Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6601282" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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.</blockquote>

Verification