Elven Rangers

[Caleb Chitwood]

In the novel "Greatheart" which deals w/ the elves of the Seilwode, the
issue of elven atheism in the face of direct proof of divinity is addressed.
The general idea is that the strength of the humans beliefs in one
particular god is strong enough to create the power to grant spells. In
other words, the gods exist because the humans believe they exist. (At
least, this is how I read it, if anyone else sees differently, I'd love to
hear an alternate explanation) Anyway, perhaps elves use some of the same
reasoning to explain how the rangers acquire spells. Maybe they believe
that as one becomes more in tune w/ nature, one can begin to influence it in
supernatural ways, and the strenth of that belief grants the spells.
Considering the sometimes egotistical nature of elves, they might believe
that the desire of all elven nations for the forest to be protected
manifests itself as the spell abilities of the rangers which are its eternal
guardians. Just a few ideas.. maybe they'll be a springboard for a more
satisfactory solution.

Caleb

[Gary V. Foss]

Caleb Chitwood wrote:

> In the novel "Greatheart" which deals w/ the elves of the Seilwode, the
> issue of elven atheism in the face of direct proof of divinity is addressed.
> The general idea is that the strength of the humans beliefs in one
> particular god is strong enough to create the power to grant spells. In
> other words, the gods exist because the humans believe they exist. (At
> least, this is how I read it, if anyone else sees differently, I'd love to
> hear an alternate explanation) Anyway, perhaps elves use some of the same
> reasoning to explain how the rangers acquire spells. Maybe they believe
> that as one becomes more in tune w/ nature, one can begin to influence it in
> supernatural ways, and the strenth of that belief grants the spells.
> Considering the sometimes egotistical nature of elves, they might believe
> that the desire of all elven nations for the forest to be protected
> manifests itself as the spell abilities of the rangers which are its eternal
> guardians. Just a few ideas.. maybe they'll be a springboard for a more
> satisfactory solution.

I remember reading somewhere in the dusty past that priestly spells (I believe
they were called clerical back then which might give you some idea how dated
this is) of up to 4th level were gained in a process kind of like that of
mages. That is, reflection and study, quiet meditation, etc. Their acquisition
was not directly related to their faith except as a focus for the aforementioned
reflection. It wasn't until 5th level spells come along that a direct
connection to the cleric's god got involved, and at that level spells were
granted through some intermediary force. The same for 6th level spells, but
with a more powerful intermediary. Only 7th level spells were granted directly
from the god being worshiped.

My memory of this is fairly sketchy and I can't even recall where I read it, so
take it with a grain of salt, but if it is correct (or if you just like the
interpretation) then ranger (and paladin) spells need not be the result of
something divine. Rather they can just be the result of the character's own
will/belief.

If a god should die, or there should be some sort of separation of the god from
the worshipper, this could still work. The character's focus is gone, therefore
he cannot acquire new spells even if these new spells would not have been
granted by the deity Himself or his intermediaries.

In the case of rangers, their focus could be on the ubiquitous and mystical
forces of nature. As such, they gain a limited number of spells in a limited
range of spheres. If something should come between the forces of nature and the
ranger it would likely be something drastic enough to effect the character's
class, turning him into a standard fighter, right?

- -Gary

[Caleb Chitwood]

Not neccessarily, I wouldn't think. Most definately it would warrant the
loss of all spell-casting abilities and perhaps animal empathy as well as
being a cause for great concern on the part of the ranger. But other ranger
abilities would not suffer, such as tracking and move silently/hide in
shadows, as they do not rely on any mystical force but rather knowledge and
skill on the part of the ranger.

[The Olesens]

Caleb Chitwood wrote:
>
> In the novel "Greatheart" which deals w/ the elves of the Seilwode, the
> issue of elven atheism in the face of direct proof of divinity is addressed.
> The general idea is that the strength of the humans beliefs in one
> particular god is strong enough to create the power to grant spells. In
> other words, the gods exist because the humans believe they exist.

THe priests hanbook explains this through Philosophies (a type of spell
granter, head of a religion). The idea gathers so much support (hey,
like RP!!! and regency!!) that it is able to grant spells (and punish
its priest, if they are bad)

[Sepsis]

At 07:58 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Caleb Chitwood(calebc@vol.com)wrote:
>
>In the novel "Greatheart" which deals w/ the elves of the Seilwode, the
>issue of elven atheism in the face of direct proof of divinity is addressed.
>The general idea is that the strength of the humans beliefs in one
>particular god is strong enough to create the power to grant spells. In
>other words, the gods exist because the humans believe they exist. (At
>least, this is how I read it, if anyone else sees differently, I'd love to
>hear an alternate explanation) Anyway, perhaps elves use some of the same
>reasoning to explain how the rangers acquire spells. Maybe they believe
>that as one becomes more in tune w/ nature, one can begin to influence it in
>supernatural ways, and the strenth of that belief grants the spells.
>Considering the sometimes egotistical nature of elves, they might believe
>that the desire of all elven nations for the forest to be protected
>manifests itself as the spell abilities of the rangers which are its eternal
>guardians. Just a few ideas.. maybe they'll be a springboard for a more
>satisfactory solution.
>

It was with this reasoning, and the need for some form of socially relevant
representation of this "faith" in nature, that I introduced a form of Elven
Druid...although in reflection I should of used Shaman (from the Shaman's
Handbook) instead. Just more food for thought.


