Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>In a message dated 7/30/99 4:10:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>scott_henry@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > And I think Anti-Templars can definitley be "good". but I see them as 
>the
> >  anti-hero kind of good. Its like trying to use the dark side for good 
>if
> >  someone was playing Star Wars. Can it be done? Theorictialy yes it can.
>its
> >  just hard and you will have to repent a lot and watch when and how you 
>use
> >  your powers. But its not impossible.
>
>Basically the problem is that EVENTUALLY, this character is doomed to
>go to the "dark side." Sooner or later something big and nasty enough is 
>going
>to come along and the Anti-Templar is going to tap the dark side "just this
>once"
>since its such a good cause and all. Once you start using the dark side of 
>the
>force or the reckoners' power, you want to use it more and next thing you 
>know
>you're one evil bastich.
>

That's exactly where the role-playing opportunities come in, IMO...

>I do agree that as written in Last Crusade the Anti-Templars will appeal to 
>a
>lot
>more players than the Templars will. Gee, I can have all those neat powers
>and none of the restrictions? Sounds good. And the player can simply decide
>not to call upon the dark side to keep himself clean.
>

Well, the only "neat powers" are those that Templars originally had anyway 
(i.e., Saint powers only, no access to Martyr stuff).  Don't forget that the 
AT can also kill Templars to gain Greater Rewards, though.

>As a GM, I doubt I'd ever allow an AT in the game, it just goes too far
>against
>the grain (they should not have been written up as characters in the first
>place,
>but that's another issue). Assuming I somehow got stuck with one, I'd 
>require
>some kind of roll now and then to resist calling upon the reckoners power.
>An AT should be a doomed character who will eventually succumb. Its just a
>matter of when.
>

Goes against the grain of...what? The HoE environment?  Templars in general?

To force them to make a roll strikes me as removing the role-playing 
element.  Throwing situations on them where they are tempted, and must 
role-play to overcome the temptation (if that's the route they go), strikes 
me as quite appropriate.  Just saying, "Oh, make an attribute roll" or 
whatever seems to strip it of its role-playing value.

Besides, unless you crank up the TN roll, they'll just munchkin whatever 
attribute you require to be high enough to resist the temptation anyway.  
And if you're going to crank up the TN to absurd levels, why bother allowing 
ATs in the first place?  You're not doing yourself or the player any favors 
by essentially saying, "Yeah, be an AT but I've set up the system so you're 
going to inevitably become a NPC."  That means you'll just have to deal with 
the (perceived) imbalance/against-the-grain problems until they become a 
NPC, and they'll dislike it because you've doomed the time and effort 
they've put into the character as ultimately futile.

>Andrew Ross (draxus@aol.com)
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe hoe
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com