Re: [HoE] Re: Templars and Anti-Templars

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

>I'd just like to chime in a couple of points about
>those crazy Templars and ATs.
>
>1) I think the best solution to the "save or abandon'
>question is the one the Templar archetype uses: Have
>the naughty people save the nice people.  The evil
>ones get to fight the Black Hats, while the good ones
>hide in the bomb shelter, and stuff like that.  One
>has to remember, that they're always gonna be good and
>bad people, no matter where you go, so why not let the
>bad ones die saving the good ones?
>

That issue was raised before.  Three points, though:

1) It tends to require a bit more in the way of tactics, and rules and stuff 
therein, that don't currently exist in the most vague of ways.

2) I've never been quite clear on that whole rationale from a practical 
standpoint.  Let's see, me and half of a village of 500 people have been 
found "unworthy".  We've got two choices:  A) we can all gang up on this 
Templar that is "forcing" us to help him and most likely get mowed down by 
the invading Black Hats (the Templar himself is boasting he doesn't give a 
rat's ass about us); or B) we can go along with him and fight the Black Hats 
with SAWs, SMGs, support vehicles, grenades, etc.  Hmmm, tough choice 
there...

3) I've never been quite clear on this from a internal-logic standpoint.  If 
the "good" villagers aren't willing to stand up and help fight, but want to 
cower in their bomb shelters, doesn't this make them unworthy from a Templar 
viewpoint?

Essentially, a Templar says, "Hey, either you're willing to help me and 
stand up and fight for yourselves, or you're not in which case I'm going to 
force you (somehow...) to...umm, stand up and fight for yourselves."

>2) While I'm not particularly excited about a
>tempation check for ATs, I did think of a good
>compromise.  When it's possible for an AT to complete
>his goal by using the power of the reckoners, he has
>to make a hard (7) Spirit check, or lose an action
>struggling with the choice.  A bust means that the AT
>automatically uses the power.
>I actually think this might be okay if it's done
>right.  Don't just say "Make a temptation check," do
>it with style.  Describe how the character _hears_ a
>voice in his head, tempting him, prodding him on.
>
>Example:  The AT and his companions are fighting some
>crazy strong monster.  His buddies are getting
>stomped, and theirs a little girl in the ghoulies
>claw.  He realizes that if he summons the power of
>War, he can smash this things head like a rotten
>melon, but doesn't want the corruption.  Suddenly, a
>voice, eminating from somewhere _inside_ the AT:
>"Only you can end this.  The others will die if you
>deny the power I offer.  Submit, and you can save
>them..."  Time for a temptation check.
>

That's certainly what the Marshall _should_ be doing with PC Templars 
regardless.  I think the choice can be accentuated, and the player required 
to choose (and role-play choosing accordingly) without an attribute check 
required.


---

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