Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

[Olympiad1@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/3/99 1:00:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
crow_steve@hotmail.com writes:

<A bunch of options snipped>

> 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.
>
<Other options snipped>
>  
>  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.

Actually, I think "G" can be a perfectly viable option.  Require the Templer 
to provide a service to the order (a quest if you will).  Why would the other 
party members be left out?  Seems if they can talk him into betraying his 
"beliefs", they should also be willing to assist him, when he needs it.

Personally, I think all the problems people are bringing up regarding the 
Templars code of ethics are minor.  I've been in many, many campaigns where a 
character in the group opposed the main action of the adventure.  With a Good 
GM, the player should not feel he is doing nothing while his compadres fight 
- maybe he has a side adventure, maybe he's protecting the innocent children 
in the town hall - I don't know, I'm in a ramble mode now, so I'll stop now.

Scott "Hope you get the gist" Mickelson