So, you still want that evil ranger mod?

[temnix]

I wrote about a kit for evil rangers a year ago. More than that, probably. Offered some inspiration for any takers. Now it seems like somewhat new territory. I haven't done a kit before. If it doesn't take very long... Do you people still want it?

 

[Guest Morgoth]

Yes.

[The_Baffled_King]

Quick question: would this be for an evil ranger, specifically, or for any non-good ranger?

I imagine that an evil-only kit might be more interesting, but probably less widely used.

[subtledoctor]

I honestly don't get the concept. What is it about a particular class of woodsy, sneaky, druidy warriors that would require them to abandon independence of conscience and adhere to some ethical restrictions that say "thou must be a shithead?" Like, I get why paladins, as defined, would have some code of conduct. I get why priests would feel constrained to follow the example of their preferred god, and why druids would follow a dogma that eschews the extremes of human behavior. I understand why a warlock, bound to an immortal demon, would have their behavior influenced. But rangers? Why would a ranger be limited to being good vs. bad, or law-abiding vs. silly and nutty? Can we not envision both good and evil versions of a Stalker? A "neutral" Archer? Et cet.

So, like, what's the concept here? What would a restriction be such that you would not be allowed to role play a member of [ kit X ] with a heart of gold? Is this ultimately mimicking the "anti-paladin" or "blackguard" tripe* that is just a paper-thin excuse to act out bland murder-hobo fantasies?

In other words we can already, very easily, have evil rangers. So what, exactly, are you actually proposing here?

(Note to those who have enjoyably played Blackguards: that's fine! In the word(s?) of some very wise people, doowutchyalike! But as a matter of concept, the "Blackguard" is sadly unimaginative. Fight me.)

Edited May 19, 2022 by subtledoctor

[temnix]

I don't care to listen to anything subtledoctor says. For others who wonder, though, the description text for this kit, if I make it, might read something like this: "The cateran is a highwayman, outlaw and poacher. Better at laying traps and using poison than honest confrontation, he is unprincipled and merciless as the wilderness itself. Some caterans serve as spies and liaisons for evil dragons, witches and giants, others play guides and give sanctuary to brigand gangs, still others inhabit remote cabins as dark hermits, the better to breed giant spiders and other monstrosities." The downsides would probably include armor restrictions, no helmets either so they may fear critical hits (I'm tired of PC ignoring the whole critical hit danger) and no free slots in two-weapon fighting. They would still be able to develop that to three slots and they would get a free slot in darts. The abilities, as I see it, would include making blowgun darts with sleep poison, laying traps and summoning ettercaps. Maybe also a fixed x2 backstab.

[subtledoctor]

Better! You should have led with that.

[morpheus562]

Can't Rangers be any alignment in DnD 3e onward? I specifically remember Bishop in NWN2 who is an evil ranger. This should be a relatively simple task of just removing the "Fallen" check and calling it good.

[Labyrinthitis]

an evil ranger wouldn't ask if anyone else wanted an evil ranger kit, they would just make the evil ranger kit

[Graion Dilach]

Yeah, but temnix needs attention and his constant empty threats of leaving the scene  no longer works.

[The_Baffled_King]

8 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

Can't Rangers be any alignment in DnD 3e onward? I specifically remember Bishop in NWN2 who is an evil ranger. This should be a relatively simple task of just removing the "Fallen" check and calling it good.

And calling it Evil, surely..?

20 hours ago, temnix said:

For others who wonder, though, the description text for this kit, if I make it, might read something like this:

[Snip]

The description is attractive, and the kit looks interesting. I've always thought it a failing of the games that your warrior woodsmen/women had to be Good. I got the impression that this requirement exists because D&D Rangers were derived from Tolkien's Dúnedain, but I don't know my D&D history particularly well, so perhaps that isn't the case. Anyway, seeing as we have Rangers that are notably Good, it's potentially interesting to make a counterpoint kit that is notably Evil, and you seem to have an idea that can fit that bill.

20 hours ago, temnix said:

no helmets either so they may fear critical hits (I'm tired of PC ignoring the whole critical hit danger) [Emphasis mine]

Just wanna say that I agree with you on the bit I've underlined, but it doesn't seem like a good reason to stop a specific kit from wearing helmets - certainly not if you're pitching the kit as an Evil alternative to an existing class and kit that is able to wear helmets.