Sepsis, rtifft@usa.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6396/birth.html

[Mr.Froggatt]

Just a thought that occured to me (I don't know whether anyone's talked about it before) - Cerillian elves can't get their heads around priestly magic, so they can't be priests.... but can they cast priest spells as rangers? surely not, but everyone loves an elven ranger right? to replace them with arcane spells seems a little over powerful. What do people think?

[Don E]

My answer would be to say that rangers don't use priestly magic, but instead something that comes from nature.

Personally I like the division of magic into three distinct types as opposed to the trditional two. The additional one being Primordial magic, which comes from the reverence of nature, and is used by druids and rangers. Some people think this is the same as the magic force utilised by wizards and sorcerers, but I think of it more as coming from what is alive in the nature and can be accesed by tuning oneself to that.

On a domain level I would have druids use sources instead of temples. This gives the druids a incentive to preserve nature, and to put them in opposition to the regular priests of nature gods.

This might bring up the question on wheter to allow elves to be druids or not. Personally I think all races should be allowed to have druids as a remenant of their ancient beliefs that was much more common before the spread of civilization. I think goblin druids are a good source of intrigue a plot lines if one are looking for a non-human centred setting.

Cheers,
Don E

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Mr.Froggatt@Dec 15 2003, 11:43 AM
Just a thought that occured to me (I don't know whether anyone's talked about it before) - Cerillian elves can't get their heads around priestly magic, so they can't be priests.... but can they cast priest spells as rangers? surely not, but everyone loves an elven ranger right? to replace them with arcane spells seems a little over powerful. What do people think?
Using the distinction made in 3/3.5 ed rangers cast divine spells. This doesn't make them deity inspired/supplied but only a 'type' of magic, all magic is either arcane or divine per 3/3.5 - makes things simplier IMO.

If you really wanted to 'avoid' the spell issue then use one of the options out there for non-spell casting rangers. Monte Cook had one published a long time ago and WotC put an example of one in the Complete Warrior book, there is also an example of a non-spell casting paladin there for those whomight be interested in one for paladins of Cuirecean.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Dec 15 2003, 12:11 PM
This might bring up the question on wheter to allow elves to be druids or not. Personally I think all races should be allowed to have druids as a remenant of their ancient beliefs that was much more common before the spread of civilization. I think goblin druids are a good source of intrigue a plot lines if one are looking for a non-human centred setting.

Cheers,
Don E
You could do that, but the 2nd ed Birthright made it very specific that there were no druids (per the class in the PHB) and that all druid-like priests were priest of Erik. This is something that is very significant and helps to explain why elves only had minor divine magic (that from being a ranger) instead of that of a druid (which is pretty substantial). If elves had access to all of that druidic magic then they would surely have defeated the humans a long time ago. I mean the elves already had access to greater magic (arcane) and humans didn't until after Deismaar. So if elves had both greater arcane magic and drudic magic then they would surely have run the humans off the continent.

And why would goblins ever be druids? It doesn't make sense to me. Even the 'civilized' Cerilian goblins have no greater affinity for nature than their non-Cerilian counterparts. Again we would be back to the all druids are priests of Erik which would pretty much eliminate the average goblin from ever becoming a druid. Although if a goblin left his 'homeland' and become more human-like (for example say in Mhorhied) then I would see no reason he couldn't start to worship the human pantheon and potentially acquire the druid-like features of priests of Erik or be a priest of any of the other gods.

[Green Knight]

I think you are missing the point or rather limiting yourself to 2E

canon.



Don E suggests that there are three different sources of magic - that

druidic magic is in fact not divine in origin, but rather originates

somewhere else.



In the following, one would have to presume that druids of Aeric do not

necessarily draw their power solely from their god, but rather from

nature (perhaps the druids actually revere Aeric, but draw their power

from nature). This certainly does imply that there might exist clerics

of Aeric as well.



In all of the above is there a radical departure from the 2E druid in

BR. For instance, since druidic magic is primordial, not divine, it does

not violate the "elves do not have gods or divine magic aspect".

Likewise, goblins may be druids, not because druids are nature-loving

priests of a human god, but because druids represent an older (more

primordial) way of religious belief. It might even mean that in the

distant past, there were no clerics, but that the various priesthoods

were manned solely by druids...



I find the concept intriguing.



Cheers

Bjørn



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of irdeggman

Sent: 15. desember 2003 19:27

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Elven Rangers [2#2141]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141



irdeggman wrote:


This might bring up the question on

wheter to allow elves to be druids or not. Personally I think all races

should be allowed to have druids as a remenant of their ancient beliefs

that was much more common before the spread of civilization. I think

goblin druids are a good source of intrigue a plot lines if one are

looking for a non-human centred setting.



Cheers,

Don E

You could do that, but the 2nd ed Birthright made it very specific that

there were no druids (per the class in the PHB) and that all druid-like

priests were priest of Erik. This is something that is very significant

and helps to explain why elves only had minor divine magic (that from

being a ranger) instead of that of a druid (which is pretty

substantial). If elves had access to all of that druidic magic then

they would surely have defeated the humans a long time ago. I mean the

elves already had access to greater magic (arcane) and humans didn`t

until after Deismaar. So if elves had both greater arcane magic and

drudic magic then they would surely have run the humans off the

continent.



And why would goblins ever be druids? It doesn`t make sense to me.

