Ranger/paladins, anyone?

Remove all ads!

In AD&D, the two classes were very similar to each other in the principles - the difference being that as one was champion of nature, the other stood for the orderly and benevolent aspect of society. Both being good, fair and honourable heroes, and questers. Also, quite often loners. So they were getting different kinds of spells and skills to use in their quests, but the layout was essentially very similar and they had more in common than any other two classes. Combining the two, however, was impossible.

In 3E, they started to differ from one another much more. The ranger was pushed forcibly in the Finesse & shortblades & light armour direction, while the paladin was presented with heavy penalties to DEX for wearing full plates. So goodbye to plated rangers with big swords and goodbye to dexterous paladins with archery skills (well, you still can have either, but well...). However, combining the two has now become possible.

Therefore, you can have a paladin with favoured enemy, animinal companion etc. You can, alternatively, have a ranger with Divine Grace, Divine Health, Detect Evil and similar distinguishing traits of paladin status. If there be any purpose in it, you could have an even split - though I know not what could possibly force you in that direction, maybe except for cultural traditions, or low WIS crippling your casting already.

Nearly lastly, 3.5 ED has delayed the interesting paladin features, as well as spread out the gaining of some features throughout increasing leavels. This means some actually useful abilities being acquired only later in your advancement. Still, it doesn't put low-level mix-ins entirely out of the story.

Almost lastly, there is the Knight of Chalice class that requires daemons as your favoured enemy and, IIRC, requires some paladin class features, too. This suggests that there actually are paladin/rangers even if just one level rangers for the benefit of racial enemies.

Lastly, I could think of some real life people I know and some fictional characters who would fit a paladin/ranger picture. For example Aragorn who's Lawful Like Hell Good, has healing touch (OK, he does use some herbs for that...), waves a Sort of Holy Avenger and probably also Detects Evil. Ranger is what they all call him. So, it would be ranger/paladin, wouldn't it? I think some knights of the Round Table would fit as well, and maybe Robin Hood, depending on the version of the legend (ie. one in which he starts as a normal knight and ends up as more of a guerilla fighter for King Richard than a benevolent robber). Rebel leaders, especially those semi-dispossessed nobles gathering common folks around the banner of an exiled monarch and spending half their life in woodlands or mountains in very harsh circumstances strike me as potential paladin/rangers.

What do you think about the idea? Have you ever had any character like that in your team?

 

I've never played one myself, but I'd definitely agree that Aragorn is a Ranger/Paladin multiclass.

BTW, in 3e, Rangers no longer have to be Good, they can choose any alignment.

 

Aye, I was going to include that, too. They were almost all CG in 2E, anyway, just allowed to be any good. Unless Mielikki counts as ranger, I can't think of any non-CG ranger before 3E.

And in 3E voila: Helm is a ranger

The max-LN max-plated bastard sword wielding deity is a ranger.

I agree that ranger doesn't imply good as much as paladin does, but still... Well, logically, there's no reason why evil rangers shouldn't be there. Corrupting the power of the forest, or channelling corrupted power of the forest as you prefer. Still, it doesn't feel right.

 

an interesting question, which maybe reveals some of the overlapping and sometimes contradictory mythologies behind the D&D game universe. you're absolutely right to bring up Strider/Aragorn as the original model for the ranger class, while the "lawful like hell good" paladin probably comes from all of those chivalric Arthurian-type legends (often featuring some kind of quest for a destiny-laden sword, so that now almost every single CRPG has to have a holy avenger, making me think of that python scene where the peasant asks Arthur if he really thinks he can justify being king on account of a "watery tart" chucking a sword at him). Leaving aside for a second the D&D paladin and ranger, while the Arthurian-paladin and the Tolkien-ranger are similar in a number of ways (a tendency to undertake elaborate quests for the sake of humanity/goodness, for example), there are a number of differences as well. Maybe the biggest difference is political: the Arthurian-paladin requires a king, an order, and perhaps a church to constitute his identity, while the Tolkien-ranger is a loner. Yet, one could argue that the Tolkien-ranger is a loner by necessity, and by the fact that there are no Tolkien-paladins as there is no rightful human king. So you might be right in thinking of "The Return of the King" as Aragorn's progress from rangerhood to being a paladin, and what's more, the first and only Tolkien-paladin. While there are plenty of noble and/or lawful human warriors in Tolkien, they cannot be paladins, as the righteous order upon which paladinhood would be founded is not in place yet. And so Tolkien often treats their "lawfulness" as ungrounded, as expressing itself as stubborn willfulness, etc.

