From: rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus)
Subject: Re: Origin of the 2nd ed. Ranger
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.092342.15228@husc3.harvard.edu> alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine) writes:
>PS  Although I've not read the GURPS Robin Hood source book as many of you have
>I watched the series for the few years that it showed on
>Show Time.  The reason I talk about what the guy wears and what he does is
>not because I read a 2 paragraph synopsis of him, but because I watched him
>for years on TV.  This does not say that using that book as a source for this
>discussion is invalid, but rather if you have a point to make against what
>I'm saying, and have NEVER watched the show....  Come on.  That's like a cop
>showing up and arguing with the eyewitness to a crime about what really 
>happened.  No flame.

Since I was the person who mentioned GURPS Robin Hood, I assume this is 
aimed at me, so I'll take the brunt of it.  I don't know about the other 
posters, but I *did not* say he *wasn't* a ranger, just that he *was* an
assassin.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  You seem to be taking offense
at this.  That's not the way it was intended.  As for no flame, you come
dangerously close IMO, but I assume that's because you think I "don't know
what I'm talking about."  Did it ever occur to you that the people who
wrote that "two paragraph synopsis" might have *also* watched Robin Hood
for years?  SJG hands out assignments to authors who research them
very thoroughly, and often are or have been students of the subject 
beforehand (I direct you to Vikings and Camelot, in particular.).  It's
a safe bet that the author of this particular book had seen the series
at least once.  Also, be certain that it _was_ a two-paragraph synopsis
before you comment.  I know I didn't say that; so where did it come 
from?  Or have you read the book yourself?  

As for his being an assassin, yes, he _is_ an assassin, as you point
out that anyone who tries to murder someone else can be considered an
assassin.  But as I also pointed out, being an assassin is a kit
which does not preclude the class being that of a ranger.  He may very well
be  a ranger--although all the skills you point out are very useful for
an assassin as well, thus the subject is debatable--but that does not mean
he is not *also* an assassin.  I realize I didn't make this clear in the
first post (In fact, I only devoted one line to it), but I felt that being
an assassin (since he *was* a Moslem--saracen being the European name for
the Moslems--and the Hashishim, from which the *word* assassin is taken, 
were Moslems) would be the most logical conclusion.  I didn't mean to 
step on your pet theory, only to point out what I had read.  If you feel
it's wrong, fine.  Just don't take it personally, but if you must, take it
to email instead.  

>Take care.  And if you have any other ideas from literature, etc. about the
>origins of the Rangers stereotype as it exists in 2nd ed. AD&D (other than
>the ones cited in the PHB which don't really seem to apply that well--Will
>Scarlett with a pet bear, please), then post 'em.  I'd be interested in seeing
>them.

How about Grizzly Adams?  He's always symbolized the archetype of the ranger
to me.  Maybe even a druid, though that's going a bit far.  I remember seeing
the show when I was little, and when someone explained the ranger to me,
my first comment was, "Oh, like Grizzly Adams!"

The Walrus


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd