Alignments for Druids and Rangers

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:01 am

Seeing that the mud is moving more towards 3.0/3.5, Id like to put in an idea about alignments. Namely alignments for druids and rangers.

In 2nd edition druids had to be TN and rangers had to be CG (?). But in 3rd, druids have to be any form of neutral. This opens up the alignments for druids greatly to NG, LN, TN, CN, and NE. The balance, as its said, putting druids of Malar as NE and Mielikkie as NG, druids of Silvanus as mostly TN, and druids of Chauntean as mostly NG (not sure if Talos priests are druids right now). This represents all parts of nature, and the role that each druid can choose to play in the balance, knowing that there are druids on the other side keeping it balanced.

For rangers, in 3.0, they can possibly be any alignment. This isnt saying that they all have to like each other, but all rangers are free spirits and protectors of nature. That is something they all have in common. They can be ruthless hunters and savage trackers. They can be loyal protectors and dutiful woodsmen. This opens up the game in many areas to evils and also adds RP for the different sides of nature.

Please, tell me what you think, feedback is always welcome and in this post...greatly encouraged. Thanks,

Hrosskell · Post by **Hrosskell** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:19 am

I like the idea, but think there should be some sort've stipulation on evil-aligned rangers, and especially evil-aligned druids. I like the idea of good-aligned druids because, as it stands, a druid who ever sides with evils to 'balance' the equations is instantly ostracized. This will bring more emphasis to the -neutral- of TN druids, and clear up the idea that just because someone is good or evil that their best interest is the forest. Also, evil rangers and druids aren't people that just go around killing off everything about a forest. A hunter needs prey just as much as prey needs the land. I think it will be a very difficult roleplay, and the requirements for any hard roleplay should apply, but I still think it should be an available option.

Balek · Post by **Balek** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:19 am

I would like to see the game opened up like this, but it would certainly require a new ranger quest for evils. Neutrals could probably choose either quest, or a third one could be put in for them as well.

Other than that minor hitch, I love the idea. I've always thought it was a little strange that no one with an evil side could care about the wilds, live out there, learn to track and hunt...

In any case, it's great that we're moving forward to 3.5 and this is an excellent way to continue that.

Amalia · Post by **Amalia** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:21 am

I certainly think that with what I've heard of gods' mandates a more open alignment policy might be good-- for example, playing a True Neutral Druid of Mielikki gets a lot tougher when you're told to tip the balance in favor of survival/giving people a chance. Since hearing that I've definitely been playing my character as closer to neutral good, even though she wants to be a druid, and I think it'd be dandy if one's required alignment and one's Diety's orders didn't clash.

Addition: As was stated previously about the evil roleplay, it would be tough-- but I see an evil ranger or druid not as one who overhunts or hurts nature in any way, but who defends it more viciously and resorts to violence against nature's foes more readily; as someone who revels in the destruction aspect, but only to the ponit that it's necessary-- like burning a forest so it can refresh instead of stagnate, and killing animals so the herd doesn't grow too big and starve. I think an evil druid or ranger might try to wreak major havoc on a town or city, but never on a natural place.

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:51 am

I am not sure about durids so can't speak to it directly; however, I recall Sharni stating very clearly that she wanted no evil rangers on FK. She may have even posted that comment, though I think it was years ago.

Kirkus · Post by **Kirkus** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:17 am

I can understand possably Malar having evil druids. But upon consulting Faiths and Pantheons.... imagine that, Kirkus consulting a book..... it refers to Malars clergy as clerics, it never once mentions druids except to say that Malarites oppose druidic circles dedicated to Eldath, Mielikki, Silvanus and the like.

As for Talos.... 'We don't need no stinking Druids!'

all it says is clerics of Talso this, and clergy of Talos that. Mostly it talks about us being really cool guys and what not. Personally, I just don't see anything druidic about the Talos. Its all about destruction and what not. I mean how much would a tree want to talk to a Talassan Druid while he's fixing to set the forest on fire. I mean the situation is purely comical, but think about it from the Talassan point of view. After that first time of listening to that tree begg and plead for you to not do it, its going to get down right maddening.

Glim · Post by **Glim** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:56 am

Just to quote the same book that you consulted

For Malar:

From page 43, Malar.
Worshippers: Hunters, evil lycanthropes, sentient carnivores, rangers, druids.

