What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Yora]

Similarly in D&D terms, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are Clerics. Going by function within the milieu those class roles fit the characters.

Gandalf is a shapeshifted Solar.

 

[Desdichado]

Fully agreed, but for various reasons (some of which I don't think I can articulate consistent with board rules) I don't see this as anywhere near as big a contribution to the character of modernity as being a progenitor of existentialism.

Well, sure. I merely point that out as something much less controversial about Tolkien's legacy.

I think, here, that you may be agreeing with me about the independence of aesthetics from morality. But this is a controversial view.

Maybe. I've never really thought of it in those terms exactly. I'd say that my views with regards to the monarchy as a romanticized form of government are fine. My concern for monarchy as an actual system of government is in my fear of a bad monarch, which I'd say is almost certainly inevitable over time. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that a romanticized monarchy is necessarily impossible... just unlikely. Therefore, it doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief; I can believe that such a state actually exists.

I'm not sure that my morality really comes into play here.

Then again, maybe I'm saying the same thing you are just in a different way.

 

[Desdichado]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I'm surprised that your comment is at all controversial.

But equally, there is little denying that the AD&D Ranger is an attempt to create a class that mirrors Aragorn's functional (as opposed to thematic) role in LotR, right down to use of the palantir.

I think the reason it's controversial is that the whole idea of the ranger--as a word in the English language, not necessarily just as a word in D&D or LotR--implies an outdoorsman with skills that allow him to be a better outdoorsman than others. Also--that's an important aspect of the character of Aragorn. In fact, for quite a long time, it's really the only real characteristic that he has. Until they all get to Rivendell, anyway, where his "heir to the King" aspect starts more and more to overtake it.

That is not, however, an aspect of the paladin or cavalier class, or the archetype on which they're based. Therefore, the claim is controversial, and in fact, I strongly disagree with it. Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled. And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That is not, however, an aspect of the paladin or cavalier class, or the archetype on which they're based. Therefore, the claim is controversial, and in fact, I strongly disagree with it. Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled. And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.

Oh great, now I'm hearing Vizzini debate Aragorn as Ranger or Paladin: "Clearly if he has snowshoes in winter, he would be prepared, which is a property of boy scouts, who are mini-rangers. So he could not be a paladin." And so forth.

You guys stuck the image in my head. So clearly I wasn't the only one that should have to suffer ...

 

[pemerton]

the 1e class had restrictions on the weapon proficiencies that the Ranger could begin with and the order in which they could be taken

I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.

It is.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think this is correct, unless it's a UA addition to the rules that I've forgotten.

Actually, I just looked and it is in the UA. For some reason I remembered it being in the PH.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Note that you don't have to start specifying what weapons he uses, or his fighting style. In my experience the worst-written characters are the ones whose writers begin their descriptions with, "Marty Stu is a warrior who fights with his two home-made elven bread-katanas!"

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows you get better bonuses from dwarf bread katanas.

 

[Celebrim]

I think the reason it's controversial is that the whole idea of the ranger--as a word in the English language, not necessarily just as a word in D&D or LotR--implies an outdoorsman with skills that allow him to be a better outdoorsman than others.

I don't know exactly what sense of the word inspired Tolkien's use of it, but the most common definitions of the word are:

a) A magistrate of the law responcible for care of a park, garden, or forest and enforcement of the laws therein.
b) A member of a military or law enforcement company employed to patrol a large district
c) Someone who wanders about a large area

From the usage, it appears the term is used most in the sense of 'b'. Being outdoor is implied, but its not the definition of the term.

Any ranger that isn't mostly focused on being a hunter/outdoorsman type character is a ranger that's wildly mislabeled.

Like a Texas Ranger for example?

And Aragorn was rather properly labelled a ranger after all.

It's not an issue of whether the term 'Ranger' is a proper label to apply to Aragorn. Tolkien applies the label. The issue is whether the class Ranger truly captures want it meant to be a 'Ranger of the North'. I believe 'Ranger' is Aragorn's profession, and is used in a sense akin to 'soldier' or the modern US military unit - elite commandos who can operate in enemy controlled territory. But while his initial profession might be, "Captain of the Rangers of the North", his class is Paladin.

I think its a bit spurious to argue that Paladins are archetypally not associated with the wilderness on the grounds that its D&D's take on the classes, because D&D created the archetypes as they now exist by the siloing of skills as class features. Hense, if you are fighter you can't be stealthy (ergo, Conan must be multiclassed) and if you're a Paladin you can't have woodcraft (ergo, Aragorn must be multiclassed) and so forth. But Tolkien didn't write his material with conforming to D&D in mind, and it wasn't woodsman, woodcutter, game warden, vagabonds, or even Robin Hood that was serving as Tolkien's archetypal inspiration for Aragorn. We aren't dealing with a member of the Yeoman class. Woodsman or vagabond is merely as it were his disguise.

 

[Celebrim]

Anyway Celebrim, the subject at hand isn't 'what class is Aragorn,' but 'what is an Aragorn-style Ranger in D&D,'

I know what the subject is, and I'm answering the question as I think is best. The answer to, "What is an Aragorn-style Ranger in D&D", is "Paladin". Yes, that is not obvious and yes it means I think that the question is a trick question, but its still an answer.

Of the Ranger options available, it's clearly the Strategic Review or 1e version (with or without Unearthed Arcana).

I consider the debate to be unresolvable, because I don't find there to be that big of a difference between the 1e and 3e Ranger. The basic concepts of 'spell using' and favored enemy are there from the beginning. I have no desire to side with either the "Hank the Ranger" crowd or the "Drizzt the Ranger" crowd over what the Ranger ought to be, nor do I intend to let anyone argue "my Ranger is more Tolkien than your Ranger" unchallenged given how little any of the Rangers have to do with Aragorn's Ranger. It's snobbery, and I say that as someone with no love for Drizzt and no great apprecition of R.A. Salvatore's writing. As for two weapon fighting, the rules on page 70 of the 1e DMG rewarded anyone with more 15 Dex for pursuing that path, so if you happened to have a Ranger loaded with Dex, then he fought with bows and two weapons even though Aragorn didn't do either of those things but instead employed, well, a holy avenger as basically his exclusive weapon.