Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

[Draxus@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/3/99 7:34:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
crow_steve@hotmail.com writes:

> *shrug* Turning the powers of the Reckoners against themselves has been an 
>  accepted concept for a PC since Deadlands and Harrowed characters were 
>  introduced.  Now all of a sudden, it's a bad thing if ATs do it.  Not sure 
>  I'm tracking on that one...

Well, Harrowed have the little built in balancer of the manitou taking charge
now and then and having some fun. My original point way back when was
that a player or GM who don't like playing/running Templars as written
in the game (too many restrictions on conduct judging from the list) seem
to see ATs as a great solution. All the powers, none of the restrictions.
And as for those nasty "dark side" powers, well just never use them and
you can be a "good" AT indefinitely. Gee, does any of this remind anyone
of all those Paladin arguments long long ago in a certain game? :)

To which I replied, while a GM can run his game anyway he or she likes,
according to the rules, the Templar was is THE RIGHT WAY, and if you're
not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Given what I at least
perceive to be the heroic nature of the game, any party that would rather
pal around with an AT than a Templar, especially a group that would help
defend him against any Templars that show up, is well on their way to
becoming servitors themselves.

I guess part of the long and short of it is people complain that Templars
are too hard to play or run for and want them made easier. Well, gosh, 
they're supposed to be hard! They're carrying the weight of the world
on their shoulders and face an impossible task. That's what gives the
character its unique flavor. From all the responses I've seen on this
issue so far, it mostly seems people want Templar powers without
Templar responsibilities. Definitely the Paladin problem.

Andrew Ross (draxus@aol.com)