Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

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

><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.
>

In this case, it wasn't a matter of the PCs "talking" the Templar into  
betraying his oath, but the Templar's player giving in because...well, he 
signed on to play with a group of players, and would like to stay part of 
that group.

Again, your mileage may vary, but why would the Order _want_ a Templar to go 
on a quest with folks who had already convinced him to break his vows?  
Given that Templars seem to function best on their own (both from a story 
and a game mechanics/party type of view), I'd think they'd rather he go on 
his own.

>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.
>

Again, your mileage may vary, but my players get together to play as a group 
of PCs.  Having someone wonder off on side adventures, no matter how 
well-handled, takes time and effort away from what they're there to do.  A 
"Good GM" might make the side adventure interesting, he might even make it 
so that it doesn't take time substantially away from the main group.  But if 
it ain't what the players want (and many players, it has been my experience, 
don't _want_ other players' characters going off on side adventures no 
matter what, even if time is spread equally), it don't matter how good a GM 
you are.

But yes, if you have a group of players that doesn't mind individuals 
running off on their own side adventures, and aren't there to play entirely 
as a group, that solution is viable.  I've just never encountered such 
players in more years of GMing than I won't bore you with detailing.  Maybe 
it's a regional thing...?

>Scott "Hope you get the gist" Mickelson
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe hoe
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>


---

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