[subtledoctor]

3 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

always thought it a failing of the games that your warrior woodsmen/women had to be Good

That’s why there are already mods to remove rangers’ alignment constraints…

[The_Baffled_King]

51 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

That’s why there are already mods to remove rangers’ alignment constraints…

Colour me unsurprised. Aside from pointing out the existence of these mods, I'm not sure if there was any other point you wanted to make.

[temnix]

The D&D ranger is a protector of the wilderness. Naturally, he is good. Or a protector from the wilderness. The image might have been derived from Aragorn. The time distance is such now that it is easy to underestimate the impact Tolkien had on the first iterations of D&D. They had balrogs in the first one... Of course, later editions might have done away with the restriction, but that's because they no longer have the notion of what kind of world they want to portray. They allowed all races to take all classes and removed level limitations, which was "fair" and crowd-pleasing, but what happened to the idea of limitless human potential packed in a short lifetime without special birth gifts? Not by accident it was Raistlin Majere and not the magician-kings of Qualinesti who rivaled the gods of Krynn. This sort of thing no longer can be understood or even well-remembered. And so on, and so forth. Well, I see there are some takers for the evil ranger kit, so I think I'll make it. As for the helmet, I could insert a few words into the description to explain that. It comes together with the armor restriction (max chainmail, I think). The cateran will be a light-footed warrior, so no tower shields either. And look, rogues can't use helmets too. I don't know why.

By the way, the armor restriction might not be so difficult, because I know a way to let characters take off armor during combat. There'll be less paperdoll hassle when switching. I'll put that out as a separate mod as soon as I iron out some issues.

[The_Baffled_King]

7 hours ago, temnix said:

The D&D ranger is a protector of the wilderness. Naturally, he is good. Or a protector from the wilderness.

[Snip]

Of course, later editions might have done away with the restriction, but that's because they no longer have the notion of what kind of world they want to portray.

Yes, the Ranger makes sense as a Good-only class (or the true-class version certainly does). The failing I mentioned didn't lie in making Rangers a Good-only class; the failing was either (a) not making an additional class of warrior woodsmen/women who aren't required to be Good; (b) not replacing the Ranger with a class of warrior woodsmen/women who aren't required to be Good; or (c) not designing the vanilla Ranger as a Good-only kit belonging to a class of warrior woodsmen/women that weren't required to be Good.

The calculus changes once Rangers have been released into the wild, so to speak. The makers of D&D had the resources to satisfactorily adjust their class or classes of warrior woodsmen/women while respecting their original concept of the Good Ranger; whether or not they did so is not within my knowledge. However, while tweaking the Ranger class in the BG games is worthwhile as a relatively low-effort way of creating a class of warrior woodsmen/women that aren't required to be Good, it isn't all upside.

7 hours ago, temnix said:

As for the helmet, I could insert a few words into the description to explain that. It comes together with the armor restriction (max chainmail, I think). The cateran will be a light-footed warrior, so no tower shields either. And look, rogues can't use helmets too. I don't know why.

It's a defensible choice, but to me it sits awkwardly in the established system of class groups (fighter-thieves, of course, can use helmets). Oddly, although the same can be said of removing large shields as an option, it doesn't bother me so much. Maybe it's because it already seems like something that could sensibly reserved for true-class warriors only (so none for priests or multi-class warriors)? From a non-technical perspective, I like that you're stretching to chainmail rather than drawing the line at non-metallic. Anyway, the Cateran is an interesting idea, and it seems like it will be decent in practice regardless of whether all of its features are ones I would retain.

[subtledoctor]

18 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Colour me unsurprised. Aside from pointing out the existence of these mods, I'm not sure if there was any other point you wanted to make.

I don’t want to overtly hawk my mods in someone else’s thread, that would be rude. But at the same time, I don’t want people to leave with the mistaken impression that this is the only way the enjoy a non-Good ranger. There are two different issues that have been raised. If you just want to play a ranger without being limited to goody-two-shoes alignments, then we’ve already got that covered. OTOH if you like the sound of this particular kit and want to play it, and secondarily it happens to be a kit limited to non-Good alignments, this is (or will be, maybe, if it’s not vaporware) the right place for that.