Re: [HoE] Templars

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

><<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.>>
>
>I personally agree with this one; strategizing an entire battle plan in the
>middle of a game can be agonizingly boring.
>

Actually, one of my long-term projects is working up some kind of simplified 
S&T system.  Check out the old Bushido and the more recent Legend of the 5 
Rings RPGs that do this.  Basically, they encourage individual character 
participation.  It's kind of on the back burner now.

><<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... >>
>
>What's not clear about this rationale?  Remember that the Templars' 
>reputation
>is larger than life.  People hear stories about one Templar smiting horrors
>one-handed.  They hear Black Hats are coming, and they're pretty sure 
>they're
>all gonna die.  But, when they see that ONE Templar, they think they've got 
>a
>chance.  That's one reason the Templars don't go around in their tabards 
>all the
>time.  Those bad villiagers are going to fight, because now they see a 
>chance
>that a few of them are going to make it back.
>

But these are unworthy types are generally self-centered types who spit on 
beggars, have their children throw rocks at strangers, etc.  They've got the 
option of running for the hills (or feeding/sheltering the Combine, or 
whatever).  Or, they can side with this guy who has lots of mystical 
protection which they lack when he goes on the suicide run with them.

So let's see, you're an "unworthy" guy and you've got a newly-found general 
who's can't stand your guts (see the archetype) and is willing to use you as 
cannon fodder.  On the one hand, yeah he'll be there with Armor of the 
Saints, Dead Eye, bonuses with his sword, and decent armor.  The "worthy" 
folks got the good ammo and artillery, and you're standing there in a 
t-shirt, shorts, sneakers, and a pitchfork.

On the other hand, you've got an advancing army that might cut you a break.  
There's 400 of you, and one general who's the only thing that's giving you 
any kind of incentive to stand and fight or die where you stand.

Geez, I'd think even the Worthy would be having second thoughts about this 
deal.  "Okay, 4/5ths of our population is going off on a suicide run, and 
our newly-found savior is promising that a few of them might come back 
(quoting the archetype again).  That might stop the BHs this time.  But what 
about next month?"

Also, as always, this assumes the Templar is the only person there.  This 
_might_ conceivably work (how much Leadership/Persuasion do you need to 
persuade 400 people this is a desireable thing for them to do??).  What if 
the rest of the party feels killing off the unworthy (of course, only in the 
Templar's judgement - if they're real scum, they're probably not helping 
anyway) in a suicide attack is a bad thing?

While I dislike nitpicking, I do feel this points out the substantal flaws 
in the whole Templar approach, and certainly the flaws of how this works on 
party coherency.  More importantly, this stuff is the kind of thing my 
_players_ notice.  Having a Templar say, "Hey, these folks can't be this 
stupid/gullible/whatever" is not a good sign, nor is having Marshall who 
says, "Nah, go ahead and try it - they'll go along with you on your suicide 
run - don't sweat it."

Your mileage may vary, of course.  :)

><<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? >>
>
>Well, they hardly let the worthy ones sit in a bomb shelter.  They still 
>fight,
>but the suicide missions are manned by the unworthy ones.  The worthy folks 
>dig
>moats, fortify the town, and load artillery while the Templar leads the 
>unworthy
>to head off the Black Hats at the pass.  Then, when the weakened platoon 
>reaches
>the town, they've got to deal with a well-defended settlement whose 
>residents
>are well-armed and behind a moat and a 20' wall.  If anyone wants to sit 
>out of
>the fight, they do it on the wrong side of the moat.

*shrug* The original statement about the worthy "cowering in their bomb 
shelters" wasn't my line:  I was merely quoting.

>--
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