Cormyr and the Dalelands

From the forum's own post on Silverstars:


Prestige Class List

First off, let's try being less demanding with our requests.

Secondly, the list is currently in flux and is not yet finalized. It is likely to be expanded in the near future as we investigate other sources beyond FRCS for a proper list, as the FRCS list has repeatedly proven to be incomplete.

I'm a laconic person at the best of times, you'll have to excuse the curtness.

But yeah, It's a demand if you want to make it out to be that way. A demand so I don't have to reapply with a 500+ word mini-essay on why a certain character with certain backgrounds is a ranger. Secondly, it's a matter of consistency for past approvals. Thirdly, It's been on both the old and new forums so it should be a matter of CD canon.

So I wanted to chime in on this as well, as Theodyr is a Cleric/Silverstar/Ranger of Selune.  I've looked through several sourcebooks and it seems that there is evidence for rangers worshipping Selune (and other deities that are outside of the "Nature" deity block).

So to start out with the oldest source first:





This would seem to suggest that while nature deities are the common choice, there are rangers who go against the grain and are able to cast divine spells.  This sets precedence for coming source material.



The next reference to rangers being associated with Selune comes from everyone's favorite Faiths and Pantheons.  Rangers can become Silverstars, the big requirement of which is that your patron deity must be Selune.




The next reference comes from Players Guide to Faerun concerning a new feat called Initiate of Selune, reinforcing the idea that rangers can receive spells from her (and apparently druids, but I'm not about to open that can of worms).



Concerning Selune and rangers once more, the Swords of the Lady are an order of worshippers of Selune.


There are also three NPCs listed in this book, as follows, who are listed as "Rangers of Selune"


Finally, just for fun, two ranger substitution levels that mention other deities that are not considered Nature deities.

Overall, I feel that this sets a precedent that rangers should be allowed to worship non-Nature deities and feel that there has been justifiable evidence over the years that Selune is not an unusual choice for a wanderer of the wilds.  I can understand having an application for others, but over the course of the server's history, there have been countless rangers who fall outside of the 'norm' and do not fit the nature stereotype.

Gelgar Talonguard - Helm - FRCS 3rd Ed page 10
Chvar Eldenbow - Oghma - Cloak and Dagger page 30
Myrmeen Lhal - Tymora - FRCS 3rd Ed page 112/113
Martine - Tymora - 'Soldiers of Ice' A novel written by David Cook, one of the leading 3.5 sourcebook writers.
Minsc - Never stated to have a deity and no statistical information has a deity listed in-game (Baldur's Gate 2/Neverwinter. BG2 is canon, referenced several times in books. Can get page numbers if need be. It is also a common theory that Minsc worshipped Boo.)
Brenvol Whitebrow - Selune - Champions of Valor page 80
Rindon Wasatho - Selune  - Champions of Valor page 150
Jehastra Wintergaze - Selune - Champions of Valor page 82

Page 26 of the FRCS states an example of Bane following Rangers, as well as detailed rangers loyal to organizations.

Shaundakul

Faiths & Pantheons 3rd Ed. Windwalker Prestige Class (and our own PrC writeup on our the CD website):

Yeah, I don't know where the whole, "Rangers must worship nature deities," came from, considering on the old forum it was always explicitly stated that they only needed to have any patron deity to benefit from divine spellcasting. The post should be changed to just Druids, as that's the only one that makes canonical sense and actually matches what CD has always had.

I think I can safely speak for the admins that they are still working on the Ranger piece and the list is still a work-in-progress (as Edge noted). 

I understand the frustrations, truly, from both a player wanting to make sure they can play their character and also as the person on the other side trying to make some content standardized in light of all the contradictions. Being someone who likes making weird concepts that sometimes go-against-type, I get a -lot- of flack for my characters I play both in face (and other ways), and the pressure is real. It makes me feel like a bad storyteller/roleplayer/gamer/whatever. Which involves all sort of other outcomes of which I dare not elaborate in this thread at risk of major derailment, heh. >.> 

I digress, though.

Onto the topic at hand: I think at this rate the admins really just need a little more time to work something out and make amendments as need. Honestly, I also do not think they would really demand the rangers to switch if the character had been established and approved (such as Silverstars who need approval, or did). I notice more often than not, they are okay with grandfathering stuff within reason. More specifically, there was a clause on stuff that special cases applied for and approved was still okay. If I may be bold to say, that includes required-approval applications (ECL, PrC, etc) where there was that proposed class combination. :-) Hopefully, this will put the Selunites at ease about their concepts, which were/are very well deserved and played out from my observations (over all).  

I feel part of the balance also is that they are trying to provide some reference lists people can just look at and not need to dig through all the materials out there (just as I am slowly doing so for elf stuff on elf forums). It is tedious, and materials really like to contradict. I had ...ah...discussion with both people with access to the same materials and otherwise once in a blue moon (nothing too vicious, mind). That is another angle to look at, as well. 


