Chaotic Evil Rangers: any "precedent"?

[Freelance Henchman]

So there's Belkar in OOTS, and another is Bishop in Neverwinter Nights 2. That's just two I know of. I was wondering if there's some sort of in-joke here I'm not picking up on (other than the contrast to Drizzt and other goody-two-shoes types). Does anyone know other cases of evil rangers?

[Alex Kidd]

Not too sure about chaotic(though I suppose random murder for no reason is inherently chaotic) but there's certainly evil here (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=040713).

[Freelance Henchman]

Not too sure about chaotic(though I suppose random murder for no reason is inherently chaotic) but there's certainly evil here (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=040713).

Thanks, I didnt know that comic. Looks funny.

[BenjCano]

Don't forget Captain Goblinslayer. (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20060430.html)

[TreesOfDeath]

The early episodes are much much better imo, it really goes down hill froma bout 300

[Deuce]

I think some of it is just a jab at the fact that until 3.0, Rangers had to be good only. You could actually lose your Ranger abilities if you shifted to Neutral or Evil. I can understand how that would work for spells - but it was kind of silly that an alignment shift would cause you to forget how to track. It was also a bit silly that Druids who were the "nature oriented" casting class had to be Neutral (and True Neutral at that) while Rangers, who were the "nature oriented" fighting class could not be Neutral. To wrap it up, you couldn't have bad guys who were good at stealth and fighting without going multi-class (for non-humans) or dual class (for humans, and a real pain).

[Freelance Henchman]

I think some of it is just a jab at the fact that until 3.0, Rangers had to be good only.

OK, that is silly. The guy in that Goblins comic seems quite legitimate to me, i.e. I can see how an evil guy could be a defender of nature at the same time.

Hm, did Belkar ever show any particular interest in nature as such, rather than a source of victims or an environment to hide in/strike from?

[Kreistor]

Hm, did Belkar ever show any particular interest in nature as such, rather than a source of victims or an environment to hide in/strike from?

Heck, no. Belkar is the "hunter" style ranger not the "tree hugger" style. His chosen prey seems to be humans and his environment tends to be urban.

[RobbyPants]

I think some of it is just a jab at the fact that until 3.0, Rangers had to be good only. You could actually lose your Ranger abilities if you shifted to Neutral or Evil. I can understand how that would work for spells - but it was kind of silly that an alignment shift would cause you to forget how to track. It was also a bit silly that Druids who were the "nature oriented" casting class had to be Neutral (and True Neutral at that) while Rangers, who were the "nature oriented" fighting class could not be Neutral. To wrap it up, you couldn't have bad guys who were good at stealth and fighting without going multi-class (for non-humans) or dual class (for humans, and a real pain).
Yeah, my favorite thing about the whole good-only-ranger and neutral-only-druid was that half elves allowed for a druid/ranger multiclassing:smalltongue:

...Back on topic, I think you're right in that up until about 2,000, strict RAW D&D didn't allow for evil rangers.

[Twilight Jack]

I think some of it is just a jab at the fact that until 3.0, Rangers had to be good only. You could actually lose your Ranger abilities if you shifted to Neutral or Evil. I can understand how that would work for spells - but it was kind of silly that an alignment shift would cause you to forget how to track. It was also a bit silly that Druids who were the "nature oriented" casting class had to be Neutral (and True Neutral at that) while Rangers, who were the "nature oriented" fighting class could not be Neutral. To wrap it up, you couldn't have bad guys who were good at stealth and fighting without going multi-class (for non-humans) or dual class (for humans, and a real pain).

This was very much a nod to Aragorn and Tolkein's version of Rangers in OD&D, I believe. Lord of the Rings definitely brings across an idea that Rangers are always good guys.

[TroyXavier]

There's always Malar from the Forgotten Realms Pantheon..the only evil Ranger in 2nd ed that I can recall (since Rangers were supposed to be good)

[Jaysyn]

Yeah, my favorite thing about the whole good-only-ranger and neutral-only-druid was that half elves allowed for a druid/ranger multiclassing:smalltongue:

...Back on topic, I think you're right in that up until about 2,000, strict RAW D&D didn't allow for evil rangers.



Dark Sun: Evil rangers since 1982!

[Jaysyn]

So there's Belkar in OOTS, and another is Bishop in Neverwinter Nights 2. That's just two I know of. I was wondering if there's some sort of in-joke here I'm not picking up on (other than the contrast to Drizzt and other goody-two-shoes types). Does anyone know other cases of evil rangers?

