\documentstyle[twocolumn]{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-1in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\begin{document}
\setcounter{page}{76}
\parindent=20pt

\title{Rangers in AD\&D}
\author{\copyright 1990 Wayne S. Wallace}
\date{Ranger Extraordinaire}
\maketitle

{\it
{\noindent \Large T}his article was written as a response to the way certain
folks (who shalt remain unnamed :-) tend to play rangers. Follow-ups
are, of course, welcome.\\}

{\noindent \Large T}he Ranger is a woodsman by nature, a stealthy scout by
training, and a warrior by circumstance. All rangers are in touch with
nature, with plants and with animals. Yet, they are protectors of {\em good}.

	The problems some people have in playing a Paladin are usually
irrelevant when applied to a Ranger; after all, Rangers don't have some
big, limiting code of honor like Paladins, right? {\em Wrong!!} A Ranger
is, yes, a survivalist. He knows how to live off the land and find
shelter in bad weather and other things which make one's trip through
a forest less harrowing. He is not, however, a survivalist in the sense
of putting his own life before others. As a {\em good} person, he goes by that
basic code of honor that all {\em good} characters go by: to help others, to
sacrifice, though not foolishly, most anything to save an innocent or
good life, and to attempt to one's best ability to fix past mistakes.

	Mortals are not perfect, however, and do make mistakes. However,
for those mortals who have lived and/or adventured a long time (in
gamespeak, quite a few levels gained and foes dealt with), these
mistakes should be fewer, if not near-nonexistent.

	{\bf Scenario one:} The party, with an average level of ten,
foolishly draws attention to itself in a dormant volcano with a
fresh-water lake and tower (w/ drawbridge). They knew that they
were in dangerous territory where something lurked that had killed
a powerful group of the king's elite warriors. Not giving a care to
the cave they hadn't entered yet, they proceeded to make much noise
and ruckus. Little did they know that the Red Dragon who had killed
the elite warriors had heard the party and while they were still looking
around and had flown out of it's lair to strafe them. Breathing
fire once, it alerted them to its presence and returned to its lair.
Most of the party yet lived, and all decided to go through the cave and
slay the dragon. They healed themselves somewhat and proceeded to beard
the beast. All, that is, except the Ranger. After ten levels of fighting
the good fight, he chose to take off, taking his valuable fighting
ability away from the party's potential.

	{\bf Scenario two:} The party, with an average level of one, is
currently enjoying the hospitality of a
halfling farmer. {\em (NOTE: no class limitations were in place in this
campaign)} The druid/monk, a rather attractive female figure, awakens the
party in the barn with the words: ``Let's go kill that stupid farmer. I
want his money." {\em (Unbeknownst to the party, she was pissed off that he
didn't fall for her human charms and also had undergone enough stress to
bring her evil Illusionist/Assassin personality to the fore.)} The party
blinked as one and the Ranger stood before her, sword drawn, but not
in a threatening manner, and asked of her if she truly understood what she
was saying. He also told her that murder is wrong. She proceeded to {\em Color
Spray} (blind) him. He had lost his most important sight. He could not track
or battle very effectively while blind. He used his magic ring to see
through the eyes of his falcon circling above and proceeded to attack her.
He hit, and she was down and bleeding. The elf came over to bandage her
wounds and stabilize her so that, to his mind, she could be taken to a
city and checked for possession by evil spirits, insanity, etc. The
ranger, his sight now regained, was furious, and as the elf sat over her,
making sure she would live, the Ranger came over, sword brandished, and
tried to attack her with intent to kill. Had the weaker elf not gained
leverage over the Ranger's far greater strength, surely he would have
committed murder. Eventually seeing the futility of trying to remove
this {\em obvious} source of {\em evil} while the rest of the party was against
him, the Ranger sheathed his sword and sat down for a while and became calm again.

	Now, in which of those two situations did the Ranger's alignment
{\em(Good)} breach cause him to later lose the status of Ranger? Exactly
what is forgivable? In the first scenario, the Ranger deserted his near
life-long friends with whom he had adventured for many years, and left
without even a thought of remorse or caring for them. He had abandoned the
ideals of {\em good} to save his own skin, instead of helping them. If they had
survived with the Ranger, much {\em good} would have been accomplished. If they had
all died, {\em all of them: including the Ranger}, each would be assured a place
in their respective heavens because of past deeds.

	In the second scenario, the Ranger was new and inexperienced, so his
lapse in judgement is understandable. Mortals make mistakes when angered and
the Ranger learned from his mistake and went on to help the party win the
rest of their battles.

	Clearly, the dividing line between an honest mistake (while angered)
and willful evil (leaving your friends possibly to a gruesome death when
perhaps you could have helped them) is quite fine indeed. Here are some
tips on correctly playing the ranger as he is: a {\em good} woodsman, not a
{\em cowardly} survivalist. A {\em true} Ranger helps the helpless, is charitable to
those who have not, is loyal to his friends, never deserting them in their
hour of need no matter how bleak the outcome looks. A {\em false} Ranger ignores
those who are in need, never helps someone unless it benefits him, and
values his own life above all others, especially in a might-as-well-be
no-win situation, trading them away to make good his escape.


\end{document}