From page 44, Clergy and Temples.
Unlike most druidic circles, those of Malar's worship consist of inwardly curvive fang-shaped stones arranged in a ring.
...
Huntmasters are the informal religious leaders of the church and may be clerics, druids, rangers, or shapechanging predators.

For Talos:

From page 68, Talos.
Worshippers: Those who fear the destructive power of nature, fighters, druids, half-orcs.

From page 69, Dogma.
Walk unafraid in storms, forest fires, earthquakes and other disasters
...
...can protect them from the furies of gales, hailstorms, winds, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, and other nautral disasters...

Now, not much information is on Talossian druids, but it can easily be seen him being a nature deity. Even from the name Storm Lord. Its still nature. Just the destructive side, similar to Malar. As much as they dont like it, nature always has an ugly side.

Now, Im not sure about Talossian druids in the game because the spell lists have already been given out. Also clerics would be more predominant than druids in that faith, I believe. So this wasnt more of a hurrah for Talosian druids, merely pointing out that he DOES have them, being a nature deity.

Also, for a complete nature deity list:

From page 90, Complete Nature Deity List.
Following is the complete list of nature deities in the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign setting. Druids and rangers must select one of these deities as a patron. Druids of a deity whose favored weapon is not on the druid weapon list in the Player's Handbook are able to wield that kind of weapon without violating their spiritual oaths, but they are not automatically proficient in that weapon's use. Deities noted as monster deities are detailed in the Monster Deities table in the appendix.
Aedrie Faenya, Angharradh, Anhur, Auril, Baervan Wildwanderer, Chauntea, Deep Sashelas, Eldath, Fenmarel Metarine, Gwaeron Windstron, Hiatea (monster deity), Isis, Lurue, Malar, Mielikki, Nobanion, Osiris, Rillifane Rallathil, Sebek, Segojan Earthcaller, Sekolah (monster deity), Sheela Peryroyl, Shiallia, Silvanus, Solonor Thelandira, Stronmaus (monster deity), Talona, Talos, Thard Harr, Ubtao, Ulutiu, Umberlee.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:48 am

For years I have been preaching the NG Druid, as a follower of Mielikki it just doesnt make sense to be TN as her dogma alone contradicts it(winks at Amalia). With Malarite Druids now in the game itll only make sense to open it up. As to why Sharni would never open the game to evil Rangers is beyond me, I do remeber the post, but she never did explain her reason behind it. I think an evil druid/ranger would not unbalance the game anymore than a evil fighter posing as a ranger or an evil priest playing a druid. I do see their RP as not being destructive to nature, but more heavy handed in dealing with natures enemies and more prone to killing than talking. I dont see how bad that coul be possible get as to the point of not making them open in the game.

Kregor · Post by **Kregor** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:31 pm

Yes, the is a large contingent of Malarite druids. The main thrust for making the guildfile for Malar druidic in the revise, was to truly drive home the opposing forces theme. Two sides, both thinking they best know the ways of the forest.

If we were to open the ground to an evil ranger, I would contend it has to be specific to the Malarites. So there would be a method to the RP, and there would be a peer system in place.

My thought has been, to use the ranger guildfile as a basis for Malarite Huntsmen. This could use the same guildfile base, much as the thief guildfile is used for both thieves and spies. In the same vein as Malar's druids are the antithesis of what other nature deities' priests see to be the balance of the cycle, warriors serving Malar would be fierce combatants against the rangers of the forest, fighting with like tactics and skills.

Done in such a way, it should only add to the flavor and tensions among the forest folk, and richen the RP much more than the same old "Evil person comes from Zhentil Keep to for-gods-know-why harass people in Ardeep" that is so old, tired, and unimaginative.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:37 pm

Well said Kregor. Another aspect to look at would be giving the Evil Ranger/Druids a template to RP off of, maybe have something along the lines of a RP restriction with current Evil Druid/Ranger chars and them receiving a token from either diety or head PC char before the quest will initiate for them. Much like the Good Rangers have now. This will weed out the dedicated rpers vs the "I just wanted to create one out of the spur of the moment becuase Im bored with all my other characters and feel like I need another one" type people. That way it insures there is dedicated RP and long term commitment to these classes.