Also, I remember at least one evil ranger in either Baldur's Gate or BGII.

[SurlySeraph]

^ No, Baldur's Gate is from back when Rangers had to be good. You might be thinking Valygar, who feels strong hatred towards pretty much everything but is officially Neutral Good, or Minsc, who is Chaotic Good but completely insane.

[Jaysyn]

^ No, Baldur's Gate is from back when Rangers had to be good. You might be thinking Valygar, who feels strong hatred towards pretty much everything but is officially Neutral Good, or Minsc, who is Chaotic Good but completely insane.

Ok, not a player NPC it was a "DM" NPC & he was training Wyverns (& feeding them on travelers that passed by). Seemed like he was hanging out with Dark Druids

As for the ranger, I may be thinking of one of the custom mods for BG.

[Deuce]

Ok, not a player NPC it was a "DM" NPC & he was training Wyverns (& feeding them on travelers that passed by). Seemed like he was hanging out with Dark Druids

As for the ranger, I may be thinking of one of the custom mods for BG.


BG 1, he was in the forrest where all the spiders were - don't really recall him being a Ranger though. BG 1 and 2 also made use of the Shadow Druids, a strongly evil-leaning batch of Druids with a rather radical way of dealing with human encroachment into the wilds.

[Droodle]

Ok, not a player NPC it was a "DM" NPC & he was training Wyverns (& feeding them on travelers that passed by). Seemed like he was hanging out with Dark Druids

As for the ranger, I may be thinking of one of the custom mods for BG.That guy was in BG1. Illasera in ToB was a Ranger with the Archer Kit (and, yes, she was evil).

[Orzel]

CE rangers is part of the idea of the "racist warrior". The ranger who hunts down and kills down his favored enemies like a maniac. "OMG An Elf. I hate elves. KILLKILLKILL!"

More than 50% of the "Xs killed my parents/kissed my sister/destroyed my town, I hate Xs" backrounds in 2.0 were rangers. In 3.0 the percentage grew since your ranger could be evil and could hate entire races for wackier reasons. In 3.0 the Belkar style rangers "I LOVE CAUSING PAIN" grew more according to my experience. Rangers deal damage, hunt down people, and see things. They are prefect for insane racists, traumatized children, and crazy loners.

[Freelance Henchman]

In 3.0 the percentage grew since your ranger could be evil and could hate entire races for wackier reasons. In 3.0 the Belkar style rangers "I LOVE CAUSING PAIN" grew more according to my experience. Rangers deal damage, hunt down people, and see things. They are prefect for insane racists, traumatized children, and crazy loners.

I LOL'd :smallsmile:

Thats a far cry from Aragorn for sure.

[EvilJames]

The Planescape campaign setting had a CN ranger. A human woman named Pentar, she was the leader of the Doomguard. It never said what her favored enemy was, but it strongly implyed modrons.

[Gavin Sage]

This was very much a nod to Aragorn and Tolkein's version of Rangers in OD&D, I believe. Lord of the Rings definitely brings across an idea that Rangers are always good guys.

Aye but Tolkien's rangers were more of a clan then an occupation. And not really very tree-hugging....

[Twilight Jack]

Aye but Tolkien's rangers were more of a clan then an occupation. And not really very tree-hugging....

Very true, but it's still the most likely source for the original idea-seed of the class.

Wizards in Tolkein were an entirely seperate, angelic race after all.

[Duke Malagigi]

Very true, but it's still the most likely source for the original idea-seed of the class.

The Middle Earth rangers along with the post-Clovis Merovingian monarchs. In fact Charlemagne inherited much of the mystical Merovingian trappings after they ceded power to him.

[see]

Yeah, Drizzt was created back in the 1e Unearthed Arcana days, remember. Back then, rangers had to be good, and nobody but drow could fight with two weapons.

(In 1e, straight PHB, clerics could be any alignment except true neutral, druids had to be true neutral, fighters could be any alignment, paladins had to be LG, rangers had to be good, magic-users could be any alignment, thieves could not be LG or CG, monks had to be lawful, and bards could be any partly-neutral alignment.)

