DESERT Rangers -- who are they when NOT in the desert?

[tuluse]

Why was the word "Desert" connected to the name "Rangers" in the first place? I thought it was obvious that the intent was to describe "where we work and live". And to differentiate themselves from the US Army Rangers to which they, quite frankly, they had a stronger connection. That is to say, "We are NOT the US Army (anymore)."

"Toward this end, the Desert Rangers, in the great tradition of the Texas and Arizona Rangers a century before, were born."

They were aping the Texas and Arizona Rangers. Texas and Arizona didn't exist anymore, but the desert did. Like the Texas and Arizona Rangers, they brought law to a lawless region. Wasteland borrowed from wild west themes as well as post apocalyptic ones.

THANK YOU! You finally crystallized the thought that was in the back of my mind.

"They were aping the Texas and Arizona Rangers. Texas and Arizona didn't exist anymore, but the desert did." Both "_Texas_ Rangers" and "_Arizona_ Rangers" specify their area of operations and source of their authority. They were agents for Texas and Arizona respectively. If "Desert Rangers" is a parallel to the Texas Rangers and Arizona Rangers, then the "Desert" is defining the organization's area of operations and authority. Not in the desert = "Aren't you operating outside of your jurisdiction?"

I think you're being way too literal about this. Pinkterton Guards didn't just guard Pinkerton. Pony Express couriers rarely rode ponies. British soldiers didn't actually wear lobsters on their backs. Well into the 20th century, many armies had cavalry divisions that had nothing to do with horses. Hewlett and Packard are both dead and HP still lives.

[Zombra]

Makes it hard to feel like one of the "Good Guys".

From reading the Vision Document, this is kind of what the game is all about. You aren't a Good Guy because you come from Good Guy Town and carry the Good Guy Badge. You're a Good Guy because you make Good decisions throughout the game. If you want to be marauders and blow everybody up, you can do that too. In my opinion this makes being a Good Guy way more meaningful.

[CaptainPatch]

I think you're being way too literal about this. Pinkterton Guards didn't just guard Pinkerton. Pony Express couriers rarely rode ponies. British soldiers didn't actually wear lobsters on their backs. Well into the 20th century, many armies had cavalry divisions that had nothing to do with horses. Hewlett and Packard are both dead and HP still lives.

Pinkerton Guards don't guard Pinkerton; Pinkerton was the name of the man that founded the Agency. "Pony Express" = "Fast Mail Delivery". British Regulars were not named "lobster-backs"; that refers to the color of their uniforms and how civilians described that color. "Cavalry" does NOT mean horses; it means "swift moving military unit". [Trivia: Stonewall Jackson's Division was often called "Foot Cavalry" simply because they moved so rapidly on forced marches.] Your best argument is the HP, because it was a merger of companies founded by Hewlitt and Packard -- but note even the straightforward "HP" constitutes a name change to keep up with the changing nature of the company.

The name that an organization gives itself by saying, "We will be known by this name because _______." So answer that question: Why did they name themselves "_Desert_ Rangers"? Does that same reasoning still apply once the desert becomes the minority environment wherein they operate?

From reading the Vision Document, this is kind of what the game is all about. You aren't a Good Guy because you come from Good Guy Town and carry the Good Guy Badge. You're a Good Guy because you make Good decisions throughout the game. If you want to be marauders and blow everybody up, you can do that too. In my opinion this makes being a Good Guy way more meaningful.

And that bugs me. The reasoning set forth as to why they called themselves Rangers was, precisely, "in the great tradition of the Texas and Arizona Rangers a century before." So, in 50 words or less, what EXACTLY _is_ the tradition of the Texas and Arizona Rangers? The first thing that pops into my head is, "They were the Good Guys, trying to bring Law & Order to a lawless land." Pinning a badge on murdering scum and saying, "Go forth and do whatever you want to do under the auspices of the Desert Rangers!" does not strike me as something that they would do. I should imagine that even if they were hard up for Ranger recruits (as was the perennial problem of the TX and AZ Rangers), the Ranger Quality Control filter would keep the scum and riffraff out of the candidate pool for Rangers.

[Hasenklein]

Pinning a badge on murdering scum and saying, "Go forth and do whatever you want to do under the auspices of the Desert Rangers!" does not strike me as something that they would do.

The player can act like he wants to. But that doesn't mean that he can control the outcome of his actions, which consequently will determine his future options. To reach certain goals, the player will have to determine his actions with regards to the situations his characters are facing. The Rangers will be given missions, and it can hardly be said that they can do "whatever they want" to accomplish these missions. Rather, what works and what doesn't work depends on the situations they are facing.