Kregor · Post by **Kregor** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:38 pm

The dogma of Malar illustrates pretty well what Malarites should stand for, and should make for a pretty clear template. Some people may actually be surprized to grasp that Malarites are *not* set on wonton destruction of the forest, rather, they are twisted extremists who believe in hunting to excess and the treatment of humanoids as prey, and would likely tan and wear the skin of a logger. An excerpt from http://nwncityofarabel.com/gods/malar.htm

DOGMA: Survival of the fittest and the winnowing of the weak are Malar's Legacy. A brutal, bloody death or kill has great meaning. The crux of life is the challenge between the hunter and the prey, the determination of who lives or dies. View every important task as a hunt. Remain ever alert and alive. Walk the wilderness without trepidation, and show no fear in the hunt. Savagery and strong emotions defeat reason and careful thought in all things. Taste the blood of those you slay, and never kill from a distance. Work against those who cut back the forest and who kill beasts solely because they are dangerous. Slay not the young, the pregnant, or deepspawn so that prey will remain plentiful.

the rest of the article, by the way, is an excellent writeup of the faith's history, beliefs, their emnity with the elves and the Seldarine, etc.

Solaghar · Post by **Solaghar** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:27 pm

I think one thing that people are not really paying attention to in this is that the idea of the Ranger in 1st and 2nd edition D&D was really an extremely limited concept that basically took some of the ideas from Tolkien's Aragorn and the Dunedain characters and transposed them into an entire character class. Even the limitations they put upon the class don't necessarily go well with the original intention. Rangers for example, are experts in the ways of the woodlands according to both 2nd edition and our current system. Aragorn was an expert in the ways of almost every terrain he came across, from the snowy mountains to the mines of Moria to the moorlands of northern Arnor to the forests of Ilithien and the wastes of Mordor. He knew how to move in all terrains and was an expert at knowing what resources one could find to live in those areas. He was an expert at combat, a wise and noble leader, but one who shunned the trappings of civilization (at least initially) to protect that civilization. The hobbits learn in the book that they never realized how much the Rangers had done to protect them once they see that they're gone.

What I think would be much more appropriate to this game is something a lot closer to 3rd edition D&D, which completely reinvented the concept while still maintaining the ability of the old ranger concept to fit within the new one. Drizzt Do'Urden for instance, one of the most famous Rangers in the FK setting for example, is probably far more expert in his knowledge of the snowy terrain of the northland and the underdark than he ever was of the forests, even though he follows Mielikki.

Here is what I propose we should do for rangers here. Open up rangers to any neutral or chaotic alignment, which would mean CG, NG, CN, TN, NE, CE. A Ranger by their very nature no matter where they are or what they do shuns the trappings of civilization in many ways and would not have what could reasonably be considered a lawful temperment.

Second, Rangers will be granted a chosen terrain. We already have terrain settings for every room we have on the game, this would be very easy to institute. If your Ranger is an expert in the forests and woodlands, you choose that as your terrain. If he is a warrior of the desert, he may choose desert as his chosen terrain. An intrepid mountaineer? Then the hills and mountains are his domain. A warrior of the Underdark who plies the tunnels of those dark lands? Then he gets underground as his terrain. While fighting or using skills like track in their chosen terrain, the Ranger would get a significant bonus, representing their dedication to training and an intimate knowledge of this terrain gained over a lifetime.

I think that people are getting hung up on the justifications for 'protecting' these areas when really nothing of the sort is needed. While individual faiths may indeed stress the protecting of a sort of terrain, i.e. Mielikki and Malar, others such as Chauntea would be more focused on extending cultivated land and would care little for protecting forests, while Silvanus (who sadly isn't a deity here) would not blink an eye if civilization was destroyed entirely and the world was left to the trees and wild humanoids.

Spellcasting and the like would be kept of course, though the individual spells for each class would probably need to be adjusted based on their deity, with rangers and druids getting access to some of the lower-level domain spells for their chosen deity for instance.

Druids could be similarly altered, as well as perhaps granted a chosen terrain upon which they might choose to enact their will. A Malarite Druid would choose the woodlands, a Talossan druid might choose urban lands (experts at sowing destruction and discord there) while a Chauntean might also choose urban land, all the better to protect it, and a Mielikkian or Corellon-following Druid would seek greater knowledge of the wilds. A Lloth or Shar worshipping Druid might choose the dark and empty places of the world.

In the new system I would propose, one could have a half-drow Ranger of the Underdark who is an expert in those lands, following Shar perhaps and becoming an expert in the dark ways. Their skills, hiding, sneaking, expanded weapon options, and a host of darkness and tracking related skills and spells would enable them to be the quinessential Underdark hunter and guide.