Alignment is interesting here. If the Tolkein-ranger is indeed lawful good, it is a kind of lawful that's based on the fulfillment of a destiny, but does not translate into stereotypical lawful behavior. The Tolkien-ranger chooses not to live within the framework of established cultures and laws, but instead travels between them, if only because he seeks a higher law that would apply to all of the human cultures as united under a single king. It is perhaps this sense of the ranger operating outside of the law and apart from civilization that was behind the original AD&D definition of the ranger as inherently good, but otherwise lawful, neutral, or chaotic by preference. What's the difference between RPing an AD&D ranger that's LG and one that's CG? Aragorn, for example, could be LG, but might otherwise appear CG, in his individualism, his adherence to a law other than the established laws around him, and in his preference for spending time with elves, who are, in AD&D at least, also CG (although Tolkien elves would have arguably been very lawful, and in the same way that Aragorn was lawful).

It seems that by 3E, there's very little left of Tolkien in the ranger. In 3E, the ranger is basically a druidic fighter, with an animal companion, two-handed fighting (why? I have no idea), etc. The paladin has essentially cornered the market on "goodness" and on "lawfulness," which carries with it a number of presuppositions, such as: 1) the highest form of goodness is the lawful kind; 2) this law is primarily concerned with a socio-cultural order, as opposed to a natural order, so that the paladin spends more time learning about his or her society (religious knowledge, diplomacy, etc.) rather than learning from or developing an understanding of nature; 3) this law is, on account of its social basis, more a property of cities than of the countryside.

In Tolkien, it seems to me the argument is quite different, in that he sought to conflate the natural order with the "good" social order. Elves, for example, are equally "in tune" with natural, the magical, and the good. The Tolkien-ranger's understanding of nature is a component of his understanding of the good; in a way, his destiny to become king, his "divine right", is justified by natural order. Evil, however, is in Tolkien synonymous with the un-natural.

This maybe brings us back to the issue of alignments in D&D. I would suspect that the original Lawful - Neutral -Chaotic arrangement in OD&D was influenced by Hinduism, where the supreme being is divided into three deities -- Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva -- which represent creation, preservation, and dissolution respectively, and which are expected to remain in balance (think of the AD&D True Neutral druid). For Tolkien, however, drawing on Anglo-Celtic pagan and Christian traditions, nature would inherently be Lawful (in the truest and most important sense).

So (and sorry for the over-long answer), what you do with rangers/paladins might have alot to do with how you think of the game universe of your campaign, and which 3.5E rules and classes you decide to allow or not allow. I think it would be interesting to run a campaign where rangers were the dominant "good" fighter in place of paladins; I'm always suspicious of the self-justifying rhetoric accompanying the Arthurian-type legend, which portrays those who have reached positions of nobility through conquest and the sword as "gentlemen," and then subsequently seeks to justify their position on top of society through an appeal to chivalry and "divine right." Plus, more practically, while wearing full plate armor might be good for jousting and on a battlefield (provided one has a small army of squires to lift you onto your horse), it seems really impossible for an adventurer who is hiking through the countryside 16 hours a day. I also think the way dexterity and armor is handled is a little strange; I mean, can one even shoot a bow straight in full plate? Somehow having rangers in studded leather seems a little more believable....

 

Plates: Well, I didn't mean rangers in full plate full time. After all, there's the sneaking (leather only) etc. However, as they were basically warriors, they did get the allowance (no armour proficiency in 2E). The idea was that ranger, if normally sneaking all over neverending forests etc, was still able to appear on a regular battlefield as a regular warrior (like Aragorn did).

Lawfulness: Yes, Aragorn exhibits chaotic traits, but it's more on personality level than morals or ethics. He is a loner, granted. Lives apart from civilisation, granted. Always questing and no home, granted. But those traits belong to any and all adventurer, paladins included.

Paladins are always questing, always apart, always standing out, have no home and are always far away from what used to be home and aren't really in for the pleasures of civilisation even if they have the opportunity which happens about once in a decade.

That matches Aragorn well. He also wields a holy sword, deals with those practically-half-celestial elves, is a hero descended from an ancient royal (and sort-of-half-celestial as well) line, heals with touch, has power over undead, lives by honour seen through the prism of humility and also displays all of paladin virtues. I don't insist that he must be a paladin for that. No, surely not. Technically, he might as well be full time ranger or even ranger/barbarian (if we decide not to consider him lawful in alignment), heal with touch by virtue of his kingship and wield the holy sword by the power of his legacy. That royal legacy would also require him to be chivalrous as any knight and lord.

