[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HoE] Templar Code
>Most of the arguments against Templars' playability here hinge pretty much
>on
>the Marshal saying, "OK, here's the plot. Go for it." There's this town
>and
>Black Hats are going to attack it. So the posse obviously has to sit there
>and
>wait for them to show up. Next week, there's going to be this town, and
>the
>Cult o' Doom is going to attack it, etc.
Well, actually, earlier I stressed that at best, only a third of adventures
should fit into the category.
>Long ago, I ran a Weird West adventure designed to test my players'
>morality
>level. They were a Texas Ranger-oriented group, and they were assigned to
>track
>down an escaped CSA scientist who had the blueprints for an unknown
>invention.
>After tracking him through the desert, they found the scientist, and went
>through his luggage. There, they found his blueprint. The invention he
>had
>designed was pretty much a doomsday device. The characters were SUPPOSED
>to
>question whether or not they should let this fall into ANYONE'S hands, but
>they
>continued their mission, just because "the Marshal told them too." I
>considered
>the adventure a failure.
Basically, that's the "Star Trek" syndrome. Basically, every other week
Kirk, or Sisko, or Picard, or whoever, has an adventure, and doesn't do what
his orders dictate that he do. So he saves his friend/violates the prime
directive/rescues a crewmate. Next week, the reset button gets hit, the
Federation doesn't remember it, no court-martial comes about. Repeat ad
nausem.
Granted, this may vary in the Deadlands/HoE universe. Hucksters, or
Harrowed, or Sykers, or (most) Junkers, or Mad Scientists, aren't under any
real authority. Texas Rangers are. Doomsayers are. Templars most
definitely are.
The options here are A) "Shucks, I guess our boys in the field failed and
disregarded their orders - let's give them next week's exciting adventure"
and B) "Let's kick them out." The problem with B is of course that Templars
put death sentences on the folks they kick out.
>As a Marshal, you should continually be making the PC's second-guess
>themselves. The posse Law Dog should occasionally ask himself, "What if
>that
>arrogant Templar is actually RIGHT?" At the same time, the Templar should
>wonder if he did a good enough job in judging that settlement that just got
>razed to the ground. "What if there were good people there that I just
>didn't
>see?"
Agreed. But that doesn't deal with the issue of party divisiveness.
>Basically, if you make the moral choice an important part of the story, as
>opposed to the tactical challenge of fighting platoons of enemies, then the
>"weaknesses" of the Templars become strengths. They know the Black Hats
>are
>coming in two days. The Templar (personally) wants to help his friends,
>but so
>far hasn't found any worthy folks to defend. So, he's got two days to find
>something, anything, worth saving about this settlement. That's a bigger
>adventure than taking down the Horsemen, Stone, and Throckmorton combined.
>
True enough, but it overlooks the fact that the Templar's code is dictated
by an organization that applies them rather...strongly. The guidelines for
"worthiness" are given throughout the Templar book, both in the narrative
via Jo and in actual "game mechanics" type text.
IMO, but supported strongly by the source material, I don't believe a
Templar is allowed to find just "something, anything" to justify saving a
settlement. The folks have to as a whole treat outsiders respectfully.
They have to stand up for their fellows. Etc. Etc.
This leaves the player (and the Marshall) with a couple of puzzles, I'll
admit. So if the Templar finds a minority of the townsfolk who meet these
guidelines, what's he to do without helping the "unworthy"? (Templars may
be great, but nobody yet has believably explained how if there are 100
people in a town of 500 that are "worthy", the Templar gets the other 400 to
go along with him despite his expressed disdain for them. All believable
explanations welcome, though. :) )
And of course, as mentioned before, what the Templar is to do if his
comrades swear to defending all 500, but he only commits to helping the 100
"worthy" ones?
*shrug* Sound stringent? Sure. But I believe this stringency originates in
the source material. Pinnacle seemed to go out of its way to make the
Templar code a harsh, unyielding, brutally enforced policy. And as NPCs, or
solo characters...it works. No doubt about that.
It's an interesting, and logical viewpoint, based on the game setting.
It's just not one that lends itself well to a player using it in a group.
Nor is it one that I wish to undermine because then whatever Templar NPCs I
might use are undermined as well.
>--
From Whom It May Concern,
>Richard Ranallo, The Man They Couldn't Hang
---
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