Even the `civilized` Cerilian goblins have no greater affinity for

nature than their non-Cerilian counterparts. Again we would be back to

the all druids are priests of Erik which would pretty much eliminate the

average goblin from ever becoming a druid. Although if a goblin left

his `homeland` and become more human-like (for example say in Mhorhied)

then I would see no reason he couldn`t start to worship the human

pantheon and potentially acquire the druid-like features of priests of

Erik or be a priest of any of the other gods.



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[Sir Justine]

Hi,

In relation with this question (do elves should have druidic/ranger magic) I completely agree with Don E and the Green Knight.
In fact, IMC I make the priests of Erik clerics with nature-related domains and I reserve druids for elves and some other races.
That is because the 3rd edition "druid" is very different from the 2nd edition. In the original Birthright, the druid was a priest of a specific deity (Erik in the case).
But in the 3rd edition, druids are no longer priests: druids cast divine spells in the same way clerics do, though they get their spells from the power of nature rather than from the deities... (or something like that)
So you can say that Cerilian elves have druids and they still don't have gods, which is the original Birthright idea!

This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine (this isnt' the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to the humans? Actually, I don't think this is a problem, as one can justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they didn't had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.

---

Back to the rangers, I personally don't like rangers with spells. To me a ranger is a stalker, hunter, scout, whatever. I really don't like D&D idea that almost everyone should have spells. In short, my opinion to the ranger case is: use a variation without spells...

[Green Knight]

I agree with Justine on the ranger part as well. I generally reserve the

ranger class for elves, half-elves, and some humans who have a special

connection with nature (for some reason or the other). The remaining

wilderness-oriented fighter types get to use the non-magical scout class

(or whatever you prefer).



Cheers

Bjørn



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Sir Justine

Sent: 16. desember 2003 00:25

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: Elven Rangers [2#2141]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141



Sir Justine wrote:

Hi,



In relation with this question (do elves should have druidic/ranger

magic) I completely agree with Don E and the Green Knight.

In fact, IMC I make the priests of Erik clerics with nature-related

domains and I reserve druids for elves and some other races.

That is because the 3rd edition "druid" is very different

from the 2nd edition. In the original Birthright, the druid was a priest

of a specific deity (Erik in the case).

But in the 3rd edition, druids are no longer priests: druids cast

divine spells in the same way clerics do, though they get their spells

from the power of nature rather than from the deities... (or something

like that)

So you can say that Cerilian elves have druids and they still don`t

have gods, which is the original Birthright idea!



This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine

(this isnt` the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to

the humans? Actually, I don`t think this is a problem, as one can

justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they

didn`t had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would

have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS

of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.



---



Back to the rangers, I personally don`t like rangers with spells. To me

a ranger is a stalker, hunter, scout, whatever. I really don`t like

D&D idea that almost everyone should have spells. In short, my

opinion to the ranger case is: use a variation without spells...



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Dec 15 2003, 02:43 PM
I think you are missing the point or rather limiting yourself to 2E

canon.


Actually I'm trying to stay within the setting definitions. There was a long list of posts concerning what was flavor and what was setting definition material.

In 2nd ed druids were a separate class just like paladins were. There were under the broad category of priest as paladins were under the broad category of warrior but they were still different classes. In Birthright the setting defined a difference between the core druid and the Birthright druid, the fact that Birthright druids were priests of Erik.

In 3rd ed all spells are categorized as either divine or arcane for mechanics purposes. For one divine spells don't suffer arcane spell failure chances and other factors could come into play like some sort of special spell resistance (I haven't seen any examples of this yet, but the possibility does exist) also prerequisites for prestige classes.

Birthright campaign setting definition material (that material which set it apart from the core rules) included (not an all-inclusive list):

Elves don't worship gods and hence can't be clerics (they could in the core rules)

There was greater and lesser magic (arcane) and in order to cast greater magic a character had to be of elven blood or be a scion. (There was no distinction in the core rules and humans could cast greater magic).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Dec 15 2003, 07:15 PM
This has but a single problem, as irdggman pointed: if they had divine

(this isnt` the correct term...) magic, why the elves lost the war to

the humans? Actually, I don`t think this is a problem, as one can

justify that the elves lost because, while they had divine magic, they

didn`t had a CHURCH, and this could make a big difference - elves would

have half a dozen of diffused druids, while the humans would have LOTS

of organized clerics, which would be much more effective in a battle.


So elves were more organized as fighters than if theyhad any 'druids' amongst them. Doesn't make any sense. The elven racial affinity for individuallity doesn't quite make the transfer. One thing they have been known to come together for short times (short being a relative word for an immortal race) for the common good.

Before Deismaar there were no realm spells so the major effect of organized religion and temples doesn't really factor in to the equation.

[Don E]

Using the distinction made in 3/3.5 ed rangers cast divine spells. This doesn't make them deity inspired/supplied but only a 'type' of magic, all magic is either arcane or divine per 3/3.5 - makes things simplier IMO.

According to the 3ed definition divine spells are "Spells of religious origin powered by faith or by a deity." Based on this I think Mr. Foggart raise a very relevant topic on wheter this is appropiate for elven rangers. What is then simple for 'regular' DnD is something that causes trouble for the Birhtirght setting. Like so many other things there are different solutions, and different people will inevitably choose a wide range of solutions.


Actually I'm trying to stay within the setting definitions. There was a long list of posts concerning what was flavor and what was setting definition material.