An Orcish ranger of Gruumsh would be a woodland guide and scout, advancing before the hordes, an expert in a way few Orcs are, focusing on stealth and finesse rather than brute strength, he would swing wildly from the trees to battle the Elven archers who might snipe at the hordes.

A Malarite druid would seek to slay those who destroy dangerous wild things, an expert woodsman who brings the divine wrath of his God upon those who would hunt to extinction killer beasts. He would work closely in concert with Rangers of Malar, who would focus more on the combat arms side of things, the sword which the Druid wields so to speak, in enacting the will of Malar. The ranger of Malar's race enemy might be humans themselves.

A druid of Chauntea would be an expert in the ways of the cities and farmlands, those places that survive and indeed thrive upon the spreading of peaceful fertilization of the wild lands. They would seek to protect these places, to expand land under cultivation and be a helper and friend to all those living upon borderlands.

I just think that it would expand a lot of character options and open up the game to a lot more interesting types while still preserving the ability of Rangers as they stand now to continue on in the way that they do. There would be nothing to stop a Ranger of Corellon or Mielikki from continuing to protect the forestlands if they should choose to. But when you consider what it is that a ranger here truly means versus what the original intention was, in addition to the changes made in 3rd edition to open up classes to more varied character types, you get a lot more options for people to RP a character in line with what they'd like, and I think that alone would be reward enough.

In addition, this would be relatively simple to code, since terrain settings for rooms already exist and all the other coded features for Rangers I am proposing are extant in the game. Druids and Rangers would indeed have to be tied to their terrain by their deity... Lloth or Shar would not support a ranger of the woodlands, while a ranger of Mielikki would not find much favor for scouting the grassy plains and deserts. In my opinion, and the opinion of the people who actually made D&D, a Ranger as someone who protects the forests is just too restrictive... especially since here there is very little that happens to the forest and you often end up with a bunch of Rangers standing around a forest area confronting people who come too close. Not that I am complaining because at least they are trying, but opening up both the Druid and Ranger classes would allow a much larger range of RP.

Hrosskell · Post by **Hrosskell** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:05 am

It seems to me that you guys are putting way too many restrictions on the roleplays that would result of allowing differing alignments to nature characters. When I saw Glim's post, I thought the idea would open up roleplay, not tell people that they must be of a certain faith to live in the woods, or be special at one thing just because they are of that faith. There are multiple aspects of Gods, and just because a character follows that God does not mean that they follow the most popular aspect at all. I also think this works in reverse - just because one God has an aspect, doesn't mean that other Gods don't have that aspect. I think opening the class-alignments should enhance and broaden roleplay, not limit to "you can do this if you follow this" or make it to where, "you get this if you do this because this is that". There are lots of hunters in FR, so just don't call it ranger, and call it huntsman, it's all the same. Make an NRA of FK, and that'll be the evil huntsman-ranger council. Simplicity. That's all I'm sayin'.

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:30 am

Based on what my research of previous posts has turned up, there is no reason to discontinue this discussion.

Tempus in August of 2003:

I have seen muds and novels alike put in paladins for evil aligned deities as well. I was curious if any idea like this was considered before or is being considered for FK.

Basically FK is currently sticking only to lawful good paladins like in second edition, to the deities in the second edition "Faiths and Avatars" book where it states they have a paladin order. We have no plans at this point to change this to third edition in opening up the paladin class, much like we have no plans of making rangers non good.

An evil god can have a fighter champion if they so wish (that is up to the player of the evil god in consultation with the game administrators), but they would not be paladin like in the ability to cast spells etc.

Likewise we do not support the fallen paladin concept in most instances.

We have no intention of changing our current policy.

Sharni in September of 2003:

Evil rangers have not been ruled out. They are at the bottom of the list. An evil ranger cannot do the current quest we have in place as it is geared towards an non evil ranger. I would be making a totally different quest for an evil ranger, and right now I have other things I want to see before I do that.

Sharni in June of 2004:

No real restriction. Because rangers on FK have to be good aligned (still using second edition rules and the quest to become a ranger is good orientated), then you cannot follow an evil god without some sort of hefty rp (and likely an application) to back it up.

