Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.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

Although I didn't go into detail, that pretty easily avoidable.  If the 
Harrowed PC puts in a decent Spirit, the existing system (which currently 
tends to favor pretty mild Manitous-Possessors, although obviously you can 
draw higher), pretty much eliminates the problem.  After that, the only 
balancers in HoE (bad body odor) are pretty minimal.

>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.

Well, actually, judging from the response to date, it isn't that it's a 
great solution as much as the _only_ solution.  Nobody else has really 
presented an alternative to the potential for party divisiveness, the 
removal of the Templar as a PC the first time he comes into a conflict, 
and/or the Templar choosing to side with his adventuring comrades, rather 
than the Templar organization.

>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? :)
>

Ummm, no.  Well, yes, the whole "stringent code of behavior" thing does, but 
not the "I've got dark side powers, I just don't use them" aspect.  I don't 
recall "other game" Paladins having these kind of moral choices to make.

If do you mean do "other game" Paladins have some of the party cohesion 
problems that Templars do in HoE, I would agree.  Except that Paladins were 
never presented as a complete, fully-fledged character class in their own 
right.  At least, not to the degree that Templars are.

>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

But the rules don't say that, that's part of the problem.  Even within the 
rules there are various quesitons as to whether this is truly the "right 
way."

However, it's a moot point.  The Templar "way" could be entirely wrong.  The 
point is that the rules don't provide a solution to the divisiveness that 
can quite easily result.

>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.
>

Given what I perceive of the heroic nature of the game, if a Templar chooses 
to abandon a village (based on his subjective viewpoint, of course), that 
doesn't make them very "heroic" at all.  Particularly when there are other 
characters who defend the village and "are" considered heroic.

To some degree Templars _do_ go against the heroic nature of the game - 
that's part of their problems.  As they themselves note, narratively, 
Templars are _selfish_.  That's certainly not a trait that need be unique to 
just these particular PCs, but when an entire "class" if you will has that 
mentality, and the organization therein penalizes those who go against that 
mentality, you have problems.

I'm not sure I follow your example.  So if an AT joined the group, didn't 
call upon his dark powers, and helped the rest of the group defend a village 
of good Chosen (as most Doomsayers and Law dogs, to say the least, might 
reasonably tend to do), you really feel that if a Templar then showed up and 
say, "Hey, you - I swore a blood oath to kill you so let's have at it!", you 
really feel that the rest of the party would be on their way to 
servitor-hood if they defended him?

If I understand the WW Companion rules correctly, if that AT chose to stood 
by what he believed in, and didn't defend himself, wouldn't the _Templar_ 
get a draw on the old Death/Servitor chart?

>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,

I don't believe very many people at all have complained they were to hard to 
_play_.  Certainly no one has yet provided an answer to the various 
questions that Marshals have raised about party cohesion, etc.

>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.
>

They should not, however, be so "hard" that their very presence has a good 
chance of destroying party/player unity, or requires that the player drop 
the Templar shortly after creating him.

Actually, the whole Anti-Templar thing is a red herring.  You can get 
blackballed as a Templar, keep _all_ your "regular" Saint-type powers, and 
escape any responsibilities whatsoever.  Joining the Anti-Templars is really 
a moot point after that.

I'm not that big on Templar powers at all, but to return again to the 
question that was originally asked, and that I tried to resurrect yesterday, 
what this person (me) wants, and what Ryan, who originally raised the issue, 
seems to want, are answers to the questions raised of Templar "playability".

Leaving the Templars (whether you become an Anti-Templar or not 
subsequently) are not only _a_ solution, but the _only_ one that Pinnacle 
provides.  _Pinnacle_ provided Templar powers without Templar 
responsibilities, and not only that, but left it as the only answer 
available.  I don't see that adding an attribute-check system that Pinnacle 
didn't intend, isn't conducive to role-playing, and that a player could 
probably bypass anyway by placing attributes accordingly, is the answer to 
that.  Or simply not choosing to become a Anti-Templars.

However, I'd settle for _any_ other answer as well.  But to reiterate the 
question:

A newly-created Templar, as part of a starting group of players, enters a 
town of 500 relatively "good" Chosen preparing for a siege of Black Hats.  
The Marshall's adventure _is_ the group defending the town.  The Templar 
(rightly or wrongly - it is subjective) decides the town isn't worthy of 
protection.  He lacks the mystical-yet-vague ability to force all the 
"unworthy" 250 folks or so to fight anyway.  The rest of the party, out of 
altruism, payment, whatever, do help the townsfolk.

Now, in this case, what are the Templar's options:

A) Die trying to force the "unworthy" ones to defend the village?

B) Start hacking up "unworthy" ones whose only crime is not meeting up to 
Templar standards (ooh, more Death/Servitor checks) until they fall into 
line.

C) Check with the Marshall, and be told, "Don't worry about it - Templar HQ 
will overlook your transgression this time.  And the next.  And the next.  
And any other time we have this problem."  In other words, you're a Templar 
without the responsibility.

D) Complain to the Marshall, who then takes steps to make sure all villages 
are "worthy-friendly."  Which he'll have to do this time.  And the next, and 
the next.  In this case, you have the Templar responsibility, but it's 
meaningless since you never have to choose between the worthy and the 
unworthy.

E) Sit out the rest of the adventure, leading to a bored player and a group 
that's wondering why they have the Templar along.

F) Defend the village anyway, and get away with it.  Again, you're now a 
Templar without the Templars' responsibilities.

G) Defend the village anyway, and suffer some lesser punishment from Templar 
HQ.  Since powers can't be stripped, this would probably have to be 
something that removes the character from play.  "Great," the player says, 
wondering why he ever chose a Templar as he moves on to creating his next 
character that can actually participate in group adventures.

H) Defend the village anyway, and get blackballed and lose Martyr blessing.  
Whether he chooses to become a Anti-Templar or not, he still has all of his 
Templar powers and none of the responsibilities.

Now, that's every option that I can come up with.  Nobody likes H, but that 
seems the most viable of the ones available from both a character and a 
Marshall point of view, without weakning the concept of Templars to the 
point that they are Templars, without the responsibility, anyway.

If you've got a better option, let's hear it.  Nobody has volunteered one 
yet, or indicated why any of the options above are workable and/or 
desirable.

>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