Re: [HoE] [HOE] Templar Ideals

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

>Okay my Templar player and I have been discussing this recenlty and I
>thought I'd bring it up on the list to see what y'all thought.  I have two
>problems with Templars both stemming from their moral ambiguity.
>
>
From a Game world standpoint.
>
>If village A resits the Black Hats and is destoyed and village B could have
>helped them but didn't then obviously they would not be in the Templar's
>good graces.
>

You want to know what I really find funny about this cited example (which is 
noted throughout several books, so it ain't just Ryan), is that one of the 
sourcebooks (I think Road Warriors) notes that despite how the various books 
make it sound to the contrary, settlement communities are relatively few and 
far between.  But the example of "Village A not helping Village B" is _also_ 
often cited in various source material.

It seems to me that the odds are that templars are almost _never_ going to 
find two villages within such close proximity that one could ever be 
expected to be in a position to be able to do anything for the other.

>But what motivation do they have to help the other village. The fact that a
>templar MIGHT come along at just the right time and help both vilages 
>defend
>against the black hats. I don't think so.  Either the village b is powerful
>enough to defeat the Black Hats on thier own and they don't need the 
>Templar
>or they aren't and there is no point in helping.
>The people "should" of course want to band together against the Black Hats
>but in HOE these are SURVIVORS they aren't trying to throw the chains of
>oppression the are simply trying to SURVIVE.
>

What I was considering was having a village that applied the same test of 
"worthiness" to neighboring villages (of which there almost are never 
supposed to be any of anyway, according to Road Warriors), that Templars 
apply to them.

Something like they had once been rejected for help by a Templar, and since 
then had rather...fanatically tried to prove themselves worthy _and_ apply 
the same standards of worthiness to those they would have the chance to help 
themselves.

This certainly could hold a mirror up to the "hypocrisy" of the 
Templars...but then what?  The alternative is being blackballed and hunted 
down, or becoming an Anti-Templar.  Which has its own problems.  Although 
theirs is a viewpoint that I tend to actually find more sympathy towards 
than that of the Templars themselves.  The one anti-Templar I presented 
absolutely refused to...well, draw on various powers that shall remain 
unspoken of here for spoiler purposes.  His chances of winning out were no 
less than that of any pre-Templar Sourcebook, pre-Martyr Templar.



>What if these people later need help against an abomination? or someone in
>the village needs healing? Does the templar turn his back on them? If he
>does it really make him or anyone else a better person?
>What if the Templar didn't know about village A and hte massacre would he 
>be
>breaking his oath?
>
>Most Likley All villages or people have done somehting bad or "wrong" at
>some point just to survive.There are going to be exceptions to this but 
>most
>groups of people out there in the wastes are going to fall in the gray 
>area.
>
>So really what it boils down to is that a Templar just helps who he or she
>wants too or who he/she feels is worthy. So in effect the Templars code of
>only helping those who "deserve" to be helped is totally ambigious and has
>no meaning.
>

The problem I've found is that a player character can play this as strictly 
as they wish.  As a Marshall, exactly what are you supposed to do to prevent 
it.  There aren't enough Templars (one assumes) that they can go around 
saving folks _and_ backtracking around to check out that all Templars in the 
field are doing what they're supposed to do.

And hey, if a report comes in that a Templar rejected a village's help when 
he shoudln't have...who is Simon going to believe?  Some random report from 
out of the field from some brainer who happened to pass through a destroyed 
village and might not like Templars anyway, or the
Templar himself when Simon summons him forth to account for his ations.

Of course, you can always toss in some Marshall fiat ("Yeah, our numbers are 
small, but there just _happened_ to be another Templar there, and he just 
_happened_ to disagree with you, and he just _happened_ to have been knocked 
into a coma so that he could help you or dispute your actions at the time, 
but later he just _happened_ to wake up and find his way back to us to 
report about you," etc., etc.).  But that can get stretched pretty thin 
after a while.

And the various sources themselves encourage such strictness.  Joan is 
certainly someone you could point to as a rather...harsh adherent to the 
Templar ideals.  Yes, you could argue, "Well, the players shouldn't use her 
as a role model."  On the other hand, by Pinnacle presenting her as a 
narrator, and one they say they like, she _does_ act as a "role model" for 
aspiring PC Templars.

>My second problem with Templars is basically the same but from an Role
>Playing  point of view.
>
>The posse enters a survivor town and finds out the town will pay them
>handsomly to protect them from bandits. In the meantime the Templar has
>discovered (for whatever reason) that the town does not deserve to be 
>saved.
>
>Templar: "I cannot defend this town they are unworthy."
>
>Other Players: "Well too bad Bob they got fuel and bullets and we need
>them."
>
>Templar Player: "What kind of crappy adventure is this? Did you make it 
>this
>way on purpose so I coulnd't play!"
>
>(Dice and empty Coke bottles fly through the air and assail the helpless 
>GM)
>
>There are a number of solutions to this problem all which I don't really
>find acceptable.
>
>Make sure all adventures are "Templar Freindly" and the victims always
>deserve to be saved. Though again this means that the Templar code is
>meaningless and "Real" templars can only exist in stories and not actual
>game sessions. It also gives rise to the question: Will all the published
>PEG adventures be "Templar Friendly" ?
>

The back-of-the-book adventures don't make any real effort to be "Templar 
Friendly".  They don't make any real effort not to be, either.  Again, the 
problem seems to lie with the purely subjective viewpoint of the PC 
Templar(s) in question, influenced by the "typical" Templar viewpoint 
Pinnacle puts forward via Joan.

If a player Templar decides, "Hey, they're not worthy" there's not a lot 
your Marshall can do in-character to stop them.  Unless the player decides 
to mellow his attitude.  But as Ryan notes, this tends to undermine the 
whole concept.

>You could also have the entire party be Templars or Companions but I don't
>think that will happen very often.
>
>The Templar player has a second charecter and the Tepmlar simply "goes 
>away"
>when these moral situations arise.  This is really the only acceptable
>solution that I can think of.
>
>(*whew*)
>Any suggstions?
>

Not really - I'll be curious to see what others posted on later.  i find it 
also a problem.  Basically, if a Joan-inspired PC Templar gets it into his 
head a village ain't worthy, you have problems.  Of course, as a Marshall, 
you could simply create a paragon-like village of worthiness, but that seems 
pretty unrealistic as well.

>Ryan "Spends way too much time thinking about Templars" Moore


---

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