I think most of the good and neutral faiths on FK can boast a ranger in their following. I think rangers are the most popular guild in the game.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:19 am

I agree Hross,
I am not a big fan of terrain bonuses/restrictions. Reason is the Dogma of most of the faiths pertain to the wylds as a whole. The natural setting of a mountain, forest or plain should be just as comfortable and home to Ranger/Druid. The idea you are proposing is similiar to a prestige class found in Masters of the Wild. I cant remember it for the life of me but basically was it allowed you take terrain types for bonus as you are specialized in that terrain. Dont get me wrong I like the Idea of the Desert Ranger (no pun intended

). But I doubt that that will attract any anyone as they can rp being a desert ranger allready. Second Mielikki may favor the forest but in no means does she neglect the other terrain types at all. As her sole driving force behind her church are the rangers who vary from terrain to terrain. I think that we have accomplished in the last year or so the push for rangers out of the city, which has gone fairly well, now that that is done we need to look at pushing out from the Tri-forest Metro area more (High, Ardeep, Misty). Cormanther, Border, Lurkwood, Moonwood, Shilmista, the possibilities are endless as the number of forest rooms there are.

Solaghar · Post by **Solaghar** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:57 am

I'm going to make a post where I deliminate my idea of what in my opinion might be an excellent distribution of Rangers according to deity and terrain type. If you want to increase the RP of Rangers as a whole, while you're expanding their RP options, why not alter the Ranger council as a whole to include at least one representative of every good/neutral/cooperative deity upon the council so it more accurately represents the prospective nature of the class. If one is, after all, forming a council just to protect the forests, it should theoretically be open to clerics, druids, warriors and anyone else devoted to said protection, not merely to people of the Ranger class. With other deities taking a more active role and maintaining their own 'spheres of influence' so to speak over various terrains, the Ranger council would be a true gathering of like-minded individuals who cooperate even though they don't always overlap.

With different deities maintaining some control over true Ranger orders akin to Paladin orders, becoming a ranger within these orders would become much more like becoming a Paladin. One would have to apprentice with a current Ranger for such and such a time until they're viewed as ready to take their own. Perhaps they'd even need to be approved by a majority of the council, I don't know exactly how the Paladinhood works. A similar set up would exist for evil rangers, though obviously they would cooperate a lot less.

Anyway, here's my prospective Ranger set up, which would be based at least in part upon the idea I proposed above. A faithless Ranger would get the basic spells available to the class, and could probably intern under anyone, while a faithed Ranger would receive domain spells like a cleric, up to the level of spells he or she can cast (fourth level I believe)

DEITY NAME TERRAIN
-------------- -----------
Mielikki Forests
Corellon Forests
Garl Forests
Chauntea Urban
Lathander Urban (civilization) or Desert (sun/Amaunator's portfolio)
Mystra? Urban
Tymora Urban
Kelemvor Underground
Selune Plains
Yondalla Plains
Moradin Mountains

Tempus Plains

Malar Forests
Lloth Underground
Shar Underground
Beshaba Urban
Mask Urban
Talos Urban
Cyric? Plains
Gruumsh Plains
Talona Desert

Anyway, this is just a prospective list I came up with off the top of my head, some concrete ideas for people to build on if they'd like. I tried to pick areas that we actually have in the game rather than for instance, choosing say, High Moors as a terrain for Cyricists or the Ocean for Selunites, since it would do them precious little good. I just tried to associate each deity that I thought would sponser a Ranger-type order in their name OVER a paladin order (as some have both, i.e. Torm, Tyr, Helm all have small groups of Rangers but these venture far into lawful territory that would be far more suitable for Paladins rather than divide up the faithful of those deities even more. A ? denotes a deity I'm not sure would rather have a ranger order over a paladin order...

So to recap... my suggestion for the changes to Rangers...

1. Rangers an option as any neutral/chaotic alignment.
2. Assign a terrain to each deity/ranger combo where they'd get some bonus of some sort, reflecting their intimate knowledge of that sort of terrain.
3. Ranger council reflect cooperation among various orders of Rangers rather than almost entirely woodland-protecting Rangers.
4. Rangers who choose a deity gain access to some appropriate domain spells for that deity.
5. ?
6. Profit!

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:54 am

So...I want to follow Chauntea, but I want to make a desert ranger? Or I want to follow Mielikki, but my char is from the north, can I make him a mountain ranger? I dunno maybe its just me who isnt sold on it. I just dont see what the big deal is about terrain types. I also think this is putting too much order in a system that is known for its orderlessness. We already have the Ranger Council, which imo OOCly is nice, but ICly it would never fly. I dont even think its worth implementing every faiths ranger order.