I merely propose that he is LG and paladin/ranger. No one has to agree. Heck, the only character class everyone would agree on, except for Aragorn's obvious ranger levels, is probably fighter for Gimli.

Back to Aragorn, though. Before the LotR, he served as army and fleet commander for rulers of Gondor and Riddermarch. While it doesn't really make him lawful, or even non-chaotic, it prevents picturing him as anti-social. Outcast, maybe. But not anti-social. Plus, he's a functional member of the Rivendell "society". And yes, those elves seem lawful by nature, too, even if they have no use for human laws - and why would they have? Aragorn isn't really bound by any human laws - he's no one's subject simply because he's the biggest royal genealogy guy around, affiliated with and descended from those practically half-celestial elves of the ruling line.

He does indeed seem compelled to lawfulness by his nature. Fulfilling his destiny: what needs to be done will be done... but all in due time.

He also has a little obsession with legitimate and lawful authority which seems to go beyond his destiny part. He makes and takes pledges quite a lot and is rather serious about them, too. He does his duty and his own whims are at the very last place.

Some factors in his lawful approach could also be construed as chaotic - in such a way as to emphasise that Aragorn respects individual freedom, never enforces any authority and relies on personal commitment rather than formal bonds. Again, that might be rendered as supreme triumph of the Order - Law without compromising people's rights, everything by free will etc.

Conclusion: Alignment system in D&D is inherently flawed. It only works if we regard Good/Evil as a typical hero/villain distinction and Lawful/Chaotic as obeing law rules or not. That approach is shallow and resented among most players.

The reason is probably 1) applying Eastern metaphysics to quasi-mediaeval Western realia and 2) trying to be politically correct above everything else and at all costs.

Another thing is that living humans simply cannot be put in a rigid fixed position on two imaginary axes. Morals aren't separate from ethics and neither is Law/Chaos separate from Good/Evil. You always have categories like fairness and justice that lie in between. Plus, the whole system of nine alignments is artificial and characters simply are what they are and don't care.

Therefore, rangers and paladins not being original D&D concepts, they get flawed in implementation in that part in which they are supposed to reflect historical or legendary sources. In Christian philosophy (paladin was originally a Christian Frankish institution), there is Law in Biblical sense, Logos. Logos and chaos, Light and Dark in the bigger picture, and good/evil for everyday use among humans.

Good simply has to imply some sort of order as goodwilling and compassionate people are ready to contribute and even make sacrifices for the others.

Evil has to imply chaos simply because greed and hatred are chaotic.

But back to ranger/paladins, please.

Of course there are differences - otherwise there would be no need to multiclass to be both. No need to have two separate classes in the first place.

Being a loner, however, doesn't really belong to those differences. Paladins are typically knights errant of some sort and as such they are similar to rangers. Both are devoted guardians and protectors. Ultimately, they protect people from dangers of all sorts and are themselves largely removed from civilisation - even if paladins tend to have more contact with it and are less skilled in wilderness survival. The difference is that they (typically, but by no means necessarily) rely on different sources of power, have different spells, different skill preferences and largely different modus operandi (woodsmen vs knights). Still, ranger and paladin are more similar to each other than any other two races are.

What I really mean in this thread is not rangers with good saves from Divine Grace or light-armoured paladins with free dual wielding, but characters who combine both ways - the way of ranger with the way of paladin.

Edit: One more thing: paladins don't need an order. It comes down to calling. You either receive and follow the calling or not. No mortal can grant you paladinhood nor take it from you. Orders are for paladins and not the other way round. Paladins typically serve kings (or other sovereigns), but this doesn't mean kings can't be paladins (Arthur apparently was, Richard Lionheart is supposed to have been, some people would say Henry V was one, others would nominate Bonnie Prince Charlie and his father, St Louis IX is practically a sure one - just to name a few, aside from Aragorn). It's a matter of ethos for a paladin to serve his overlord well if there is one. Doesn't mean he has to go find one if he has none. Plus, at any rate, gods are always above kings.

[ April 30, 2004, 02:33: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Speaking from a completely stastical point of view, this is not the best choice. Think about your stats:

-Strength - need good amount
-Dexterity - need decent amount since you'll be probably be wearing light armor
-Constitution - everyone needs Constitution; a Ranger/Paladin is very likely to be a front-lines character
-Intelligence - you can skimp on it.
-Wisdom - good amount if you want good Will saves and spellcasting abilities
-Charisma - yes

So you need to have a halway decent score in every ability with the exception of intelligence. Your armor class will not be good since you probably won't be wielding a shield or having medium-plus armor. You might get both a mount and an animal companion, but they'll both be comparatively weak (and die) at 9th-level or high. Your spellcasting lists are separate, you get no benefit there.

