I figured Veeky Forums would be the best place to ask

I figured Veeky Forums would be the best place to ask.

What, if any, historic, literary, mythological etc. sources are being drawn on for design of "rangers" in contemporary fantasy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers'_Rangers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
twitter.com/AnonBabble

A woodsman or scout I suppose.
"Ranger" is just an old-fashioned word for a woodsman that got more heavily used again because of Tolkien and later Tolkien archetypes partial association with D&D.

Aragorn, Drizzt.

Standard pathfinder/loner/huntsman tropes you find in both real life and literature for most of recorded history.

Tolkien as far as I know was one of the first to use the term "ranger" to describe the Dunedain; a tribe of frontiersmen who lived in western Middle-Earth. Aragorn was their chief, for reasons I can't quite remember. Faramir and his company I believe were also described as rangers, but in a different context.

However, his "ranger"--as in a lower-case "r"--was just a colloquialism characters used.

When fantasy saw a resurgence in the decades following LotR, new authors made their own Rangers and started assigning much more significance to the term, and that's how it became an actual job and character class instead of just a slang term.

Aragorn is the strongest influence, but in addition D&D took a lot of hints from Robin Hood, especially with the bow usage thing seeing as Aragorn never used one in the novel.
It's an easy comparison to make really; they're both proud noblemen living lives out in the rough woods and wilderness protecting the people.

>especially with the bow usage thing seeing as Aragorn never used one in the novel.

I think you can make a case Aragorn implicitly knew how to use a bow. Considering he was raised by Elves and spent most of his life as a guerilla fighter hanging out in the woods hunting monsters.

Of course, you are right in he doesn't use one in the novel. But that's mostly because he was done being a ranger and got his god weapon by the time the Fellowship set out.

>Aragorn was their chief, for reasons I can't quite remember.
He was literally a king.
All the Dunedain were actually high noblemen (in the vein of Robin Hood) of an old kingdom.
>Faramir and his company I believe were also described as rangers, but in a different context.
They were basically just forward scouts and woodsman for Gondor:

>They were basically just forward scouts and woodsman for Gondor:
Yeah, I know this. But they weren't "Rangers" as if that was an official title.

>He was literally a king.
Honestly, it's been so long I forgot how everyone sort of just rallies behind Aragorn as the rightful king of, well, almost everything.

It worked for the novel, but I honestly think changing that up a bit for the movie was a smart choice.

Robin Hood

Do you mean the modern ranger RPG class?

The main sources of inspiration for the D&D ranger were Tolkien's rangers (such as Aragorn and Faramir) and Jack the Giant Killer (which is where the idea of a "favoured enemy" comes from - rangers originally had a bonus to slaying giants). 2nd edition also lists Robin Hood, Orion and the huntresses of Diana as examples of rangers.

Rangers were (and still are) a thing IRL. If I recall correctly, "rangers" were originally people who watched over areas of protected wilderness like royal forests to keep out poachers and other criminals, which is the origin of the modern park ranger. There's also several military and law enforcement units called rangers, like US army rangers and Texas Rangers, but I don't know what differentiates them from other wings of the miltiary/police.

Army Rangers are special forces.

TRs are state law enforcement, as opposed to city/county

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers'_Rangers

>Woodsman
>The Master of the Hunt
>Vanguard of armies
>Foresters
>Hunters

Aside from "ranger", other medieval titles for the same position included warden or woodward.

US Rangers have a slightly different ancestor - colonial US governments employed frontiersmen full-time for patrolling large areas of wilderness, providing a response to raids by aboriginals (most notably in the Seven Years War). This was in contrast to garrison soldiers, and thus they received the moniker "rangers". The Texas Rangers have a similar origin as a militia force patrolling the borders, but eventually transitioned into the formal police force of the modern state of Texas.

They ultimately come from the same root, that is to range. To go ahead, to travel a large distance with the intent of protection.

Gwydion from the Prydain Chronicles of Lloyd Alexander. A lightly armored fighter who knows a little magic. Retconned from the Gwydion fab Don of Welsh mythology. Also, Robin Hood.

Inspiration for the word comes from Roger's Rangers, an American military unit during the Revolutionary War that fought using guerrilla tactics. They were called rangers because they'd record their movementa by making notations like "ranged seven miles today."

Only Special Forces are special forces. They're a unique unit.