[Zombra]

"Pony Express" = "Fast Mail Delivery".

Yes, and "Desert Rangers" = "Some Guys With Guns". These translations are equally literal ... which is to say, not at all.

If the Pony Express doesn't have to use ponies (and "pony" and "fast" are not synonyms), then the Desert Rangers don't have to stay in the desert.

The name that an organization gives itself by saying, "We will be known by this name because _______." So answer that question: Why did they name themselves "_Desert_ Rangers"? Does that same reasoning still apply once the desert becomes the minority environment wherein they operate?

Why did who name themselves the Desert Rangers? Your characters? Your characters' CO? Or the guys who sent a bunch of helpless prisoners into the desert to die 50 years ago?

At a glance at wikipedia, it looks like the Texas Rangers were formed primarily to kill (cough! sorry, protect white settlers from) American Indians. The Arizona Rangers were formed to kill bandits. Following that tradition, you could say that the Desert Rangers were formed to kill mutants. If you want to paint them as upholding the U.S. Constitution and the state laws of Nevada in your game, that won't bother me a bit, but it's neither stated nor implied by what's in the Vision Document. The VD does say that the Rangers were formed as Good Guys who would help and unite other survivors, so feel free to cling to that; I intend to.

[SDF121]

I've always thought of the Rangers in Wasteland as being similar to the NCR in Fallout. Both organizations share a tendency towards expansionism with the intention of restoring law and order to the wasteland. However, despite this noble goal, neighboring societies and tribes may often find themselves coerced to either join their Ranger's ranks or conform to their standards. Despite the perks that may come with joining such an organization, the loss of sovereignty may not be worth it as these neighboring societies and tribes may not appreciate their new masters particular brand of justice. So yes, I believe there can be some moral ambiguity with the Rangers as they are. Hell, the Rangers in the first Wasteland commandeered a prison in order to set up their own headquarters, all while forcing the prisons inhabitants into the wastes to fend for themselves.

[CaptainPatch]

Pinning a badge on murdering scum and saying, "Go forth and do whatever you want to do under the auspices of the Desert Rangers!" does not strike me as something that they would do.

The player can act like he wants to. But that doesn't mean that he can control the outcome of his actions, which consequently will determine his future options. To reach certain goals, the player will have to determine his actions with regards to the situations his characters are facing. The Rangers will be given missions, and it can hardly be said that they can do "whatever they want" to accomplish these missions. Rather, what works and what doesn't work depends on the situations they are facing.

The rationalization that I hear most often if, "Do whatever it takes to get the job done." Gives the player total carte blanche. Assigned to take out ONE Bad Guy? It's okay to kill _everyone_ in the town because that assures the Bad Guy will be killed. And the player CAN do that, with _zero_ repercussions from Ranger Center. The mechanics of the game permit a party of supposedly Good Guy Desert Rangers behave like Death Incarnate, killing everyone that crosses their path, destroying everything that they don't feel like taking for themselves. Meanwhile, back in Ranger Center, apparently their bosses couldn't care less.

^^That^^ is just plain wrong. But obviously eminently doable, because the player can do precisely that in the game. Other than making everyone flee upon sighting the party's approach, making it difficult to get info, supplies, and assistance, players CAN operate their party in just such a vicious manner, if they so desire. That's an option that I do NOT believe should be available to the players. Any organization that claims to be founded on the traditions of the Texas and Arizona Rangers shouldn't tolerate such behavior. In game terms, I would expect that such bloodthirsty Rangers-in-name-only would find themselves the frequent targets of Desert Ranger assassination teams dispatched by Ranger Center, meant to neutralize "rogue Rangers that are besmirching and disgracing the name and reputations of Desert Rangers everywhere". Sort of like having assassins from Caesar's Legion chasing you down in FNV.

[Zombra]

[Being jerks is] an option that I do NOT believe should be available to the players.

Well, you have a military background (am I remembering that right?), so it makes sense that you would naturally project military discipline and behavioral standards onto the organization. Personally, I see the Rangers in a more anarchic light. (Not totally anarchic, but more anarchic.)

If you want your Rangers to behave like good soldiers, then role-play them that way. You can act as if there are severe repercussions for deviance even if the game wouldn't actually punish you (because it won't make a difference to you, since you won't deviate). There's no harm in allowing other players a little freedom of choice.

[Drool]

It's okay to kill _everyone_ in the town because that assures the Bad Guy will be killed. And the player CAN do that, with _zero_ repercussions from Ranger Center.

