Re: [HoE] Roving Templars, etc.

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

>With the recent discussion of whether or not a Templar can have a base of
>operations, and the one a while ago on what Simon's standards are, I see 
>many
>people falling into a common mental trap in gaming.  I call it Vampire 
>Disorder,
>because that's where I saw it most prevalently.  It's the assumption that a
>character's behavior is dependent on "what" they are.
>Just because the book says that Templars roam the wastes without a 
>permanent
>home, and that it saysd they'd judge town A worthy and town B not, doesn't 
>mean
>that every individual Templar is going to do the same thing.  Not everyone

I think the flaw there is that the sourcematerial encourage that kind of 
attitude.  In sourcebooks that leave the "character class" (for lack of a 
better term) a bit more open in terms of strictures and personality, you 
rarely see that kind of thing.

Heck, Pinnacle does it themselves.  Not all Junkers are stated as having a 
set series of Oaths.  Nor are all Sykers, or all Harrowed.

But when a sourcebook, intentionally or not, sets out to impose a harsh set 
of strictures on a particular character class, I don't think blaming the 
players for Vampire Disorder or whatever.

>follows the party line.  Simon may be a fanatic, but he's hardly got the 
>time to
>run around breathing down all the Templars' necks about them staying too 
>long in
>a settlement or saying they're defending an unworthy place.  And he's not 
>gonna
>blackball (or kill, since some people don't know of any way short of death 
>to
>punish someone) Ritter for living in one place, because he's still 
>upholding the
>code for the most part.


Well, actually, that question was asked and nobody here seemed to know of 
any way short of death to _effectively_ punish someone without destroying 
party unity, or imposing restrictions on the rest of the party that were 
undesireable.

Certainly there are ways to punish a solo templar short of death, yes.  
Unfortunately, it seemed that very few PC Templars are solo templars.


>This is why I'm bothered when someone starts off a description of their
>character with "He's a Templar (or Doomsayer, Junker, Law Dog)."  It says
>immediately that the player considers his "class" before he considers what 
>the
>character would do.

But sometimes class does dictate what a character would do.  Or at least, 
some sourcebooks (and I'm not just talking Pinnacle and Hell on Earth here) 
do heavily emphasize that route.

>So, if you read about ONE Templar who lives in a town or helps folks out 
>even if
>they don't like muties, let it slide.  People are people, whether they wear
>white tabards, purplr or green robes, or bandoliers full of bullets.
>

While the perceived "problem" per se doesn't bother me, the fact that the 
adventure in question doesn't clarify whether this is a standard (or even 
permissible) Templar tactic is somewhat bothersome.  Ideally, the Templar SB 
should have presented it as an option (along with several others), just so 
players wouldn't get the impression that the wandering Templar was the only 
permissible norm.

Role-playing is certainly about options, but a failure to provide some 
suggested options in the appropriate "class" sourcebook does not, IMO, make 
it entirely the players' fault...


>--
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