the crown in 'empty' wild places where the civilized orderly world envisioned by the medieval broke down. So here we have a king whose whole kingdom has been reduced to being an empty and wild space, lacking in subjects and a breeding ground for wild and evil things that recognize no lawful lord. A king reduced to the role of ranger, protecting subjects that don't recognize him, from evils they don't understand.
Of course, Tolkien's own views weren't actually medieval, so there is a lot of nuance in how Tolkien actually treats the wilderness, which is in the books both the medieval domain of evil and the modern unspoiled natural world depending on where you are standing and how you view it. In some places, as in the Old Forest and especially in Fangorn - it's really both at once.
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.
And despite the obvious intention of the 1e designers, I don't think that the D&D ranger ended up being very much like the Tolkien ranger.
To understand Tolkien, you'd have to figure out the etymology. I've never encountered essay on the evolution of the ranger as a concept in the Tolkien legerdemain, but the word itself is high medieval English from the 14th century meaning 'ones that ranges', and was applied to game wardens. The modern equivalent would be a 'park ranger' or a 'forest ranger'.
One big difference that has to be taken into account, is that in the modern association, a forest is a center of goodness, health, and life. In the medieval conception, a forest was a fearsome wilderness associated with darkness, death, and sickness - wild spaces were associated with evil and expressly with Satan. In the modern conception of a 'ranger' we are thinking of someone whose job is to protect the forest from people. As a game warden, there was much of that as well (particularly, preserving the economic value of wild game for the exclusive use of the nobility), but equally this is a person whose job is to protect the people from the forest and the wild beasts (and men!) that might breed there.
Sam Gamgee, as the chorus and archetype of the common man, voices that view of things when Tolkien has Sam in his suspicion of 'Strider' note that he's never heard of anything good come from the wild.
I suspect that its this idea that informs Tolkien's thinking when he 'translates' his thoughts into the English word 'ranger'. The idea of ranger carries with it the idea of a magistrate or law-bringer - a policeman of the forest if you will. They were the agents or representatives of the crown in 'empty' wild places where the civilized orderly world envisioned by the medieval broke down. So here we have a king whose whole kingdom has been reduced to being an empty and wild space, lacking in subjects and a breeding ground for wild and evil things that recognize no lawful lord. A king reduced to the role of ranger, protecting subjects that don't recognize him, from evils they don't understand.
Of course, Tolkien's own views weren't actually medieval, so there is a lot of nuance in how Tolkien actually treats the wilderness, which is in the books both the medieval domain of evil and the modern unspoiled natural world depending on where you are standing and how you view it. In some places, as in the Old Forest and especially in Fangorn - it's really both at once.
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.
Last edited:
And the Paladin did not end up much like Charlemagne's knights. There are many influences to each class, so they won't be a direct model of any one source.
Similar Threads
