Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

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

>Steve Crow wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>Firstly, if the town is full of "relatively good" Chosen, by which (I 
>assume)
>you mean that they treat people well and don't kill visitors out of hand, 
>then
>the Templar really shouldn't have too much trouble defending them. 
>Templars,
>IMHO, aren't looking for a settlement of saints to defend, they defend 
>people
>who *aren't bad* and help other people. The test of worth usually involves
>disguising oneself as a mutant or a beggar or somesuch and seeing how they 
>get
>treated - if they're allowed to work for food, that's good enough - they 
>don't
>expect to walk into a town full of good samaritans.
>

Nope.  As per the example I spelled out earlier, I meant "good" Chosen as in 
non-Silas Community Village.  Didn't want anyone to think I was encouraging 
Templars to defend Silas' Grundies and Doombringers.  :)

Also, if you check out that example, I noted that most Chosen weren't going 
to embrace a newcomer or let them work for food (particularly a "norm") 
coming into their community, due to hostile treatment for the last 13 years. 
  Granted, the Templar could disguise himself as a mutant (assuming he isn't 
one), but one would suspect that after he revealed the fact he wasn't a 
mutant, the Chosen wouldn't be too happy with him either, whether they're 
"worthy" or not...

>Secondly, if the town has 500 people in it, and the Templar has 250 of them 
>to
>be unworthy for whatever reason, that still leaves 250 worthy people that 
>the
>Templar, because of his oath, cannot rightly *not* defend them. His options 
>are
>pretty much two
>1)Leave the town because he can't deal with fighting alongside those he has
>deemed to be unworthy, possibly allowing the 250 worthy folk to die when he
>could have helped them.
>2)Help the town fight off the Black Hats and save as many of the 250 worthy 
>as
>he can. A Templar played properly, should, IMHO take this option.
>
>The example given in the flavour text of the main rulebook is of a Templar
>helping an "unworthy" town get rid of a road gang - he gets the children to 
>the
>other "worthy" town to help prepare defenses, and takes the rest of the 
>town
>with him to fight the gang.
>

Yep.  A lovely and appropriate concept.  The problem is, Pinnacle provides 
no way to make workable.  These are people that the Templar has determined 
are already "poor Samaritans" anyway - why are they suddenly inspired to go 
out and be (potentially suicidal) Good Samaritans?  Apparently, just because 
he's a Templar, as others noted.  Even though he doesn't really have any way 
to protect them.

>It is my strong belief that for the most part, Templars are a problem 
>because
>the players decide to make them so. Judging a town's worthiness is 
>something
>that is up to a character - Simon doesn't have strict rules for judging 
>people.
>If a player decides to play a fanatic Templar who's as harsh as Simon when 
>it
>comes to judging people, that's a character choice - it's not one forced on 
>him
>by being a Templar. The same problem can arise when playing Sykers - some
>players decide to make their characters completely nihilistic, which can 
>lead to
>some party fragmentation.
>

What do you mean Simon doesn't have strict rules for judging people?  The 
Templar Sourcebook is filled with the strict rules he has for determining if 
a Squire should graduate, if he assigns a Templar to someone coming before 
him to ask for assistance, etc.  Mordeen got kicked out exactly _because_ 
Simon has strict rules for judging people.

That comparison doesn't work.  Simon _is_ a fanatic, and the head of the 
organization.  Check out some of the other posts:  folks who don't see these 
problems have identified him as such (one person quoted Jo saying so).  So 
we have a "lenient" fanatic!  It's that kind of confusion that makes it 
difficult (for some of us) to run Templars.

The comparison with Sykers is a red herring because we're not discussing a 
player that decides to fragment the group no matter what.  We're talking 
about a character "class" that as a whole is encouraged, by the source 
material, to be divisive.  A particular player may certainly choose to play 
his character (Syker, or whatever) as divisive.  But Templars go beyond that 
by having it "built in" as it were.

Basically, the Templars have an Oath.  If Simon doesn't administer the Oath 
and judge if his minions keep it (as Joan does for Doomsayers, Law Dogs do 
internally, and Banshee Sykers do via the Oath of Unity and the "A" brand), 
then it is _not_ a Hindrance.  You don't take away chips for not playing an 
Oath.  I suppose you could withhold them, but you should still be rewarding 
for other stuff, so that doesn't seem to have a lot of effect.  Besides, I'm 
not sure I _want_ a Templar roleplaying his Oath to the point of getting, 
say, a Red chip.  A lot of the time that will occur at the cost of...welll, 
party unity.

If the Templars aren't obliged to stick to the Oath, or Simon or whoever 
doesn't make them do so (he's "lenient"), then it's pretty much meaningless. 
  And as others have noted, a Templar who doesn't have the 
oath/responsibility to go with his powers is a "broken" concept.

>Templars, IMHO, allow for some interesting roleplaying and exploration of 
>moral
>topics that might not otherwise come to light, but the way they are 
>written,
>they do not inherently break up parties. The rules are not, IMHO, as strict 
>as
>is being made out by some people - there is plenty of leeway unless the 
>rest of
>the party wants to be totally mercenary, in which case, no self-respecting
>Templar would hang out with such low-lifes anyhow. ;-]
>

Could you cite some specific examples of such leeway provided in the 
rulebooks and sourcebooks?  Geez, even NPCs like Jo identify him as a harsh 
taskmaster who has come up with a particular view of how to handle the 
world, and only accepts those into the Order that embrace it as well.

Plus such "leeway" doesn't make much sense anyway, nor is it, IMO, very well 
explained in the Templar SB.  So what _does_ Simon do with Templars that 
help the unworthy?  Folks have asserted he doesn't blackball them, but 
without (very likely party-divisive) punishment, and if they keep their 
powers, why shouldn't Templars help the "unworthy"?  An approach of "Yeah, 
Simon will never know!" by PC Templars doesn't seem either balanced or 
reasonable.

Not to mention that the Anti-Templars were formed in large part because 
Simon _wasn't_ very lenient.  If Templars aren't defecting in droves because 
Simon is a nice guy who lets his Templars have near-free choice to decide 
who is "worthy", why _are_ they leaving?  The whole AT premise seems based 
on Simon's inflexibility and adherence to a strict guideline.  Heck, the 
Temp SB says that.  Yet apparently PC Templars can get away with it?

Granted, if you the Marshall (via Simon) let PC Templars get away with that 
kind of stuff, it certainly makes the appeal of Anti-Templars much less.  
But it also blurs the distinction between them quite a bit.

It's these kind of contradictions that have some of us puzzled.  If Simon 
isn't lenient, then Templar PCs would seem to not have many options.  But if 
he, then what's the point of the Oath and why are folks defecting to the 
ATs?  If he's okay with St. Hise and those who follow her, then he must be 
kinda lenient.  So...he's okay with Templars going against their Oath to 
keep Hise's benefits?!?

>As usual, this is all IIRC and IMHO
>
>Nick


---

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