Rangers are Special Operations, which covers all the elite parts of the Army. Special Forces, Delta, Rangers, ect.

t. Ranger

All this autistic minutiae over a term that was deliberately misleading to begin with.

>TRs are state law enforcement

Texas Rangers are actually state law enforcement combined as well as an emergency military force that can be drawn upon as needed. They were historically used to fight Indians and Mexican bandit armies (who were usually financed by Mexico proper) that constantly raided Texas until the end of the Indian Wars and the Punitive Expedition, respectively. They were used to organize ad-hoc militias and act as forward scouts/pathfinders for "true" military organizations like NatGuard and the Army proper.

Today their job is primarily to act as strategic and tactical force multipliers for small-town departments and handle serious state cases, but they still retain their paramilitary training and can still be legally used in said manner. They ain't nothin to fuck with by any definition of the term.

I remember in high school when we read the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, I was surprised that there was a fellow there that sounded to me to be remarkably like a fantasy adventurer of this sort, the Yeoman.

>A yeoman had he, nor more servants, no,
>At that time, for he chose to travel so;
>And he was clad in coat and hood of green.
>A sheaf of peacock arrows bright and keen
>Under his belt he bore right carefully
>(Well could he keep his tackle yeomanly:
>His arrows had no draggled feathers low),
>And in his hand he bore a mighty bow.
>A cropped head had he and a sun-browned face.
>Of woodcraft knew he all the useful ways.
>Upon his arm he bore a bracer gay,
>And at one side a sword and buckler, yea,
>And at the other side a dagger bright,
>Well sheathed and sharp as spear point in the light;
>On breast a Christopher of silver sheen.
>He bore a horn in baldric all of green;
>A forester he truly was, I guess.

So he wears a lot of green, carries a horn, a strong bow, a sword, a dagger, and a buckler. I dunno, I always thought he sounded pretty cool. So that could be a good archetypal example from the very beginning of English literature of a "Ranger"-like fellow.

The dual wielding has a historical basis, but it probably was added for rule of cool.

>He was literally a king.

Not really. He was a far descendant of a king of a kingdom that had been ground into dust long, long before he was born, and had a tenuous link to the throne of another kingdom in the south.

"Royal blood" alone does not a king make, and he was far from the only one with that. Boromir had as strong a claim to Gondor.

All Aragorn's "kingly" signifiers were shared by others (Elladan & Elrohir explicitly in the chapters that discuss them), and based on rumours planted in Gondorian culture by Gandalf over decades.

>"Royal blood" alone does not a king make
Except, in Lord of the Rings, it totally does.
>Boromir had as strong a claim to Gondor
Boromir was a part of the line of STEWARDS of Gondor, not kings. Did you even watch the movies? Denethor had a tiny throne next to a bigger one for a reason.
This is all off the top of my head, so I don't remember much about Elladan and Elrohir, but the "based on rumours planted in Gondorian culture by Gandalf over decades" reminds me of pic related so if that's what you were trying to go for good job

>Yeah, I know this. But they weren't "Rangers" as if that was an official title.

They're literally called the Rangers of Ithilien.

Gondorians aren't so practical. They value royal blood and those sort of traditions very highly, which is the whole reason Denethor's line never stopped calling themselves stewards in the first place. And the link between the royal line of Arnor and Gondor his hardly 'tenuous'.

A little off topic but i have had the same question about paladins. I would think some of it is based off the knights templar but other then that i can't really think of any examples from which they draw from

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

But the thing to remember is people tend to think of fighters as knights and paladins as holy knights, but in the early days of dnd, paladins were the 'knight' class and fighters were just normies. But knights with magic. They sort of evolved as editions rolled along and became more fantastical until they had diverged quite a bit from medieval knights (which is why Knight as its own class pops up in 3.5, as well as stuff like 'cavalier' in Pathfinder).

>as well as stuff like 'cavalier' in Pathfinder
But user-kun, Cavalier was a thing in AD&D. 2e at least.

cool stuff thank you

...

Juraj Janosik (slav Robin Hood)

Sorry for knowing what I'm talking about

Faggot

Mongols were basically an army of rangers in the beginning.

God bless that maniac Roger Roberts.

Any number of real-world professions that demand a remarkable familiarity with the wilderness; romanticized into a pseudo-supernatural bond with nature. How is this even a question?