You've played a beta? There is nothing in the vision document stating that there will be no consequences. In fact, it's chock full of talk about actions having consequences. There's no reason those consequences couldn't be reprimands from the Ranger Center.

Meanwhile, back in Ranger Center, apparently their bosses couldn't care less.

To paraphrase what my Neutral Good Cavalier used to say, "What the Ranger Center doesn't know, doesn't hurt them."

That's an option that I do NOT believe should be available to the players.

I want the freedom to act as I see fit. That is the cardinal rule of a sandbox game, not upholding your ideals of what a fictional organization should or should not allow.

[CaptainPatch]

I was deriving the game mechanics as being an extension of WL. Since the general consensus seems to be "Change as little of the core principles as possible" -- which includes the player's freedom of action without repercussions from Ranger Center -- I figured the lack of oversight would once again be present. As for "actions have consequences", I took that to mean things like "If you kill so and so, he won't be able to tell you about _____".

I want the freedom to act as I see fit. That is the cardinal rule of a sandbox game, not upholding your ideals of what a fictional organization should or should not allow.

If the developers intention is to allow the players TOTAL freedom to have their characters do whatever they damn well please -- murder, steal, rape, et al -- then the developers should NOT apply a character background of that of a pointedly Good Guy organization. Better to make it the Blackstone Rangers http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/05/chicago-apos-s-blackstone-rangers-i/5741/# [a Chicago street gang] than claiming to be based on the tradition of Wild West heroes. It's more likely to have a a generally bad group do the occasional Good Deed than it is to have purported advocates for Law & Order consistently performing murder and mayhem.

[Zombra]

Soooooo ... you've not familiar with the concept of the Wild West anti-hero?

It's more likely to have a a generally bad group do the occasional Good Deed than it is to have purported advocates for Law & Order consistently performing murder and mayhem.

Hang on a second. Wasn't it you who was telling horror stories about military atrocities in Vietnam? Does that experience not apply here somehow? How many of those guys got court-martialed?

[Hasenklein]

^^That^^ is just plain wrong. But obviously eminently doable, because the player can do precisely that in the game. Other than making everyone flee upon sighting the party's approach, making it difficult to get info, supplies, and assistance, players CAN operate their party in just such a vicious manner, if they so desire. That's an option that I do NOT believe should be available to the players. Any organization that claims to be founded on the traditions of the Texas and Arizona Rangers shouldn't tolerate such behavior. In game terms, I would expect that such bloodthirsty Rangers-in-name-only would find themselves the frequent targets of Desert Ranger assassination teams dispatched by Ranger Center, meant to neutralize "rogue Rangers that are besmirching and disgracing the name and reputations of Desert Rangers everywhere". Sort of like having assassins from Caesar's Legion chasing you down in FNV.

Let's assume the Rangers somewhere in a desert far, far away from RC, and they find some kind of community. For some reason, this community is absolutely important to accomplish a very, very important mission. The community, however, doesn't want to cooperate.

The Rangers can't communicate with RC. They are on their own, and that is the reason why they have full authority to do what ever they believe is right to accomplish the mission. This is not a decision of RC, but a functional problem and a prerequisite to creating moral dilemmas.
That doesn't mean that actions don't backfire. Imagine the characters are sent to find a squad of Rangers who occasionally plunder villages, and that they immediately recognize that it is them who are searched. Maybe the interface allows the players to hide the traces, but maybe only one time.

Did Yoda tell Obi Wan to kill Vader? Yes, he did, and he was very excplicit about it. Did Obi Wan kill Vader? No, he didn't. Why didn't Obi Wan kill Vader? He was his former student and friend. When he faced him, he was on his own, and he simply couldn't kill him. Did Obi Wan act morally right or did he act morally wrong? Pretty hard to judge at the first instance: Vader survived and was responsible for death of thousands and thousands of people. In so far, Obi Wan is responsible for deaths of all these people, and to the degree that this is a bad thing, it was a morally wrong decision. From this point of view, Obi Wan's decision not to kill Vader is totally selfish: he couldn't do the job because he couldn't get rid of his personal feelings. He severly wounded and physically transformed him into a different creature, but Vader survived, making Obi Wan personally responsible for any single action that was taken by Vader. Luckily, in the final Episode, it turned out that Vader was the only one who could kill the Emperor. And this simple fact shows that Yoda was wrong (in fact, he was wrong very often, but that is a different point), while Obi Wan was right. Nevertheless, Obi Wan's decision and its consequences remain in moral "grey": noone, I say, would wholeheartedly agree that sacrificing thousands or millions of people in order to get rid of the Emperor was justified. It would be moral zone of grey because in a certain perspective, it was justified, while those who died never consented to be sacrificed in order to get rid of the Emperor. It is this assumption of power that results in Obi Wan's burden and guilt. But on the other hand, it turned out that his decision was not merely selfish, he acted in accordance with his feelings. In the end, it turned out that he did the right thing, but he had to pay a high price.

