[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars
>In a message dated 7/30/99 7:24:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>J23junior@aol.com writes:
>
> > However, if the player knows that their AT is doomed no matter
> > what, why even try.
>
>Well, part of my point is that AT are supposed to be BAD guys. While they
>may have the best of intentions, the plain fact is they are the pawns of
>the
>reckoners and as such will eventually go bad. The analogy to dark jedi is,
>I
>think, right on the money. As Yoda said, once you start down the path of
>the dark side, forever will it control your destiny.
>
Yeah, well, the whole "give in to your anger once and you're screwed for
life" philosophy of the Star Wars stuff is a bit..screwy anyway. Besides,
as Vader proved in the end, Yoda was _wrong_. It didn't control Vader's
destinty forever.
But regardless, while it may be true that Anti Templars as a group may be
BAD guys, that doesn't mean that a few among them can't strike out against
their fate and overcome. If Darth Vader had no chance of redemption or
overcoming and stepping away from the path of evil, and stuck to "Mr. Badass
who kills his minions at the drop of a hat", would he be as interesting a
character?
The problem is that Anti-Templars are bad guys basically because Pinnacle
stacks the deck against them. I've reread the Templar SB several times, and
I still don't quite understand the rationale that leads to _all_ of them
supporting Black Hats.
They're bad guys, in other words, because the source materials, sometimes
without an actual rationale, says they're bad guys. Yeah, some of them turn
to the Reckoners, and they've got that extra bit of temptation. So...there
aren't any Syker Servitors, or purple-type Doomsayer Servitors, or Junker
Servitors?
>What makes this inevitable is the notion that the easy power they can tap
>into is tainted, and the more they use it the more the taint grows. The
>problem
>with a PC AT is that as the PLAYER he can simply say he'll never draw on
>the
>dark power and he gets a Templar free of all those annoying restrictions.
>
As someone noted, so put the player's AT in situations where he must draw on
the power or get shafted, or the easiest solution is to draw on the power
(i.e., contaminate the bad guy's food supply via Famine, rather than fight
them face to face). That's the role-playing angle. And it strikes me as a
more interesting aspect of that particular AB than, say, "Who will I ignore
this week?" or "I like the good Chosen, which of their enemies will I drop
Nuke on this week?"
>Now, obviously, GMs can allow anything they want in their groups. And
>everyone's
>view of the AT will differ. I think PEG made a big mistake in giving
>writeups
>for
>the ATs as they seem like the latest in "coolest new type of character"
>that
>the munchkins are going to flock to. Last Crusade clearly says the Templars
>are the best hope for HOE and the AT's are a VERY BAD thing. They are
>tragic characters who think they are doing the right thing but are really
>just
>playing into the hands of the enemy.
>
>Anyway, my forcing a roll is to keep the PLAYER from avoiding the trap his
>CHARACTER has fallen into. Easy enough for the player to say he won't draw
>on the Reckoners power since he knows the cost. But when things are hairy,
>a dice roll shows the temptation the character is undergoing. Now, sure, a
>great
>roleplayer will factor this in, but then he's admitted that his character
>is
>eventually
>going to become an NPC down the line and few want to make that admission.
>
>I see ATs much the same as dark jedi characters in Star Wars. People play
>dark jedis since they get easier power faster without having to abide by
>a restrictive code of conduct (gee, sounds familiar) and whine and moan
>when
>they get that last dark side point that pushes them over the edge. You end
>up
>with characters one point short of NPCdom who suddenly act all sweetness
>and nice to try to get rid of a few points, then once they have a safety
>margin
>again go right back to nastiness.
>
Ummm, as I understand it, an AT can _never_ get rid of those dark side
points. This ain't the Star Wars RPG (although I'm not up on if you can
ditch DS points there). There is _no_ safety margin. If you're one point
away from total Corruption (and the players should hopefully, most
definitely, _not_ know how their PCs "switch over"), you're always one point
away - it never changes. You can't buy off points with Bounty Points, you
can't role-play away those points. You're always ont he edge.
If they whine and moan, that's their problem since they knew what they were
getting into when they took it. If they didn't, you probably failed in your
job as a Marshall. You should stress that it ain't going to be easy for
them. They're Hunted by Templars (of course, Templars are hunted by ATs
too). Since the incidence of NPC ATs who have turned to the dark side is
greater (not automatic!) than for other AB-types, in general the ATs have a
bad rep among folks in general.
>Anti-Templars as PCs. Just say no. :)
>
>Andrew Ross (draxus@aol.com)
---
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