That is exactly Green Knight's point. We all know what the original BR setting contained, but a lot of us prefer to change this around and add other bits to it. We are merely exchanging ideas and concepts that we know are outside the original BR setting, but which we think others might find useful.

Somebody has here pointed out a inconsistency arising from the setting definition material. Hence any solution to the problem will have to be outside the setting definition material.

The solution to the initial question I see as the one causing the least change/difficulty/confusion is saying that rangers (and similar classes/presitge classes) use primordial instead of divine magic. This wouldn't conflict with elves being barred from using divine magic and still allow for elven rangers. Druids can still be priests of Aeric (or something else if you prefer) and only be the province of humans. Personally I also like non-magic rangers, but that I think is a greater change to the rules and setting.

Cheers,
Don E

[Mr.Froggatt]

Wow! I sparked a debate! Cool, now I feel like fully accepted memeber of the Birthright Fansite!
Seriously, it's nice of you guys to gimmie feedback on that little question.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Dec 16 2003, 02:46 PM

According to the 3ed definition divine spells are "Spells of religious origin powered by faith or by a deity." Based on this I think Mr. Foggart raise a very relevant topic on wheter this is appropiate for elven rangers. What is then simple for 'regular' DnD is something that causes trouble for the Birhtirght setting. Like so many other things there are different solutions, and different people will inevitably choose a wide range of solutions.

Cheers,
Don E
Same definition in 3.5. But let's look at the classes (again using the 3.5 PHB - much better text overall than 3.0)

Druids: "She gains her magical powers from either the force of nature itself or from a nature deity."

Rangers: "Though a ranger gains divine spells from the power of nature, he like anyone else may worship a chosen deity."

Now using this amplifying text - there doesn't seem to be a real problem with matching the Birthright setting to 3.5 for this issue.

Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

Rangers as in the core rules gain their spells from the power of nature.

Cerilian elves can revere (and have faith in) nature and have such a tight affinity for it that as a ranger they gain the divine spells (if using a spell casting ranger that is).

Since druidic magic is granted by the worship of a nature deity in Cerilian, elves can not be druids (at least not normally - I would never rule out the exception, but the social backlash would be immense for the elf).

By revering (or having faith in) nature an elf is not giving up his individuality and 'serving' a deity, he is serving all of nature which doesn't really have the same worshipping feel to it.

The key here is the difference between 'faith' and 'worship'. Cerilian elves don't worship individual deities, they can have faith in nature.

[Don E]

Fair enough. We are basically agreeing, but I prefer to call the reverence of nature something different than divine magic as it is not based on a divine deity. It is all sematics,


Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

That is of course if you feel bound by the 'setting definition'. For the rest of us there are a plethora of options. If somebody can have faith in nature enough to have spells granted for this, why wouldn't there be any dedicated spiritual leaders aka priests? Or on the other hand, if the ranger's spells aren't from a deity, would a mere human be able to acheive that bond with nature?

Cheers,
Don E

[Don E]

Fair enough. We are basically agreeing, but I prefer to call the reverence of nature something different than divine magic as it is not based on a divine deity. It is all sematics,


Druids (in Birthright - gain their magical powers from a nature deity (i.e., Erik), no other option)

That is of course if you feel bound by the 'setting definition'. For the rest of us there are a plethora of options. If somebody can have faith in nature enough to have spells granted for this, why wouldn't there be any dedicated spiritual leaders aka priests? Or on the other hand, if the ranger's spells aren't from a deity, would a mere human be able to acheive that bond with nature?

Cheers,
Don E

[Green Knight]

Point is:



By all means, do present your own views of the issue, but don`t:



A) Overly quote published BR material or Core Rulebooks - we know what

the books say.

B) In any way try to stop an interesting thread by claiming it is

contrary to either the rules or the setting.



:-)



Cheers

Bjørn

[ecliptic]

Birthright Rangers should simply just have no magic. Do something similar to theComplete Warrior alternative ranger.

[destowe]

I am of the group that believes that if the elves had access to divine healing the initial war between humans and elves would have been with the elves winning.

Rangers have some healing, but it is at higher levels and of much less frequency than druids can provide.

With no arcane magic on the human side, and both able to heal the wounded quickly due to divine magic, only the rapid reproduction of humans would have let them win.

The cost would have been astronomical, but with no place for the humans to go wave attacks might have been possible.

Under 2nd edition I assume it was the ability of the humans to return the next day to a battle with troops mostly healed. While the elves were only able to rememorize arcane spells and use salves (rangers were only plant/animal sphere in 2nd ed. Care for a goodberry?). The humans would concentrate on the spellcasters and then be able to overpower the still wounded elven warriors another day.

But if the elves could heal their warriors as quickly as humans they could better defend the wizard/sorcerers and the daily barrage of arcane spells would drastically change the course of the war.

[ConjurerDragon]

destowe schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141

>

> destowe wrote:

> I am of the group that believes that if the elves had access to divine healing the initial

> war between humans and elves would have been with the elves winning.

> > Rangers have some healing, but it is at higher levels and of much less frequency than druids

can provide.

>

> With no arcane magic on the human side, and both able to heal the wounded quickly due to

> divine magic, only the rapid reproduction of humans would have let

them win.



Why NO arcane magic? Humans could not become Wizards before Deismaar,

but they could become Magicians without a bloodline before Deismaar.

