A little lazy of a subject line, just ripping off the cliche of a "Dark Paladin" and applying it to a Ranger.

Has anyone thought of roleplaying a reluctant Ranger, someone who isn't particularly motivated by love of the wilderness but accepts the lifestyle as the cost for the powers and abilities that come with the Guild?

As an analogy, the restrictions on harming others placed on Empaths is not always a limit on capacity for evil and malice. You can be a Warlord Empath ordering the slaughter of the innocent as long as your hands are clean. Your Empathy is just the cost of your abilities.

So a Ranger could spend time in the wilderness, learning and understanding the ways of nature, but not out of any particular affection for nature, just a desire for power.

Obviously this goes against some of the tenants of the Guild involving striving for balance, but I'm brainstorming for a new character.

Jalika is definitely a city ranger. I don't see her as a dark ranger, but she definitely should be more of a thief except the magic and rugged survival abilities are also her style. Its not that she dislikes the wild, but its not a bit part of her core. I suppose you could say she's an opportunist.

Dark and anti are different concepts. A dark Paladin is distinct from a fallen Paladin. A dark Cleric is very distinct from a Necromancer.

How that would shake out conceptually for Rangers I don't know, since Rangers are in a weird place conceptually right now, but my first guess is the idea would tie into a notion of harsh asceticism and an active push back against civilization rather than merely the preserving of nature.

---

Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com

"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs

I had an interesting conversation the other day about what could be, I guess, considered 'dark' Rangers.

It was interesting.

-Raesh

"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things

>>Dark and anti are different concepts. A dark Paladin is distinct from a fallen Paladin. A dark Cleric is very distinct from a Necromancer.

Yeah, I'll second this. The issue with dark isn't that they are the antithesis of the Guild, but rather a grungier, less stereotypical/cliche representation of the Guild. So Dark Paladins aren't cowardly but instead embrace a "Do whatever is necessary, and suffer the consequences."

For Rangers, I really do see the analogy to an Empath who is an evil warlord, still limited by their empathy directly but not indirectly, or the dark Paladin who's willing to murder in the pursuit of justice, but will then turn herself over to the authorities and suffer the consequences.

>>Even that is a bit of a stretch though I think, cause while rangers have an affinity towards nature related abilities, its not like they get penalized for killing critters/chopping trees/etc for profit.

Yeah, Rangers clearly aren't being held responsible for hunting or chopping down trees. The average Ranger does enough of that already.

>>I had an interesting conversation the other day about what could be, I guess, considered 'dark' Rangers.

>>It was interesting.

I'm snowbound in DC and spent the day re-reading some of the Craft series. Made me want to brainstorm fantasy novels that have Ranger archetypes in them, outside of Tolkien and the knockoffs.

Any class can play a "dark" character. Its just the act of taking the tools available to you and using them in evil ways. A cleric wouldn't need to be necro'ish to play a dark cleric, hell they have one of the easiest time's playing a dark character because all the Immortals have dark aspects. The dark aspects of the Immortals are just as or more evil than necromancers in a lot of ways. The only reasons necro's get the bad rap is because the gods don't enjoy what their work entails.