Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Kallias wrote:Fair enough. I just think players who know how to RP know how to RP a character, class is secondary or even tertiary (to race). I'm just not sold on set ways to play a class. The class means nothing to the character, nearly any personality can be any class, with a very few exceptions. Class is just what they do well.

Now, this has me curious. As I said before, I have no ranger character so I am in the dark on some things. Is the council a constant presence, directing every aspect of a ranger's RP?
I was under the impression they act like FMs, stressing a few big issues but for the most part day to day activities are left in the hands of members. I have seen them take action against rangers that make friends with evils and slicing/armormaking of intelligence beings, rightfully so. Thats the kind of stuff that needs regulating. Over the years, I have seen several different takes on ranger RP, some very interesting. They didn't seem to have 'set ways' besides a few common threads. Maybe I am clueless, I thought paladins were the only "by the book" class.

Nysan, your impression of the role of the ranger council is correct.

I was under the impression they act like FMs, stressing a few big issues but for the most part day to day activities are left in the hands of members

If they did act like FM's, it'd be a good thing. They're more like the gatekeeper in waterdeep, they decide who gets in. If the council could only shun rangers they disagreed with, that'd be great - disagreement is good in games like this, but what they're able to do is block pc's from even becoming a ranger...an FM can't even do that, they can't force a person to stop following their god.

Everyone should help everyone along in their development as a roleplayer, it shouldn't be a mechanical requirement to have someone forced into learning from a small select group of people.

Kallias wrote:

I was under the impression they act like FMs, stressing a few big issues but for the most part day to day activities are left in the hands of members

If they did act like FM's, it'd be a good thing. They're more like the gatekeeper in waterdeep, they decide who gets in. If the council could only shun rangers they disagreed with, that'd be great - disagreement is good in games like this, but what they're able to do is block pc's from even becoming a ranger...an FM can't even do that, they can't force a person to stop following their god.

Everyone should help everyone along in their development as a roleplayer, it shouldn't be a mechanical requirement to have someone forced into learning from a small select group of people.

Since my impression is correct, then your example is poor behavior on a council member's part. The question becomes are there hopefuls actually being kept from the guild for RP reasons and not concerns over the big issues? Or is this all "what if" concerns?

The question becomes are there hopefuls actually being kept from the guild for RP reasons and not concerns over the big issues? Or is this all "what if" concerns?

While all rangers are different in personality and rp, there exists at this time an accepted, common ethos of behavior for rangers. The mentorship process of induction to the guild serves as a way to ensure that all new rangers understand and accept those accepted behaviors. The council itself serves to enforce those behaviors and determine the answers to the big picture questions (e.g. Do we assemble and go to war against the orc camp).

Kallias paints a much bleaker picture where the ranger council requires lock-step adherence to a pre-established, cookie-cutter rp. Perhaps I misread his posts, but that's the way they come across to me and I respect him enough to know he will make it clear if my interpretation is incorrect. The rangers I observe when they don't know I'm watching ( ) are very different in their personal rp and I am unaware of any PC being denied access to the guild because of their rp style. The only PCs I have knowledge of being denied access to, or removed from, the guild are those whose rp proved to be consistently contrary to those traits seen as common to the guild.

Not all rangers get along with each other or see eye to eye on every issue, or even the means used to accomplish their common goals. If a PC does not agree to or accept the common issues of the rangers, they should not be rangers. The concept that rangers are merely fighters who live in the woods has never been supported by the FK administration, nor is it one that is currently supported.

Thats what I thought. However, my experience is limited about rangers so I wasn't sure if someone has been brushed off for the wrong reasons or this is a "it could happen" situation.

Kallias paints a much bleaker picture where the ranger council requires lock-step adherence to a pre-established, cookie-cutter rp. Perhaps I misread his posts, but that's the way they come across to me and I respect him enough to know he will make it clear if my interpretation is incorrect.

The thing that gets me is that they're required to go through to become a ranger. There isn't an IC reasoning for this, it's just the way it's been and that's that. The ranger council is a good idea, and falling in line with their ideologies should give them benefits while under their umbrella (equipment, mentors, coin) - but it shouldn't be forced. It should be like a union, you're not well liked or even harassed if working outside of it...but it shouldn't be 100% required.

The implication that having their blessing allows you to become a ranger heavily suggests that if you fall off their friend's list you'd then magically be severed from what you're good at. It just doesn't make sense. Things should make sense. The ranger class wouldn't be harmed at all by moving to what nearly all the other classes have. It'd certainly be more new player friendly.

I'll go from here assuming this is a "what if" situation and no one has been denied entry into the ranger guild over RP reasons, at least thats what I take from all this.

Some classes require more work to enter. Thieves, rangers, bards, to a lesser extent necromancers, and a very clear example is paladins. I don't have a problem with this approach because all those classes are a bit harder to RP than the 'easy access' classes. Be it abusing steal, slicing intelligent creatures, or acting proper in platemail, they all have requirements that, at least for me, need a bit more from players than "guild hall is the third door on the left, enjoy your new abilities".

Rangers are not just tree-hugging fighters with perks, there are some in-house expectations regarding their play. There are some pretty thick house rules on how dwarves should be played, doesn't mean you have to cookie-cutter your playstyle. Old Gilain is a good example of that. Rangers are the same way. Sure there are guidelines to follow, such is common of hard RP characters, doesn't mean you are stuck in your choices.

That said, these requirements and extra legwork should not restrict players from "being themselves" with their characters, as long as they do not violate the big issues of whatever guild/faith they attend. As long as you can explain it reasonably, in-game and OOC, there shouldn't be a reason why a character is denied entry into the guild because they follow Ilmater, for example.

End of the day, rangers are a guild and should be reasonably open to characters. I would expect RP related membership denial from in-game organizations like the Watch, not from guilds. But, thats just me.

I think the confusion is about the IC vs. OOC problem here. Most agree that the Ranger Council is a great idea which promotes RP. ICly some rangers ignore the Council politics, but most have the same base of 'rangerly beliefs.' But on the OOC side, just like the case of absent FMs you have a problem when no one can find an active Ranger Council member to actually join the class. I recall an extreme early example when the RC member forgot the quest he assigned and it took the player almost two RL years to be classed. Now it seems to be hit or miss. There's at least one new RC member who is active, but there have been some downtimes in the past when none was to be found for months.

Players should have patience with RP, but like anything else...after a long enough period it shouldn't cause hard feelings if a player finally resorts to Apps to try to get something moving.

Having said all that, I also think Malarites should be able to go ranger....and be on the Council.

Maybe there ought to be a coded 'in-between' guild, woodsman, that has many of the assumed skills that rangers get, but that anyone could learn, really... But none of the divine prayer-like spells that rangers get. I think that's really what makes rangers a good-only class, really, their devotion to the preservation of the trees and bunnies and whatnot... But who's to say that ONLY rangers know how to skin a bear, or shoot a bow, or whatever else it is that rangers do that isn't necessarily restricted to a good-only character?

Orginally, skinning a bear (skill: slice) and making leather armour from it had to be regulated, due to certain bad apples skinning road bandits and making a suit of armour. We had some standing house rules against skinning intelligent critters and they are still enforced today, I think. Far as I can tell, such skills still need regulating, since I still see the occassional 'questionable' piece of leather armour on vendors here and there... much to the dismay of certain trademen (or dwarves) that would like to learn such abilities.

There is little concern, OOC at least, about the misuse of other ranger abilities (I think). IC, is a different story considering the current 'good guy only' system and RP reactions.