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Dec 16 2003, 05:25 PM
Point is:



By all means, do present your own views of the issue, but don`t:



A) Overly quote published BR material or Core Rulebooks - we know what

the books say.

B) In any way try to stop an interesting thread by claiming it is

contrary to either the rules or the setting.



:-)



Cheers

Bjørn


As far as A) goes this has yet to have been demonstrated. There are quite a few people out there that don't have the original 2nd ed material and are relying on what is being posted as their basis for the campaign. There are others that have resisted the draw to purchase 3rd ed at all and those that did but have resisted switching to 3.5. The source of reference is important and while the SRD is very useful the color and expanatory text is often missing, which is important to help in understanding the whys The reason I use quotes is to show the basis for my reasoning. I find that reasoning based on something sound (i.e., written somewhere) other that "I think it should be this way" is almost always of better quality and tends to stand up longer. Otherwise you end up with the knee-jerk type of reactions like the ones concerning the scion class/feat/templates a while ago. I assume you can recall the rapidly switching opinions of some of the posters and their equally strong instance on the fact that it should be the way they were inclined at that precise moment.

B) I was not trying to stop the thread, only pointing out where the existing rules could be used to quantify/explain the reasons why elven rangers can cast divine spells without a deity and why druids work the way they do in the core rules (in 3.5 terms) without there being any inconsistencies.

The bottom line comes down to this is someone trying to create a setting that is Birthright-like or are they trying to recreate the Birthright setting. There is a difference. It again comes down to what is considered core Birthright setting material and what is considered color - oops don't want to start that thread up again. :lol:

[RaspK_FOG]

[insert big thumbs up here]

As for the druid/ranger thingy, allow me to sum things up as good as I can:

Druids were priests of a special ethos in standard AD&D 2e.
In Birthright, Druids were priests of a cleric, much like in Forgotten Realms. However, only one deity had druids, unlike other settings. Thus, Birthright druids are really a derivation of the priest, not a priest-like figure, yet unique all the same!
2e, 3e, and 3.5e rangers revere nature and get their spell capacity from it directly. The same applies to Birthright.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:48 AM





> Druids were priests of a special ethos in standard AD&D 2e.

> In Birthright, Druids were priests of a cleric, much like in Forgotten

Realms. However, only one deity had druids, unlike other settings. Thus,

Birthright druids are really a derivation of the priest, not a priest-like

figure, yet unique all the same&#33;



In 2e, Druids could be priests of an ethos, but so could other kinds of

priests. Anyone could serve an ethos. Dieties were entirely optional.

Druids could also serve gods, and priests couls serve gods. Dieties were

entirely optional. In the Birthright setting, Dieties were established, and

no mention was made of forces or alternatives (leading to some question as

to what was going on with the Serpent).



> 2e, 3e, and 3.5e rangers revere nature and get their spell capacity

from

> it directly. The same applies to Birthright.



In the BR setting, Rangers are specifically noted as being paladins of Erik,

and their spells come from him. This is perfectly consistent with 3e where

rangers can worship gods and serve them as well. While forces per se have

not had much coverage in 3e, they have expressly covered nature as a

spell-granting force. Nevertheless, its also clear that there are nature

gods, and which a druid or ranger gets spells from is left open. In some

campaigns that will be left open to the player, in some campaigns that will

be determined by the setting material. And so it has been in BR.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Dec 18 2003, 06:03 PM
In the BR setting, Rangers are specifically noted as being paladins of Erik,

and their spells come from him.
Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


Kenneth where was this from? I&#39;m not familiar with the source text.

I have seen a lot of people post that they play it this way, but I don&#39;t recall reading it in the BR material. Point me in the direction that I&#39;m missing, please.

[Anakin_Miller]

If I remember correctly the whole rangers are paladins of erik originate in

the original BR netbook that Ian Hoskins hosted years back....



-Anakin Miller



----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Elven Rangers [2#2141]





> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141

>

> irdeggman wrote:

>
In the BR setting, Rangers are

specifically noted as being paladins of Erik,<>

> and their spells come from him.

> Kenneth Gauck<>

> kgauck@mchsi.com<>

>

> Kenneth where was this from? I`m not familiar with the source text.

>

> I have seen a lot of people post that they play it this way, but I don`t

recall reading it in the BR material. Point me in the direction that I`m

missing, please.

>

>



>

> Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

>

>

>

[Anakin_Miller]

Here is where the Paladin of Erik thing orginated.....



http://www.birthright.net/old/dm/rules/rules52.html



You need to highlight the text to read it... Black text on black background.



-Anakin Miller



----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Elven Rangers [2#2141]





> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141

>

> irdeggman wrote:

>
In the BR setting, Rangers are

specifically noted as being paladins of Erik,<>

> and their spells come from him.

> Kenneth Gauck<>

> kgauck@mchsi.com<>

>

> Kenneth where was this from? I`m not familiar with the source text.

>

> I have seen a lot of people post that they play it this way, but I don`t

recall reading it in the BR material. Point me in the direction that I`m

missing, please.

>

>



>

> Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

>

>

>

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Anakin_Miller@Dec 18 2003, 08:22 PM
Here is where the Paladin of Erik thing orginated.....



http://www.birthright.net/old/dm/rules/rul...es52.html<br (http://www.birthright.net/old/dm/rules/rules52.html<br) />


You need to highlight the text to read it... Black text on black background.



-Anakin Miller


That was one of the posts I recall seeing a long time ago and part of what I was referring to when I said I have seen a lot of people post that they play this way.

