What Makes a Ranger Class a True Ranger Class?

Regarding Fantasy Character Classes, is the most important quality for being considered a Forest Ranger being The Archer or being a Nature Hero?

That is to say, if a character's skills related mostly to hunting, tracking, trapping, wilderness survival, and communicating with animals and nature spirits, but he specialized in melee weapons (such as staffs, stabbing spears, and clubs), carried a shield, and/or fought using unarmed martial arts, could he still be considered a ranger or simply a wilderness-themed type of fighter (similar to a barbarian)? However, if the character were completely urbanized and was born, raised, and operated in cities, and was a skilled archer (like many archery themed superheroes such as Green Arrow and Hawkeye) but didn't necessarily have any other wilderness related skills, would he qualify more so as a ranger or instead a variation of a rogue?

I'm just curious to know what you think is the most essential quality to considering a character as a ranger as opposed to another class like warrior or rogue?

edited 1st May '12 9:07:32 PM by Otakuma

Nature hero. Aragorn is the trope codifier and he's a sword user; the D&D ranger can follow either an archery track or a two-weapon fighting track. Green Arrow etc fall much more into the rogue archetype.

That also.

edited 1st May '12 11:44:27 PM by jewelleddragon

Agreed with jewelleddragon. Of course, outside the context of a game which uses character classes in its mechanics, or a comedic work using the conventions of such for humor, one should really avoid thinking about character classes in fiction except as stock archetypes to be aware of (and in many cases avoid the full stereotype of).

edited 1st May '12 11:19:35 PM by Morven

For the most part I agree with these guys, but there are a couple things I'd like to add. I think the dividing line between a ranger and a barbarian can actually get a little fuzzy at times. Both of them spend a good deal of time in the wilderness, and both should be able to handle themselves in a fight. The reason a ranger is usually depicted wielding a bow and arrow is because bows and arrows were frequently used for hunting, one of the most important skills for a ranger. However, melee weapons are equally valid as a weapon choice.

A large distinction between a ranger and a barbarian is their attitude. A barbarian is, well, barbaric. They embrace the brutality of the wilderness, face it head-on, and bring it with them whenever they come into the civilized world. A ranger, on the other hand, is much more level-headed. They are calm, collected, and calculating, because hunting and tracking require a good deal of patience and caution. Barbarians are usually tougher and more combat-oriented than rangers. Barbarians are The Big Guy, rangers are The Smart Guy.

However, rangers do not always hang out in the wild. There is a less widespread archetype of the urban ranger, who basically takes the skillset and mindset of the ranger and applies it to the urban jungle. They can navigate it, hide in it, and track any prey they set their sights on. In this way they are very similar to a rogue, but there are differences. A rogue usually is not as tough as a ranger and usually has the social skills to act as a Guile Hero. Rogues also have a different attitude in that they're more the mischief-loving trickster archetype, though this isn't always the case. Rogues rarely use bows, but it's not unheard of. They usually prefer swords or knives.

edited 6th May '12 9:06:39 PM by jagillette

I think that I largely agree with the above (in particular that a ranger is defined by habits and skills rather than choice of weapon), save for my on distinction between barbarians and rangers:

To me, a barbarian is, if anything, more socially-inclined than a ranger. Rangers, as I tend to see them, are often loners, either dwelling apart in the woods - whether by themselves or in small groups, such as Robin Hood's "Merry Men" - or similarly in urban situations. They are separate from the rest of humanity.

"Barbarians", on the other hand, I see as references to "less civilised" societies - that is, societies that either lack or de-emphasise elements that are often seen as "civilised": they are tribal, rather than national, nomads rather than city-dwellers, or are simply more inclined to direct violence, whether amongst their own (killing superiors in order to gain their stations) or in warfare (bellicose and inclined to direct, "charge-at-the-enemy-axes swinging" tactics), for example.

In terms of combat, I imagine a ranger as more likely to be a skilled fighter, and a barbarian as relying primarily on main strength, although to me this is more a likely element of such a character rather than a defining one.

Actually, in at least one version of the Robin Hood story the Band of Merry Men eventually includes around 200 members. Which is not to say that they were all of the ranger archetype; they had archers, swordsmen, boxers, and wrestlers (Friar Tuck was an accomplished boxer, Little John was a good swordsman).

I didn't realise that - although, as you point out, not all of those were rangers.

Indeed, depending on the characters and context, I imagine that they might have ceased to be rangers as their group grew (having been so initially only as a result of their situation), might simply speciate their roles (as you suggested) or the ranger "core" might even find themselves growing increasingly uncomfortable with the changes in their community (which might make for an interesting story, come to that).

Hmm... All of that said, you may be correct in suggesting (if I understand you correctly) that a ranger can fit in with a larger group - although I think that I'd imagine them as being nevertheless at least somewhat apart from any such group, perhaps in a little "conclave" just outside, called in when called for, or even simply apart in how they interact with their fellow residents.

Yeah, pretty much.