AMIA ARCHIVE
https://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/

Rangers and Tree-huggery
https://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36682		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  QPR [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 9:22 AM ]
Post subject:  Rangers and Tree-huggery
In FR, Druids are obviously tree-huggers who will fiercly defend Nature and fight against all sorts of undead, abonemations and abberations, as well as deeply love any tree, rock and swamp.

But does this go for Rangers as well? Probably for those Rangers who serve a Nature loving deity, but what about those that 2nd edition deemed 'Fallen Rangers'? A Ranger who concerns himself with his own survival and skills as a hunter, does he necesarily have to jump to the defence of any tree he sees? Or would he even mind being in a party where undead-summons are used, if it furthers his own goals?
Author:  IronAngel [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 9:25 AM ]
Post subject: 
Rangers do not need a nature deity to grant them spells (despite the FRCS and/or F&P saying this), and you only need to follow your patron deity's dogma to gain spells. So no, rangers certainly don't have to be fanatical nature worshipers. Many, I suppose, respect the woods because they dwell there a lot of the time. Or that's what the class abilities suggest.
Author:  Athyonn Ursidae [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 9:39 AM ]
Post subject: 
Having said that (and btw I agree with thr above) my Ranger is immediatly suspicious of anyone who should summon anything that is even remotely undead. Although having said that she doesnt go into the foaming at the mouth like I have seen a few Rangers do.

I would go with what your characters ethics are and waht feels right. It is afterall your character you are rp'ing.
Author:  Gunz [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 11:55 AM ]
Post subject: 
It all depends. Even a druid. A druid or ranger of Silvanus or any good and most neutral nature deity's would very much so frown upon undead and have a deep respect for the woods. But, a druid or ranger of Malar is what one would consider a "fallen" one or the "anti". They, instead of wanting to protect, respect and preserve, generally only care for destruction, bloodlust, chaos, slaughter, etc.

Athyonn, I'm actually a bit shocked at that since your character follows the god that she does. That's pretty against her deity. But ::shrug::
Author:  Lascivar [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 11:55 AM ]
Post subject: 
Rangers I've always felt are a class that just knows their environment more than any others may, it doesn't necessarily have to be a pretty forest or something of the sort.. I mean a Drow Ranger may be more adept with tracking creatures of the Underdark and the likes. - But then again that's just my opinion, I don't generally pay much attention to stereotypical descriptions of classes.
Author:  Shrewd [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 13:36 PM ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
It all depends. Even a druid. A druid or ranger of Silvanus or any good and most neutral nature deity's would very much so frown upon undead and have a deep respect for the woods. But, a druid or ranger of Malar is what one would consider a "fallen" one or the "anti". They, instead of wanting to protect, respect and preserve, generally only care for destruction, bloodlust, chaos, slaughter, etc.

Athyonn, I'm actually a bit shocked at that since your character follows the god that she does. That's pretty against her deity. But ::shrug::


Nope, for a Druid of Malar, they are still a proper Druid. Their values are different, but they're not about to go and destroy things without respect. They simply see it from a different perspective. Their life is all about 'The Hunt', and they know that overkill will end their days of hunting. That is why they don't kill the young or pregnant.
Their hunts can turn into a random session of wanton slaughter, though, which is often seen in a bad light by everyone else.
Author:  Gunz [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 21:25 PM ]
Post subject: 
Marauth wrote:
Nope, for a Druid of Malar, they are still a proper Druid. Their values are different, but they're not about to go and destroy things without respect. They simply see it from a different perspective. Their life is all about 'The Hunt', and they know that overkill will end their days of hunting. That is why they don't kill the young or pregnant.
Their hunts can turn into a random session of wanton slaughter, though, which is often seen in a bad light by everyone else.


They do destroy things without respect. You can't respect something and destroy it the way they do. Sure, they don't kill the young or the pregnant but not out of respect, out of their own selfish bloodlust for having future things to pointlessly slaughter. It has nothing to do with respect, maybe a bit with preservation but not for the very sake and need to preserve. It's for them, their future slaughters, they want things to kill for no other reason other than the sheer thrill of killing it. Now, that also doesn't mean there aren't druids who are neutral and worship Malar and may show a bit more respect, but generally, no.

But anyway, we're getting away from the topic. Rangers are masters of their wild surroundings, yes. Be it forests, mountainous regions, deserts, wild lands in the underdark, jungles, etc. That's their thing. In many ways their a bit of cross between Druids and Barbarians in terms of mindset and goals. They're survivalists like Barbarians yet they're very in tune with nature like Druids.
Author:  TormakSaber [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 22:24 PM ]
Post subject: 
IMO, "Ranger" would better be renamed as "Hunter" because that's what they are.
Author:  Galenson [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 22:38 PM ]
Post subject: 
Rangers are the assassins assassins never was. Full BAB, free improved two weapon fighting, lots of hide/MS buffs, lots of hide/MS feats, Favoured enemies... you get the point.