Basically, that is my understanding of a moral dilemma.

If the developers intention is to allow the players TOTAL freedom to have their characters do whatever they damn well please -- murder, steal, rape, et al -- then the developers should NOT apply a character background of that of a pointedly Good Guy organization.

I don't believe the devs will introduce an option to rape NPC...

Everyone has precisely this freedom. However, in our everyday lives, we can't control the outcome of such actions. To act morally good, the player needs to have the alternative to act morally bad. Otherwise, this distinction would be pointless. The devs are not responsible for actions taken by the players. Rather, the players are fully responsible for the actions of their characters.

[Drool]

As for "actions have consequences", I took that to mean things like "If you kill so and so, he won't be able to tell you about _____".

Yeah... I'm expecting real consequences, not basic things like, "If Bill's dead, you can't buy items from Bill," or "You can't do Sam's quest if you've killed Sam." Those are less consequences than basic IF/THEN statements.

then the developers should NOT apply a character background of that of a pointedly Good Guy organization

Nobody ever said the Desert Rangers were objectively good. You yourself went on a long rant about how they were evil and Not True Military Personnel because they kicked death row inmates out of the prison.

They may have named themselves after the Texas Rangers, and may be trying to bring justice to the Wasteland, but names are ephemeral and their justice is justice at the barrel of a gun. I mean, hell, plenty of organizations use names that are not outdated, but outright lies. I mean, Peoples' Republic of North Korea anyone? Pretty sure they aren't actually a republic.

On the balance, the Desert Rangers are probably a net plus. If nothing else, they prevented humanity's extermination. That provides a pretty big buffer. Also, they probably keep a tight lid on the scum. But I would be shocked if it was anything but enlightened despotism. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a Roman Legion (real one, not New Vegas) style of rule with harsh punishments for lawbreakers. Stern but fair, if you will.

However, I don't want to be shackled to a strict moral code when I play this game. I don't want to be shackled to Fargo's sense of morals any more than I want to be bound by your morals. I mean, I'm sure you're both upstanding citizens of fine moral character, but it's not mine, and what's more, it's restricting to gameplay. Hell, I'm a nice guy. I don't play as a monster, and I genuinely feel bad when I kill an innocent character in a game. But the freedom to be an assbag monster should be there.

Sure, some restraints are required. If you kill everyone in the Ranger Center before going to California, that should probably end the game, since they're the ones sending you there in the first place. Beyond that, some actions should probably be prohibited. But everyone draws the line in a different place, and I think "no criminal behavior; no shooting first" is far too strict. Desert Rangers aren't paladins.

[tuluse]

Pinkerton Guards don't guard Pinkerton; Pinkerton was the name of the man that founded the Agency. "Pony Express" = "Fast Mail Delivery". British Regulars were not named "lobster-backs"; that refers to the color of their uniforms and how civilians described that color. "Cavalry" does NOT mean horses; it means "swift moving military unit". [Trivia: Stonewall Jackson's Division was often called "Foot Cavalry" simply because they moved so rapidly on forced marches.] Your best argument is the HP, because it was a merger of companies founded by Hewlitt and Packard -- but note even the straightforward "HP" constitutes a name change to keep up with the changing nature of the company.

The name that an organization gives itself by saying, "We will be known by this name because _______." So answer that question: Why did they name themselves "_Desert_ Rangers"? Does that same reasoning still apply once the desert becomes the minority environment wherein they operate?

They're called the Desert Rangers because they were founded in the desert.

Also, Wikipedia disagrees with you about cavalry. It goes so far as to say other mounted units that didn't use horses (camels for instance) are not cavalry. Even your examples shows that Jackson's division was specifically called "foot" cavalry to make it clear what they were.

[suz]

In many modern armies, the term cavalry is still often used to refer to units that are a combat arm of the armed forces which in the past filled the traditional horse-borne land combat light cavalry roles.

From the linked article

As for dessert rangers, where do I sign up? I want desserts too!

Couldn't help myself

[tuluse]

In many modern armies, the term cavalry is still often used to refer to units that are a combat arm of the armed forces which in the past filled the traditional horse-borne land combat light cavalry roles.

From the linked article

As for dessert rangers, where do I sign up? I want desserts too!