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:01 pm

I'd like to offer a few comments on the concept behind the current ranger council and the suggestions for its expansion. The council was put together largely for OOC reasons with an IC justification. The sad fact is that rangers, particularly those new to the class but a select older ones as well, were abusing the skills of the class - skinning human children, eating the flesh of humanoids, making armor from humanoids, becoming friendly with obvious ranger enemies, etc. These specific instances were dealt with IC on an individual basis, but it was felt by the imms (including Mielikki who has dominion over rangers) and some long-term, well-played rangers that something needed to be done to limit the abuse of the class and refocus it toward apporpriate rp. It is not an easy thing to place order on an organization that is by its very nature disorganized. The council and list of ranger responsibilities put together by Janon (with input by other rangers and approval/denial b imms) was the best solution to the problem. The main two things it was formed to accomplish are these: establish apprenticeship of potential rangers before Markana will agree to train them (this allows established rangers to weed out those who just want to twink the class); have a group of rangers who have been approved by the imms (especially Mielikki) that can decide whether or not a ranger will be removed from the guild based on misuse of the class skills. The concept of the council is a delicate balance of instituting some order to the largest guild in the game, while keeping it as individualized as possible. Those who play rangers now should not have experienced too much, if any, intrusion in their rp because of the council. Increasing the size of the council for the purpose of adding faith representatives would be, in my personal opinion, unbalancing and add even more structure where it isn't needed.

I am NOT saying that faith-based ranger sub-orders should not be allowed. Faiths have their own paladin orders, ranger orders would be fine in my opinion. Mysrans have one, Selunites have one. They would still be subject to the Guiding Council and to the whoever is serving as Warden. They might have their own competitions to determine a leader.

Solaghar · Post by **Solaghar** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:37 pm

What Lathander said opens up a lot of information about why the council was formed in the first place that I wasn't privy to, and it now makes a bit more sense to me. Still, I do like the idea of various faith-based Ranger orders more akin to Paladin orders that would have their own somewhat individualized precepts of what their 'Ranger-types' would be. Terrain options are only something that I suggested because it seems like an interesting idea that is in keeping with the idea of a warrior who has trained over much of their lives to become an expert in certain fields of terrain.

An alternate idea would be that a Ranger would have access to feats which give them bonuses in terrain types. A feat for instance, of Desert Terrain, Underdark Terrain or Mountain Terrain would confer bonuses, and a ranger could take these feats as they see fit, while other classes, such as Druids of Mielikki for instance, or even other classes where it is appropriate might gain access to these feats. A thief for instance, could quite easily be imagined to have access to an Urban Terrain feat which would confer on them certain bonuses to skills while inside of a city. This wouldn't lock a character into a terrain type in the way the previous suggestion would have, but allow merely for more individual customization.

Rangers would be able to customize upon themselves any such terrain feat they wished, though perhaps the orders themselves might make some RP based requirements for it. For instance, a group of Mielikkian rangers dedicated to protecting the forest might not be that interested in admitting a desert Ranger, regardless of the fact that he follows Mielikki.

As for Rhytania's post about a Chauntean desert ranger, I might suggest why someone can't follow Bane and be a generally pleasant and benevolent person? Some concepts of faith go entirely against the ideas you propose. A mountaineering Mielikkian is more of a grey area, but these deities really do have spheres of interest, they're not all-encompassing Gods, and you have to remember that most people venerate *all* of the deities, even their faith enemies, and recognize their influence over their chosen spheres. A Dwarven follower of Moradin who loves the trees and forest glades wouldn't be getting a lot of love from either Moradin or the priesthood, why would he choose that God as his patron when there is someone much more in tune with his beliefs?

Ellian · Post by **Ellian** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:52 pm

Solaghar wrote:An alternate idea would be that a Ranger would have access to feats which give them bonuses in terrain types. A feat for instance, of Desert Terrain, Underdark Terrain or Mountain Terrain would confer bonuses, and a ranger could take these feats as they see fit, while other classes, such as Druids of Mielikki for instance, or even other classes where it is appropriate might gain access to these feats. A thief for instance, could quite easily be imagined to have access to an Urban Terrain feat which would confer on them certain bonuses to skills while inside of a city. This wouldn't lock a character into a terrain type in the way the previous suggestion would have, but allow merely for more individual customization.

Are there any feats from DnD or D20 like what you are describing?