But what I inferred from Kenneth&#39;s post was that it was in the canon material, i.e., "Official 2nd ed Birthright material" and not proposals for house-rules. There is a difference.

While for house-rules anything goes, the basis for comparisons between different sets of rules or proposals for rules has got to come back to some common standard, which was the published 2nd ed Birthright material.

Kenneth usually does a good job of documenting his reasons and sources, when applicable, so I was under the belief that he had a source other than house-rules to use for the basis of his argument. I still am.

But thanks for pointing out the link.

[RaspK_FOG]

Indeed, I do not remember anything like what is here suggested as "official" Birthright material&#33; As for priests being able to serve an ethos, that was a mistake on your part (or so I think, since I have not yet been given back my 2e books :angry: ), for the generic class was called a cleric, but the individual class was called a priest, much like with the thieves and bards, which belonged to the rogue class... And the standard system was that priests served a deity/power/[whatever], but there could be others who served an ethos, and the druid was one such suggestion: thus, he generally could not serve a deity, except for some campaign settings which specifically mentioned that he did so&#33; And no, while the DM is allowed to tweak things as he see fit, the standard AD&D 2e PHB and DMG suggests that such a setting regularly has a close polytheistic realisation, not an atheistic one&#33;

[irdeggman]

I believe that clerics could serve an ethos but specialty priests (like those in Birthright) could not. This might not have ever been written as such but there were no examples to the contrary - see deities and demigods (2nd ed version) and monsters mythology (I think that was the title) they had a whole lot more detailed examples of speciality priests.

[geeman]

At 02:58 PM 12/19/2003 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:



> Indeed, I do not remember anything like what is here suggested as

> "official" Birthright material&#33; As for priests being able

> to serve an ethos, that was a mistake on your part (or so I think, since

> I have not yet been given back my 2e books :angry: ), for the generic

> class was called a cleric, but the individual class was called a priest,

> much like with the thieves and bards, which belonged to the rogue

> class... And the standard system was that priests served a

> deity/power/[whatever], but there could be others who served an ethos,

> and the druid was one such suggestion: thus, he generally could not serve

> a deity, except for some campaign settings which specifically mentioned

> that he did so



If I might step in to quibble a bit... the generic class was actually the

priest, while the cleric was a subset of that class. For the sake of

clarifying this, here`s the relevant text from the 2e PHB:



Under the intro to the Priest: "The priest is a believer and advocate of a

god from a particular mythos."



Under the general "Priest" class, however, there are subclasses:



Cleric: "The most common type of priest is the cleric. The cleric may be

an adherent of any religion (though if the DM designs a specific mythos,

the cleric`s abilities and spells may be changed--see following)."



Under "Priests of Specific Mythoi"



"In the simplest version of the AD&D game, clerics serve religions that can

be generally described as `good` or `evil.` Nothing more needs to be said

about it; the game will play perfectly well at this level. However, a DM

who has taken the time to create a detailed campaign world has often spent

some of that time devising elaborate pantheons, either unique creations or

adaptations from history or literature. If the option is open (and only

your DM can decide), you may want your character to adhere to a particular

mythos, taking advantage of the detail and color you DM has provided. If

your character follows a particular mythos, expect him to have abilities,

spells and restrictions different from the generic cleric."



Under "Priest Titles"



"A priest of nature, for example (especially one based on Western European

tradition) could be called a druid (see below.)



And lastly under the Druid description:



"The druid is an example of a priest designed for a specific mythos. His

powers and beliefs are different from those of the cleric."



Of course, the specific mythos of the druid could just be a general nature

worship, in BR the class is limited to priests of Erik--for all that that

seems to vex the issue of elf nature magic, ad nauseam.



> And no, while the DM is allowed to tweak things as he see fit, the

> standard[ AD&D 2e PHB and DMG suggests that such a setting regularly has

> a close polytheistic realisation, not an atheistic one



I guess that`s generally true, though I don`t recall anything ever that

specific being suggested. It just implies that the mythos can be as

abstract as "good" or "evil" and that gods themselves need not be

included. I don`t think that equates with atheistic, but I wouldn`t rule

it out either.



In the case of BR priests we only had speciality priests. There are no

clerics at all... though we don`t really know for sure about the priests of

various humanoid and dwarven gods. "Shaman" and such for the most part

seems reasonable for the humanoids, but specialty priests of Moradin is the

most likely for dwarves. But there are probably are no "generic" clerics

in the BR materials.



That does not mean, however, that rangers can`t get their spells from a

generic "nature" source rather than from Erik, but there is nothing in the

cant that says rangers are paladins of Erik that I recall reading. Having

said that, I should note that I like the interpretation, but would take it

a step further by adding a "Forester" class (something like the WoT`s

class--that is, without spells) to handle the abilities of woodsmen and

hunters for BR purposes, and I`d tweak the powers of the ranger a bit here

and there to make him more "holy" than the standard 3e/3.5 ranger for a

Birthright D20 text. (Personally, I don`t like that 3.5 rangers have d8

hit dice, for instance. I know the rationale, but I just think it`s a bad

idea. "Fighter" classes should have d10 or better HD IMO.)



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:31 AM





> Kenneth usually does a good job of documenting his reasons and sources,

> when applicable, so I was under the belief that he had a source other than

> house-rules to use for the basis of his argument. I still am.