Couldn't help myself

The word cavalry changed meaning, it doesn't even have a real meaning any more just like Desert Rangers doesn't need a real meaning. It's just a way of identifying the group of people. It's just a symbolic name, it doesn't have to be literal.

[SDF121]

I've always assumed that the designation of 'Desert' in Desert Rangers was a simple reference to the Wasteland in which the Rangers were operating in. Wasteland Rangers sounds rather stupid so they chose to refer to themselves as the Desert Rangers. The use of the term 'Desert' seems rather fitting in describing the barren wasteland which would exist after a nuclear exchange between several superpowers. Remember that the definition of a Desert can refer to "a wild uninhabited and uncultivated tract" as well as a place that is " desolate and sparsely occupied or unoccupied". Also, I see no reason to expect the Rangers to be inherently good.

I've always thought of the Rangers in Wasteland as being similar to the NCR in Fallout. Both organizations share a tendency towards expansionism with the intention of restoring law and order to the wasteland. However, despite this noble goal, neighboring societies and tribes may often find themselves coerced to either join their Ranger's ranks or conform to their standards. Despite the perks that may come with joining such an organization, the loss of sovereignty may not be worth it as these neighboring societies and tribes may not appreciate their new masters particular brand of justice. So yes, I believe there can be some moral ambiguity with the Rangers as they are. Hell, the Rangers in the first Wasteland commandeered a prison in order to set up their own headquarters, all while forcing the prisons inhabitants into the wastes to fend for themselves.

[Zombra]

Dammit, I just realized. NCR stands for New California Republic. Someone call Obsidian quick - they have to patch New Vegas immediately because it takes place in Nevada and NCR personnel cannot exist there. That whole faction needs to be removed

[CaptainPatch]

Soooooo ... you've not familiar with the concept of the Wild West anti-hero?

It's more likely to have a a generally bad group do the occasional Good Deed than it is to have purported advocates for Law & Order consistently performing murder and mayhem.

Hang on a second. Wasn't it you who was telling horror stories about military atrocities in Vietnam? Does that experience not apply here somehow? How many of those guys got court-martialed?

The incident I cited was committed by the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Viet Nam). My distress was over the fact that the US had chosen to ally itself with a government that allowed (sometimes even encouraged) their military to commit such atrocities.

The US military is, imo, _not_ a Good Guy organization. It's Neutral at best, willing to carry out whatever directives handed to it by the government -- whether that government is Good, Bad, or Neutral. The military has a lllloooonnnngggg history of carrying out morally questionable directives (countless massacres of Indians for instance). In contrast, the Texas and Arizona Rangers have a reputation of "cleaning up the West" by being specifically targeted at Bad Guys. They did NOT accomplish that by blowing away anyone and everyone that got in their way or simply just annoyed the Rangers. Blasting some teenagers in Highpool simply because they dared to laugh at Rangers thrashing around in the stream is hardly supportive of the Rangers' noble tradition. Yet, Ranger Center never had a problem with the Ranger party doing just that. Nor does it seem to be at all concerned with how the party "gets the job done."

The Rangers can't communicate with RC. They are on their own, and that is the reason why they have full authority to do what ever they believe is right to accomplish the mission. This is not a decision of RC, but a functional problem and a prerequisite to creating moral dilemmas.

Actually, if Communications are similar to what was being used in WL, the party will be contacting Ranger Center on a regular basis via (R)adio. (It's how the PCs leveled up, by reporting what they had done and accomplished.) If the Rangers have radios, more than likely others also have some -- and they can spread the word concerning just what kind of reprehensible misdeeds the party has been committing. Sooner or later, Ranger Center WILL be getting reports of just what the party has been doing, and how it has been behaving.

Dammit, I just realized. NCR stands for New California Republic. Someone call Obsidian quick - they have to patch New Vegas immediately because it takes place in Nevada and NCR personnel cannot exist there. That whole faction needs to be removed

NCR, forerunner of the "United States of California". Legislation is being drafted, even as we type!

[Hasenklein]

Actually, if Communications are similar to what was being used in WL, the party will be contacting Ranger Center on a regular basis via (R)adio. (It's how the PCs leveled up, by reporting what they had done and accomplished.) If the Rangers have radios, more than likely others also have some -- and they can spread the word concerning just what kind of reprehensible misdeeds the party has been committing. Sooner or later, Ranger Center WILL be getting reports of just what the party has been doing, and how it has been behaving.

It is very unlikely that the Rangers will able to radio RC in order to describe a situation in detail and to get orders how they should behave, so I don't think that this is a valid objection.

As for your second point - RC will get reports -, I agree. I have described this possibility in my post.