Sincerely,
Arya

Mostly because this isn't true. Yes some were told this (myself included), while others were told rangers always needed to serve a nature deity, and still others that deity didn't matter unless you got to the levels you could use ranger spells, but after that point you needed a naturey patron or you couldn't use those spells.

It doesn't help that WOTC has been extremely inconsistent about this across different books, as this very thread has provided so many examples of. Even more so when adding in non-FR expansions and setting-neutral books that while not necessarily designed for use with the setting contain information and mechanics we do make use of here.

As Arya said, what we ask right now is a bit of patience. We aren't yet going to start telling people to change deity or rebuild out of class. We're trying to bring a unified handle to a question that's been answered several different ways over the server's existence, and as such it's going to take some time.

The bulk of the examples that have been offered are from FR sources. WOTC is actually very consistent on this matter, of the two dozen or so examples that we have presented so far, there is only one example that speaks to the contrary. Different settings have different rules and the PHB (one of the examples offered) is one that is written largely with Greyhawk in mind. It is worth mentioning that the source for the conflicting information comes from a rather "eh" source. Faiths and Pantheons was written by Erik Mona and Eric Boyd were rather new to the FR setting when they wrote that book, and it was really their first (And close to last) FR book. Their career was largely involved with Greyhawk, setting-neutral books (Fiendish Codex 1 for example) and Pathfinder.

As much as I would love for any excuse to punch on WotC, this simply looks to be the fault of the two writers who have very little experience with the setting, judging from their resume. Add to the debate, this book has always been on that is highly controversial and the information represented within was something shunned by a lot of developers and players alike. It drove a HARD wedge into third party developers and even places like Dicefreaks simply because it did something that was considered heretical at one point in time. It stated gods. People didn't want to see gods stated. It took away that aura of mystery and omnipotence and turned them into a "Well, I could easily kill this god with my level 40 Soul Knife/Pyrokineticist ogre who has two pairs of Glabrezu arms grafted to his pecs". In addition to this, the statistics presented within this book were largely considered by third party developers and most major D&D forum sites to be the stats of -avatars- and for the REAL gods to remain unstated so they did not simply become a benchmark for gank-tanks to go after.

Ultimately, there is so far only one source listed that contradicts the dozens of sources that say otherwise, just throw out the lego that doesn't fit.

Most of the listed examples come prior to Faiths and Pantheons.

We've ruled, in the past, that the latter books supercede the prior... much as addendums.  As such, Champions of Valor would be considered valid, but FRCS not so.  (It's one of the reasons that we've allowed paladins of Selune, from Champions of Valor...  just as we're looking into the ranger situation.)

Our exceptions to this have been very limited, such as with the Wheel of the Planes.

But again, it's something that we're still looking into.

It all seems that everything builds upon what was listed in the original FRCS (published in 2001) in that rangers usually have nature deities, but not always.  This further seems to be held consistent in Faiths and Pantheons (published in 2002) mentions that rangers can have various patrons.  In 2004 we have Player's Guide to Faerun that lists being a ranger with a patron Selune a requirement for a feat.  Then finally in 2005, Champions of Valor mentions many different patrons for rangers.  

Now I know other aspects of the setting have been conflicted, but I'm not seeing how it is in this case, unless I'm missing something and being completely derp.  If so, can someone please point it out to me?  I'm asking in all seriousness, as it is something I do want to understand. <3

I think there is one other consideration about the ranger class which we should remember, namely that it is the go-to class for players who would like to play a warrior with some finesse. Something between the pure combat focused fighter and the skill-based rogue, without the sneak attack and its attached morality baggage for the later. It is not an uncommon situation, and the 'favored enemy' ability is also meshing well into many possible PC backgrounds. Even if the spellcasting abilities would be removed, this class offers a strong foundation to anchor many PC background concepts and the RP related to it.

Considering that we only have a limited number of base classes and PrCs it could be a better path if the flexibilites of the base classes are not reduced but improved. Of course we don't want non-lawful monks, non LG paladins, etc. running around, because for those classes the restrictions are integral concept to the whole. But specifically the ranger class provides a lot of potential freedom we could use and enjoy with only minimal or zero modifications to the class which we should not loose with something like the discussed restriction IMHO.

I forgot to mention. Eric Boyd, the main writer of Faiths and Pantheons? He wrote the Forgotten Realms 4th Edition Campaign Setting. Which that book was another mess of contradictions (Contradicted itself,  other source material, novels, and the word of Old Greenbeard). So this is not a new thing for him (And that book was an abomination).

Not to throw anyone under the bus, but I was told to change my deity for Tani and I did it. I was grumpy and upset but I did it. Then I was told in regards to my second choice deity "currently we don't have Talona supported for rangers" which means I would in fact have to change the deity again. Furthermore Talona is and was at the time on the list of acceptable deities. Now that dm later stated that the list is constantly changing and she meant to say "she's supported currently, but that might be changing (I doubt that though)" Why would the lady of poison even be considered to NOT be on the list? For that matter why would a rule be posted before all this research and information gathering was finalized? What is the point of telling random players that according to pending server law, that they might not have a character anymore?