So did I. I could see the text in my mind`s eye, but looking back over the

secion on Erik in the basic rules and the BoP, this must be an idea that

worked its way so deeply into my understanding of the game that I could

actually remember (falsely) reading a canon description of the ranger as a

paladin of Erik.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 7:58 AM





> As for priests being able to serve an ethos, that was a mistake on your

> part, for the generic class was called a cleric, but the individual class

was

> called a priest, much like with the thieves and bards, which belonged to

the

> rogue class... And the standard system was that priests served a

> deity/power/[whatever], but there could be others who served an ethos,

> and the druid was one such suggestion: thus, he generally could not serve

a

> deity, except for some campaign settings which specifically mentioned that

he

> did



Having saved all my 2e material like by virtue of having taken the Packrat

feat, I will be plentiful with references. First off the generic class was

called priest, and the cleric was an all around variety with low

requirements and a wide spell list. Specialty priests tended to be harder

to qualify for and had more limited spell lists. The PHB goes on to

describe the druid as an example of a specialty priest "designed for a

specific mythos". The color description mentions that the historical

inspirations saw many things, "the sun, moon, and certain trees as deities."

There is no discussion of forces and deities as alternate sources of spell

power. Deities and demigods certainly provides specific gods for druids,

but its the nature of such a book that it doesn`t do forces properly. The

complete handbook of druids has a section on the subject (chapter 4,

roleplaying druids, section 1 druidic faith). They immediately start off

with a formulaic consideration of both forces and nature gods. The next

headings include "druids who worship gods", and then the place of "nature

and the gods". There is mention that the original settings (as settings)

Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, and mention Beory, Chauntea, and the

Earthmother. In the list of nature deities, there are description of an

Artemis type, a Demeter type, and a Gaia type. The druid handbook does then

go on to describe nature as Nature, but it has established that this can be

personified as a deity, or abstract as a force. Any alternative would be

clumsy. The complete handbook of priests is mostly a mythos construction

tool, and it contains both force and deity concepts suitable for druids.

Likewise there were forces provided as well as deities for priests. I could

create priests of the force of magic, chaos, the elements, and so on.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Amaranth]

Hello, everyone. New to the boards and this is my first post.

In my own Birthright campaign, where we use the 3E rules, I do allow elven druids and rangers. These two classes are quintissentially elven and it didn&#39;t seem to make sense to me to deny my players the classes they wanted to play when it seemed that reasonable.

Elves need a spiritual organization, and druids are perfect. What I do is have the source of druidic magic be nature itself and not a deity. Some would say that this upsets the balance of power between humans and elves, but I avoid that as well by limiting the number of druids in the elvenlands.

Elven druids in my campaign are very secretive and do not usually interfere in things such as warfare or the like- simply that which pertains to nature. Also, there are only 13 elven druids at one time. Should one die, another is chosen by a special dryad in my campaign. And since sidhelin are immortal, that doesn&#39;t happen often :) .

Anyway, that is my solution to the elven druid/ranger problem.

[Alluveal]

A ranger in my party (game I am running) will eventually get spells. However, I am not sure what I&#39;ll be doing with this. I would assume elves have rangers, I mean they&#39;re highly protective of their forest areas. That said, in stories I have read, the humans had priestly magic on their side when they first invaded Anuire--something the elves lacked which hindered them.

I am not sure I&#39;m going to give priestly spells to the ranger. I may go through and change some of the spells on the priest list and add a few arcane spells. I want to stay true to the Birthright flavor and keep religion as a non-elf asset. I&#39;ve seen too many pooly run Birthright games where players start building temples in The Sielwode or Tuarhieval without a care in the world, thinking only about power and profit. Makes no sense to me.

Anyway, some ideas here have helped, but until she hits her spell-casting level, I&#39;ve got a little time to think. :)

[Sir Justine]

Elven druids in my campaign are very secretive and do not usually interfere in things such as warfare or the like- simply that which pertains to nature. Also, there are only 13 elven druids at one time. Should one die, another is chosen by a special dryad in my campaign. And since sidhelin are immortal, that doesn&#39;t happen often.

As I pointed before, that is what I do too - use elven druids. My priests of Erik are clerics with nature-related domains, but druids are an elven thing. A human could become a druid, but it would be an exception.
But I really liked your idea of a dryad choosing the druids :)


I am not sure I&#39;m going to give priestly spells to the ranger. I may go through and change some of the spells on the priest list and add a few arcane spells. I want to stay true to the Birthright flavor and keep religion as a non-elf asset. I&#39;ve seen too many pooly run Birthright games where players start building temples in The Sielwode or Tuarhieval without a care in the world, thinking only about power and profit. Makes no sense to me.

Well, I agree with this too. IMC elves do not have a "religion" in the sense that they do not have an organized church.
And about your ranger player, is it an elf?
If it is human, I will say it again (though this is, of course, just a suggestion): use a variant without spells&#33;&#33;&#33;
A can see an elven ranger with spells, but for a normal "woodsman" spells are, IMHO, a bad conception.

IMC I use this variant (I made it, though the ideas in it aren&#39;t original):

"Stalker"
BAB: Good (as fighter)
HD: d8
Fort: Good (+2 at 1st level)
Ref: Average (or Good, if you don&#39;t use the progression that starts with +1 and ends with +9)
Will: Weak (+0 at 1st level)

Skills Points: 6
Weapon and Armor Proficiences: Simple and Martial weapons, Light and Medium armors, and shields (though not with tower shields).

