Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

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

>Steve Crow wrote:
>
> > 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.  :)
> >
>
>Sorry about that - I don't think I read the post where you spelled it out. 
>The
>only reason a Templar would have for infiltrating a Silas community would 
>be to
>recruit grundies for the army of light...serious shock troops there.
>
>So by "relatively good" you meant "not evil" - cool. =]
>

Well, non-Silas, at any rate...  :)

> > 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...
> >
>
>As I said, I think I missed that example, but if the community isn't going 
>to
>embrace newcomers, especially "norms", then how are the rest of the posse
>helping them? (assuming they're not all mutants who came from the village)
>

Doomsayers, Doomsayers, Doomsayers...  A village of "not-evil" Chosen under 
threat by BHs or something is the kind of thing that cries out for 
purple-Doomsayer involvement.  If you got a Doomsayer in the party , hey 
presto - instant party conflict with the Templar.  The Doomsayer could no 
doubt talk the community into accepting his party's help (particularly if 
they have minor mutations - half my group does anyway).

The question is, what if the Chosen then don't measure up the Templar's 
standards of "worthiness"?

> > 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.
> >
>
>Sorry, I wasn't very clear - I meant to say that Simon judges people and 
>cases
>individually - he doesn't have a checklist of things, and if someone gets 
>above
>a certain score they're worthy/unworthy.
>

I think the Templar SB is pretty clear.  But again, either they have to be 
strict, or the Templar is just a cool guy with cool powers and no real 
restrictions or responsibilities other than to not do something really 
blatantly stupid (i.e., help biker gangs).

> > <sorry, I seem to be snipping fairly liberally>
> > 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.
> >
>
>Check my other post - I quoted part of LC that provides an example.
>

Well, I did and my response can be seen above.  If Simon never does nothing 
except in the most blatant examples, where's the responsibility that some 
folks here have cited as part and parcel of Templars?

> > 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?
> >
>
>The Anti-Templars were formed after a fairly massive infraction of the 
>rules -
>Modeen wasn't just helping the unworthy, he helped the Black Hats 
>(long-time
>enemies of the Templars) win a fight. That's a little more serious than 
>helping
>a group of non-Silas chosen, some of whom were judged unworthy, against a 
>road
>gang.
>

Yes, but as the Temp SB states, others have left then because they find the 
guidelines (which apparently now are chock-filled with "exceptions") of the 
Temps too stringent.  So they _all_ helped the Black Hats...?

>PC Templars can get away with minor infractions, and are given a chance to
>explain their actions, just like other Templars - you'll notice that Modeen
>wasn't killed by Simon or anyone else in the Temple when he said what he'd 
>done.
>He tore off his tabard and walked out.
>

And the Temp SB says that Simon has tightened up the guidelines a bit since 
then.  That's where the Oath of Blood comes in...

>The Companion edge says that some people who want to be Templars just can't 
>make
>the hard moral decisions (big surprise) they need to - if someone joined 
>the
>Templars, and then later found they couldn't hack it, they might join the
>Anti-Templars, but the Anti-Templars are now, I think, mostly made up of
>ex-gangers and other folks recruited into an Anti-Templar warband, not
>ex-Templars. That is just my POV, though - as you may have guessed, I think 
>the
>Templars, right now, are what the world needs most.
>

Don't have the Temp SB here, but I do believe it states that Templars are 
still defecting.  Plus, I tend to figure the most powerful ATs are 
ex-Templars anyway, since they would have had the time to gain their Temp 
lesser rewards before becoming an AT.  Even if a new-recruit gains lesser 
reward powers relatively fast...a ex-Temp who gains them just as fast and 
had his prior training as well will gain them faster still, and make a 
tougher threat.

>As for Anti-Templars, a couple of people have made the comparison to Dark 
>Jedi
>in Star Wars - I think something along the lines of the Dark Side mechanic 
>in
>the Star Wars RPG would be pretty useful, but then again, we already have 
>it:
><minor spoilers>
>
>
>
>
>PCs can become servitors through their actions, including Templars, 
>although
>they'd be blackballed, drummed out of the order, and have a death order 
>placed
>on their heads before they got to that stage, hopefully. Anti-Templars are 
>more
>likely to have this happen, whether or not they use their Reckoner powers,
>(which, by the way, the Anti-Templar thinks it's OK for him to use, cause 
>that's
>what Modeen says) simply because they wander around killing Templars to get
>Greater Rewards..
>

Well, the AT debate was one I pretty much dropped out of because I think 
it's anothe red herring - the real problem from an abuse standpoint via 
Munchkins is a Temp who drops out and simply goes his own way without 
joining the ATs.

But yes, certainly, ATs are more likely to have this happen.  That doesn't 
mean PC ATs are - in that case, it would be a choice up to them.  If they 
choose not to kill Temps to get Greater Rewards, or draw on their 
"blessings' (besides, Mordeen is probably dead in most campaigns - he ain't 
saying anything is okay or wrong right now...  :) ), then it won't happen.  
Which was some folks' concern.

> > 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?!?
> >
>
>Like I said earlier, I don't think Templars are defecting to the ATs on a 
>daily
>basis, and again, check my other post for info on what Simon does with 
>Templars
>who receive the blessing of St. Hise.
>
>

Your post stated that he "makes exceptions".  And that was exactly the 
problem I cited above - if he makes exceptions for any and all 
less-than-blatant abuses, where's the "flavor" of the Templars?

Hope that makes things clear.  I never doubted that Simon makes exceptions - 
only where that path leads.  It would kinda be like...say, a purple 
Doomsayer turning his back on some Chosen, and Joan and the guy's Mentor 
shrugging and saying, "Well, he didn't join back up with Silas, so I guess 
we'll make an exception."

>Nick "IMAHO and IIQC" Coucouvinis


---

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