I'm not going to comment extensively on this as I've heard no less than three different retellings of this incident (this is why rumor mill is bad, kids) and i need to get to work.

What i will say is that i believe - correct me if i'm wrong - that this was prompted by requests for a druids grove token, and that i think is not going to change, even if we decided in the future to scrap all policing of rangers deities; to be part of the druids grove, you need to worship a druid deity, regardless of class.

The first time I changed it, it was unprovoked. I was told the character wouldn't be playable so I changed the deity. Then days later, the second time, when I asked for the token and was I was told Talona is not supported as a ranger deity and then shameless backpedalling. And while I can appreciate you not wanting to comment on it because of the rumor mill. I can tell you from a first hand experience that what happened to me was wrong and by your own earlier post never should have happened.

So, I am going to say this as not a staff member, but as a player for a moment. Which, staff members are and only should ever be players with privileges. That has always been my philosophy. Take it as you will.

People make mistakes. And if in the case what you say is true (I do not know the details; not my business and I will not pry), that includes staff as much as players. Should we try to minimize them? Sure. But no one is perfect and should only ever be given a firm hand when they make no effort to try being helpful. Truly, though, there is a saying that suggests, as hard as it can be to apply it in practice:

"Be the change you want to be in the world." 

It is on the line of the golden rule of treating others the way you wish to be treated. Even for one wanting accountability, if you want people to be more kind and lenient with you (judging from the tone I am seeing), perhaps it might help to extend that courtesy to others, as well? It is on par with the rule of respect on the server. Also part of being a member of the community, even when it can be hard and frustrating at times when feeling upset. 

When and if people hold honest mistakes against others, especially in the manner where, even in text, the anger and rage is radiating from them in a public 'you should be ashamed/shouldn't have done...' post, it speaks more about them than the people they target. Call me out if I am wrong, I can be a bit tone (and in kind, text) sensitive about these things. 

None of us as players or staff are paid to play. I understand wanting some professionalism and expecting some of it. Just... it is a bit unrealistic to expect others to be perfect all the time. There is also a professional way to provide feedback just as there is to act in general, and in a way that is far less demeaning. Others have demonstrated this very well already in this thread.

This way also tends to get better results.

Just my thoughts. This is really a game, with a community trying to just have fun, for the most part. 

Sincerely,
Arya

I apologize if my tone seems strong. I merely wanted to point out that this issue has been happening contra to what was being said in this forum. At this point, I'm going to bow out of this conversation because it is off topic and the focus should be on acceptable ranger deities.

If I may share a perspective in offering from else-server:

On a previous server I once played on for a long time, it was in fact acceptable to have a ranger of any faith. This was done to reflect useage of the class for building archetypes by multiclassing. The tradeoff was that unless your patron was a nature deity (any deity that didn't have one of the "nature" or elemental domains), you did not get access to the ranger spell book.

Also, what I see here is that we may have two different considerations playing against each other here - what are acceptable deities for rangers, and what are acceptable deities for the Druid grove.

I see every reason to limit the grove by faith. Actually, I personally don't think the grove should be restricted by class at all. If your barbarian is a servant of Uthgar (nature deity) or your bard serves Mielikki, etc, then you are as qualified to be a protector of the wilds as the Druid or ranger is. That was the policy else-sever when I was running the membership over one of the groves. Whether the decision to limit by class is a server policy or a player run policy on CD, I'm unaware. But I don't want to digress from the thread topic either. Nature deity for the grove, definitely.

As for rangers, imo, it shouldn't be a dire consideration unless the character in question is a majority ranger, or significantly leveled in ranger, because spell casting isn't an issue until 4th level. (Granted, many who use it as a dip class are going to take exactly 4 levels for pre-epic attack count purposes.)

There are deities that are in the above listed exceptions that, while they lack Druid orders, they do have rangers aplenty, and are in fact dieties that offer either nature or elemental domains (Selune's moon domain is still considered a nature domain, Shaundakul has the Air domain, etc) so there is justification for spell ability on their part.

For that occasion that someone may put ranger into their build for that Justiciar of Tyr archetype, or the undead hunter of Kelemvor, or the bounty hunter devoted to Hoar, or the rogue mage hunter of Azuth, then spell ability could be justifiably negated, but the other abilities that define "the rugged individualist of the times" would still apply.

Lurkerabove makes numerous excellent points.

The only supernatural ability that rangers get access to from a deity is their spellcasting. All the rest of their abilities are extraordinary, including their animal companion (the same goes for druids). With this in mind, it makes sense that someone can be trained to be a ranger without necessarily belonging to the requisite faith.

It needs to be understood that rangers began as specialty priests of Mieliekki, Gwaeron Windstrom and Shaundakul (much as druids were specialty priests of Silvanus). That is where the concept of rangers requiring a nature deity to function comes from.

With the way 3.5 works, however, the necessity isn't present. Rangers are presented less as a specific kind of clergy and more as a hunter/pathfinder archetype.

After some thought and discussion, we have decided to amend the previous ruling change regarding Rangers.

Post