Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
This is why:

I have yet to see a character who refers to Ranald as a women, so I decided to write one.

That is a very good point. I wonder if there are any girls named Ranald in honor of the god? I can see why most cults would generally not want people presuming giving the name of their patron to a mortal child, but the Ranaldites seem more relaxed about... well everything, that is kind of the point of their loose organization and general anarchic bent.
 
That is a very good point. I wonder if there are any girls named Ranald in honor of the god? I can see why most cults would generally not want people presuming giving the name of their patron to a mortal child, but the Ranaldites seem more relaxed about... well everything, that is kind of the point of their loose organization and general anarchic bent.
The standard for naming children after gods in the Empire and Kislev seems to be to add a diminutive or adjective. So Ulrika, Mannfred (Mannan's Friend) etc. So maybe something like Ranalda or Ranson.
 
Last edited:
I would not really say Ranald is against wealth, against most of the wealthy sure, but if some criminal king pin should become obscenely wealthy off things that He approves of Ranald is fine with that, no oath of poverty. I think he would be best conceptualized as a god opposed to social stratification. Does not sound as catchy as the above, but it kind of encapsulates him more.

Ranald doesn't mind wealth, he minds the presumption that comes with it. By stealing, you are humbling the wealthy by revealing their power to be flawed. If you can hold onto your wealth, you can keep it - just don't go acting like it's immutable or forever.
 
Eh- I put 'rapacious' in front of wealth for a reason; the kind of wealth that seeks only it's own increase at the expense of society and people is pretty common, but by no means universal. YMMV
 
Eh- I put 'rapacious' in front of wealth for a reason; the kind of wealth that seeks only it's own increase at the expense of society and people is pretty common, but by no means universal. YMMV

I'm pretty sure Ranald is fundamentally anti-social at some level, society is after all a form of hierarchic organization that comes with all sorts of presumptions of wealth and power. I mean the only facet of him that you could argue even recognises society and not just the individual is the Protector. Gamblers are about taking personal risk, thieves work alone or in small groups and liars can act for all sorts of interest, but mostly for their own advantage.

Ranald is more about doing good to individuals I would say not social groups. If one is allowed a political allegory purely in the spirit of fun Ranald has no class consciousness :V
 
I'm pretty sure Ranald is fundamentally anti-social at some level, society is after all a form of hierarchic organization that comes with all sorts of presumptions of wealth and power. I mean the only facet of him that you could argue even recognises society and not just the individual is the Protector. Gamblers are about taking personal risk, thieves work alone or in small groups and liars can act for all sorts of interest, but mostly for their own advantage.

Ranald is more about doing good to individuals I would say not social groups. If one is allowed a political allegory purely in the spirit of fun Ranald has no class consciousness :V
Anarchist theory would disagree with you on that one :V More broadly I'd say Ranald is the god/ess of the underdog and the little guy. Which, yes, can and does include an element of class consciousness but also individual motives and actions. Ranald can and does support the canon liberal revolutionary orginisations in the Empire and Bretonnia but they also support individual conartists and theives who's actions directly hurt those orginisations and their goals.
 
Ranald isn't even intrinsically against hierarchy. He's against exploitation, and at least as Boney portrays him, he'd be willing to support a benevolent dictatorship that helped the needy.

That this aspect of Ranald is considered so dangerous by the authorities says a lot more about how exploitative the structures of the Empire can be than it says about how unreasonable Ranald is.
 
I am talking about warhammer fantasy, I do not think you will find many egalitarian places there. It starts at barely post medieval hellhole and goes downhill from there.

Sure, but isnt trying to, y'know, change that, something perfectly understandable?

Egalitarianism doesn't just spring up out of nowhere, it has to be fought for, and the ones doing a lot of that fighting in this setting are the Ranaldites.
 
Sure, but isnt trying to, y'know, change that, something perfectly understandable?

Egalitarianism doesn't just spring up out of nowhere, it has to be fought for, and the ones doing a lot of that fighting in this setting are the Ranaldites.

I mean sure, but that is assuming Ranald even understands what a non-exploitative society looks like. Where would he get the pattern? There has not even been an Enlightenment. Throughout the old world and as far as we know beyond society is rigidly hierarchic and exploitative by reflex.
 
Hmm. You could look at the Protector as arguably the only facet with ends, beyond continuing to be able to (rather self-centredly) indulge their particular means of choice.

Ranald seems more like a journey rather than a destination type of god.

The Protector seems very focused on being free by getting rid of oppression - be it from a tyrannical lordling, a vampire or a Chaos worshipping warlord. Ranald doesn't seem particularly preoccupied with what a worshipper does with that freedom for most part.
 
I mean sure, but that is assuming Ranald even understands what a non-exploitative society looks like. Where would he get the pattern? There has not even been an Enlightenment. Throughout the old world and as far as we know beyond society is rigidly hierarchic and exploitative by reflex.
Why exactly does Ranald need to understand what a non-exploitative society looks like in order for Ranaldites to fight against exploitation?
 
The standard for naming children after gods in the Empire and Kislev seems to be to add a diminutive or adjective. So Ulrika, Mannfred (Mannan's Friend) etc. So maybe something like Ranalda or Ranson.
Where are you getting the Mannan's friend thing from? RL would suggest that it means peace of Mannan or something similar. Is it from one of the RPG books?

I am talking about warhammer fantasy, I do not think you will find many egalitarian places there. It starts at barely post medieval hellhole and goes downhill from there.
That makes some sweeping assumptions about basically everything outside of the Empire and Bretonnia. And relies on certain presumptions (for instance, that one is not utilising 5th Edition Bretonnia).
 
Where are you getting the Mannan's friend thing from? RL would suggest that it means peace of Mannan or something similar. Is it from one of the RPG books?


That makes some sweeping assumptions about basically everything outside of the Empire and Bretonnia. And relies on certain presumptions (for instance, that one is not utilising 5th Edition Bretonnia).
Its from the 2e Tome of Salvation yeah. All the names there are good examples of Reikspeil being bad english mixed with bad german to equal a new language
 
"How many ways to get what you want? I use the best, I use the rest."
-Ranald, probably
Must tickle Him that one of His most devoted followers (and apparently, many lay worshippers) are part of the "We watch the watchmen" Imperial Semi-Secret Police.

(The ones with the mandate to snip off tyranny and abuse at the root, in the name of the laws and ideals of the Empire.)
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top