(In 1e, Unearthed Arcana, clerics could now be true neutral, while thieves could no longer be any type of good, at least by a literal reading of the table. The new barbarian class could be any non-lawful alignment. In 2e, the thief could now be NG or CG, but still could not be LG. In the Complete Druid's Handbook, David Pulver introduced the Shadow Circle, druids who were still true neutral, but had decided the balance of nature needed less civilization and more primitive tribes -- even if the tribes were orcs and goblins.)

(Finally, 3e rolled around, and bards got move to any non-lawful, druids expanded by four alignments to any part-neutral, rangers gained six as it was decided they could be any alignment, and thieves were renamed rouges and finally could be LG.)

[Raeden]

Don't forget Captain Goblinslayer. (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20060430.html)

Arguably, Goblinslayer is good. He, and his guards, register to Big Ears as being evil because Goblins are considered monsters, so the whole good evil thing is turned around for them.
Example: Core the Paladin is LG, he has to be. But he killed Hawl and hunts the Goblin tribe. He would surely register as evil to Ears, as from the viewpoint of the Goblins, he is. Nevertheless, he is Good or he wouldn't be a paladin.
Also, it's not a precedent, because, you know, OotS was there long before Goblins.

Also, I don't know if this counts, but every series of the Power Rangers (yes, all freaking 80-something), had at least one episode with them fighting their evil clones. They could be named "evil rangers". Some of them even were chaotic as they listened not so well to the archvillain that created them.

[Shadow of the Sun]

You are confusing Goblinslayer with Kore.

[BenjCano]

Arguably, Goblinslayer is good. He, and his guards, register to Big Ears as being evil because Goblins are considered monsters, so the whole good evil thing is turned around for them.
Example: Core the Paladin is LG, he has to be. But he killed Hawl and hunts the Goblin tribe. He would surely register as evil to Ears, as from the viewpoint of the Goblins, he is. Nevertheless, he is Good or he wouldn't be a paladin.


Not how it works. Under the D&D system, the backbone by which the laws of magic operate under both the Order of the Stick world and the Goblins world, evil is an objective, quantifiable force that does not depend on the observer to assign it value. Captain Goblinslayer is evil no matter what the species of the paladin that examines him, be it a human, goblin, or celestial.

Similarly, Kore does not "have" to be Lawful Good - it's hard to argue the case that he is, based on his behaviour. Lest this conversation get pulled, let's just leave it at "more going on with him than we're aware of at this time," and get back to the subject of other Chaotic Evil Rangers.

[Kkreuzritter]

i've not really gamed enough to know any actual characters, but the bad guy equivalent tends towards "Amoral bounty-hunter".

closest example of a CE ranger i can think of isn't from D&D, though

[Alex Kidd]

Well the amoral bounty hunter(though depending on the circumstances said bounty hunter could be TN, assuming he/she doesn't have a big temper or a penchant for excessive violence) or the relentless stalking murderer or the hunting relentless xenophobe both work really.

Hell anyone see O Brother Where Art Thou? The sheriff/devil in that could be a good LE ranger, the relentless and remorseless evil lawman tracking his quarry throughout the country.

[Renx]

The Planescape campaign setting had a CN ranger. A human woman named Pentar, she was the leader of the Doomguard. It never said what her favored enemy was, but it strongly implyed modrons.

I read that as 'morons'. Wouldn't that be cool, if you could select morons as your favoured enemy...

[ShiningTed]

Unfortunately, it'd never stand up in court: "Darwinian Altruism" is not a recognised legal position. "But your Honour, they were morons - I acted for the good of humanity, your Honour...!"

Thats a far cry from Aragorn for sure.O please - the man hunted Sauron's servants (usually Orcs) for decades, and for what? Not even a good racial emnity or "didn't you kill my brother" excuse: it was all to become King so he could get his grubby hands on Arwen! NE if I ever saw it...

As for CE Rangers, Hickory Branch has a few half-Orcish ones. Although they might be LE...

[SurlySeraph]

Aragorn was doing it all for the greater good! That's just Orcish propaganda! Hell, Arwen was just a political marriage of convenience - in truth, Aragorn's first favored enemy was Whiny Elves (which were the second subrace to come out).

[Gaelbert]

I read that as 'morons'. Wouldn't that be cool, if you could select morons as your favoured enemy...

And if you could combine that with Miko's ability to jump to conclusions (can't quite remember which strip that was in), you could have favored enemy bonus against everyone, just as Belkar would want!

[Woof]

I read that as 'morons'. Wouldn't that be cool, if you could select morons as your favoured enemy...

I'd certainly want that in real life :smallbiggrin:.