I chose ranger for my Banite assassin specifically because of the above reasons.
Author:  Uncle-Opustus [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 22:39 PM ]
Post subject: 
Don't fudge the system, Tormak.
Author:  Gunz [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 23:11 PM ]
Post subject: 
Galenson wrote:
Rangers are the assassins assassins never was. Full BAB, free improved two weapon fighting, lots of hide/MS buffs, lots of hide/MS feats, Favoured enemies... you get the point.

I chose ranger for my Banite assassin specifically because of the above reasons.


Rangers can make extremely good assassins, yep.
Author:  TormakSaber [ Sat, Mar 28 2009, 23:53 PM ]
Post subject: 
Uncle-Opustus wrote:
Don't fudge the system, Tormak.


Well, it's true. What is a "Ranger"? The class is an outdoorsman, has traps, is good with animals, chooses hated enemies... it's clearly a Hunter, regardless of the WoW implications.
Author:  Kjetta [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 13:01 PM ]
Post subject: 
I agree with Tormak. And I also ardently dispise the trend of RPing druids as PETA-hippies who rush to defend any cute animal in harms way. It's just so urban. Druids, to my mind, are strange, mystical, anti-social rural folk who have accepted nature not only for its beauty, but also for its brutality.
Author:  Falling Spider [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 14:25 PM ]
Post subject: 
The "anti" you're looking for, for druids is a "blighter", I think most of them worship something like Talona. A Malarite druid would be more on the survival of the fittest side, not the protect the weak animals side.

In any case though, rangers aren't /just/ forest people. The Wilderness, and nature in general, isn't just forests. It's deserts, and snowcapped mountain, and all that nonsense.

Sherpa? Ranger. Desert guide? Ranger. Trapper wearing a raccoon skin cap? Ranger.

That crazy lumperjack that only comes in to town to drink? Ranger.

They're probably one of the more adaptable classes in NWN.
Author:  QPR [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 18:20 PM ]
Post subject: 
Im glad others also see Druids as not PETA-hippies. I once got flak (on another server mind you) for not jumping to every little rabbits defence as a druid. Heck, he is a druid, and a druid understands that there are predators and prey in the natural world, and the difference between a human rabbit hunter and a wolf hunting rabbits is irrelevant. Mindless destruction of the wilds is one thing, killing animals in a none-apocalyptic way something entirely different. Druids are mot necesarily cuddly people.
Author:  Uberuce [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 20:55 PM ]
Post subject: 
Man sees nasty fox run after cute rabbit. Draws sword and charges fox. Druid orders pet to eat man.

Kids! Don't mess with the Balance or turbomagic firebears will eat you.
Author:  Falling Spider [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 21:04 PM ]
Post subject: 
Well, yeah. That's what happens in real life, right? S'why I stay inside.
Author:  Gunz [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 22:47 PM ]
Post subject: 
Kjetta wrote:
I also ardently dispise the trend of RPing druids as PETA-hippies who rush to defend any cute animal in harms way. It's just so urban. Druids, to my mind, are strange, mystical, anti-social rural folk who have accepted nature not only for its beauty, but also for its brutality.


Not all of us are like that. I know my druid and my ranger aren't like that. The will stop someone from -abusing- an animal but not from hunting and such. Hell, they hunt themselves. Willow wears animal hides and use pieces of hide to adorn her gear of different animals shes killed to eat or found dead.

That said, there are many types of druids as Falling mentioned. Forest, Jungle, desert, swamp, mountainous, arctic, and even agricultural druids (or city/town druids if you will). They aren't all anti-social but they're probably almost all strange and mystical too none nature folk since they would just find them odd.

Now then, can I be the first to mention that I would love to see -all- of Amia forest become hunting grounds and not have the main forest map be a "safe zone"? :D

I dunno, I just find it kinda silly personally. To me, a typical druid wouldn't do something like that. Maybe the overly goody two shoe types would, AKA the PETA types you mentioned, but not a typical druid. I dislike having to find a crack in my TN druid to justify her thinking a "safe zone" for animals is actually a good idea over letting things happen as they do in nature. Not that I have to find a crack in her personality since I don't -have to- agree, but you get the idea. At the grove, you kinda have to go with the flow or you might become "bad guy" as she's found out before.

Hey, I think I might have come up with a good way to separate the Glades and the Vale? One more goody two shoe, NG, the other more hardcore and truly TN. Eh? Eh?!?!
Author:  BrainSplitter [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 22:49 PM ]
Post subject: 
Eary was the first Desert Druid on Amia! >.> God.. That was way back in 2005-2006.

~ Memorieeees... ~ *music plays*



..sorry. Had to horntoot.
Author:  Yurell [ Tue, Mar 31 2009, 23:26 PM ]
Post subject: 
You're a druid.
You see a guy hunting animals to feed his family.
Nothing wrong with that, it's the natural cycle - there are always predators.
You see a bunch of orcs tearing through every creature they can find and hacking down every tree that stands in their way.
Now it's time for a smiting.

That's my opinion of druids, anyway. I like druids :)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/