Class Features:
1 Favored enemy, Track, wild empathy
2 Bonus feat
3 Favored terrain
4 Animal companion
5 Favored enemy, open track
6 Bonus feat
7 Favored terrain
8 -
9 Fast track
10 Bonus feat, favored enemy
11 Favored terrain
12 -
13 Hide track
14 Bonus feat
15 Favored enemy, favored terrain
16 -
17 Traceless track
18 Bonus feat
19 Favored terrain
20 Favored enemy

Favored enemy, Track, wild empathy, and animal companion: As the ranger of the PHB.

Favored Terrain (Ex): At 3rd level, a stalker may select a type of terrain from among the following options: aquatic, desert, forest, hills, marsh, mountain, or plains. The stalker gains a +2 bonus on Hide, Knowledge (nature), Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills in the terrain of this type. Likewise, the stalker gets a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class when he is in this type of terrain.
At 7th level and every four levels thereafter (11th, 15th, and 19th level), the stalker may select an additional favored terrain from those given above. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus of any favored terrain (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by 2.

Open Track (Ex): At 5th level, a stalker gains the ability to travel faster through difficult terrain. The stalker reduces the movement penalty of the terrain by 1/4. For example, the movement penalty for traveling through a trackless forest would pass from 1/2 to 3/4, and for mountains with highways from 3/4 to 1. You can guide a group of up to one person per level, reducing their movement penalty as well as you reduce your own.

Fast Track (Ex): Beginning at 9th level, a stalker can move at his normal speed while following tracks without taking the normal –5 penalty. He takes only a –10 penalty (instead of the normal –20) when moving at up to twice normal speed while tracking.

Hide Track (Ex): At 13th level, a stalker gains the ability to hide the trails of a group of up to one person per level while moving at his normal speed.

Traceless Track (Su): Beginning at 17th level, a stalker can track a creature moving under the influence of pass without trace or a similar effect, though he suffers a -10 circumstance penalty on his Survival check.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Amaranth@Jan 17 2004, 02:33 PM

Elves need a spiritual organization, and druids are perfect. What I do is have the source of druidic magic be nature itself and not a deity. Some would say that this upsets the balance of power between humans and elves, but I avoid that as well by limiting the number of druids in the elvenlands.


Why? Cerilian elves by their very nature are at opposition to organizations. They tend to be chaotic and shun lawful alignments, which reflects their strong independent nature.

This puts them in opposition to organizations in general. Most of the writings depict elven &#39;spirituality&#39; as a very personal thing not on an organizational framework.

This independence and the fact that they are immortal tends to remove them from any sort of deity/over reaching spiritual heirarchy.

Sometimes we have our own personal concept of things, like how elves should behave, override what the designers had envisioned for them. Cerilian races are different than their counterparts in other settings, this is one of the differences. An equivalent example is the Dark Sun elf. Whereas in most settings elves tend to be nature oriented in Dark Sun they are greedy and driven by that. A Dark Sun elf would defile the land in a minute if there was a profit to be made by doing so where a Cerilian one would probably kill anyone (including and elf) that harmed the forests.

[Alluveal]

Well first off, I&#39;m using 2nd edition rules, so no feats, etc. Second, there are not elven druids in the game, so that&#39;s not really an option. They have magic / sorcery. That&#39;s their bread and butter so to say. I think I&#39;ll look at some of the druid spells though, and see if I can alter them or only choose ones that aren&#39;t too "goddish" or "divine" in nature. The ranger is an elf--fully and wholly. :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Alluveal@Jan 20 2004, 03:40 PM
Well first off, I&#39;m using 2nd edition rules, so no feats, etc. Second, there are not elven druids in the game, so that&#39;s not really an option. They have magic / sorcery. That&#39;s their bread and butter so to say. I think I&#39;ll look at some of the druid spells though, and see if I can alter them or only choose ones that aren&#39;t too "goddish" or "divine" in nature. The ranger is an elf--fully and wholly. :)
If I recall correctly the 2nd ed ranger spells were pretty much not &#39;overly deity related&#39;, IMO. I don&#39;t think they got any cure spells for one and most of their spells were nature-oriented and thus not real powerful. They also had to be higher level than they do in 3/3.5 in order to cast spells and were likewise limited by that.

[Birthright-L]

> A ranger in my party (game I am running) will eventually get spells.

> However, I am not sure what I`ll be doing with this. I would assume

> elves have rangers, I mean they`re highly protective of their forest

> areas. That said, in stories I have read, the humans had priestly

> magic on their side when they first invaded Anuire--something the elves

> lacked which hindered them.

>

> I am not sure I`m going to give priestly spells to the ranger. I may

> go through and change some of the spells on the priest list and add a

> few arcane spells. I want to stay true to the Birthright flavor and

> keep religion as a non-elf asset. I`ve seen too many pooly run

> Birthright games where players start building temples in The Sielwode

> or Tuarhieval without a care in the world, thinking only about power

> and profit. Makes no sense to me.

>

> Anyway, some ideas here have helped, but until she hits her

> spell-casting level, I`ve got a little time to think. :)



Perhaps you could still incorporate it into the story somehow. Perhaps

the ranger acquires an item that allows him to use these powers.

Perhaps through a strange act of bloodtheft? Or the results of an

investiture ceremony worked into the plot somehow?



--Lord Rahvin