And finally, you miss out on all the cool 3.5 high-level Ranger abilities, like Camoflauge and Hide in Plain Sight. You also get less Smites per day.

It's a really bad idea statstically, but you can go ahead and dismiss this as powergaming bull if you want.

---

But on combining the concept of Ranger and Paladin:

Please stop, stop, stop, stop placing D&D in the context of Tolkein and/or history. It's a fantasy game that's based upon Tolkein (elves, dwarves, orcs) and history (some historical weapons and armor), but I just find it silly that one bases the Paladin or Ranger on whatever is in the Fellowship of the Ring or a Medieval History textbook. If you're going to talk about D&D, why not refer to the core books on it?

Or if you're going to refer to characters, at least refer to someone in a fantasy setting or a fantasy novel.

But I guess if all you want to say is, "Aragorn is like a Ranger/Paladin," then I don't see what's the problem. A Ranger/Paladin could happen in D&D, it's just that Tolkein and D&D are similar, but by no means the kind of settings where you can overlap races, classes, and ideologies.

So I guess, all in all, the Ranger/Paladin is unique, but not that much of a D&D archetype like the bold Fighter/Cleric, or the adventuring Rogue/Wizard (Mage/Thief in 2E), or some of the more prevalent character concepts that you'll find.

---

On alignment: The idea of the Chaos-Law/Good-Evil axes is a long thing from the days of 2E. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of arguments about how bad it is, but I ultimately find the nine-alignment system an easy way to categorize ideas in a game world. Of course the real world is a little more complex, but that doesn't mean the game world has be.

---

One last note: it's Demons and not daemons. Demons are chaotic evil creatures. The term daemon isn't found in the Monster Manual.

[ April 30, 2004, 04:24: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Nah, it's the same thing as "color" and "colour", or "axe" and "ax", or -ise & -ize verb endings. If they go by one spelling, it still doesn't mean you have to spell it their way in your games whenever you use a word that appears in core books. Plus, "daemons" is the proper way of spelling the word. "Demons" is like "medieval" or "archeology" - for people who can't spell.

I agree on the stats - a paladin/ranger build would be weak if multiclassed evenly with stats from standard point buy. It's still feasible if you go for high DEX and Weapon Finesse with ranger's free dual-wielding in light armour, but it's not how I see Aragorn, anyway. I suppose a non-Finesse 50/50 ranger/paladin only makes sense with rolled characters. Alternatively, something like STR 14 DEX 14 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 14 and 2H sword for 1,5 STR mod unless you would rather have 12 INT for the sake of skills. Elf race could get you 16 DEX cheaply, and Aasimar would be quite handy with 4 stat points for free and the ability to start with 16 CHA at a cheap cost.

As for historic and legendary sources, it's understandable that some adaptations need to be made. However, licentia poetica can't justify everything. D&D authors didn't invent paladins or rangers, or barbarians, or bards or any other class. Technically, you can always write "Lawful Good characters primarily look for themselves and are motivated by greed" or "Fighter is a potent spellcaster who wields powerful arcane magic".

 

Actually, the main problem is that there is a fine distinction between terms like "Demon", "Daemon", and "Devil".

Demon and Devil refers to different kinds of evil-aligned outsiders, and they mean a world of difference, especially to the hard-core Planescape fans. These are definitely not usable interchangably.

IIRC, "Daemon" was a term that referred to NE outsiders (albeit not in the Monster Manual but in 2E). So in real life, it's not important, but there is a fine line between the actual creatures that the terminology refers to. It's a funny thing, since "Daemon" is so close to "Demon", though.

Besides, the Player's Handbook was published in America; in American English "medieval" and "archeology" are spelled without the extra "a".

---

While it's true that the D&D authors didn't up with everything on their own, the core books are the default for how the game is run. Things are different, but changes to are usually implemented for a good reason, such as providing a certain "feel" for the game, or just convenience on the players' part.

 

IIRC, Demon is just a bastardized variation of the biblical Daemon. I am not too sure though...

 

@Caleb: yes, it is.

There are various different spellings of some certain words and there's no need to switch to American while playing D&D. It would be absurd, quite frankly. But back to the subject, please.