Re: [HoE] [HOE] Templar Ideals

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

> > Templar: "I cannot defend this town they are unworthy."
> >
> > Other Players: "Well too bad Bob they got fuel and bullets and we need
> > them."
>
>Depends. The other characters want to stay and the Templar feels loyalty
>to his comrades. He will fight to defend himself and them. Once they can
>get away, that's where his responsibility ends. He won't go out of his
>way to save townspeople, probably not even heal them [he doesn't want
>them to know he's a Templar], but he'll stay close to his friends and
>defend them. If he doesn't go out of his way to help townspeople and
>he's sticking by his friends, then he's not fighting to defend the town.
>And Black Hats are definitely the greater of the two evils. The
>townsfolk might not deserve to live, but the Black Hats deserve to live
>even less.
>

But if the other party members are defending unworthy villagers, and make a 
habit of it, doesn't this either A) make them unworthy, and not deserving of 
the Templar's loyalty, or B) mean the Templar _is_ going to end up defending 
the villagers, however indirectly?

I mean, if a village is being attacked by Black Hats and the Templar refuses 
to help it...but helps his comrades and kills 10 of the 60 Black Hats, 
doesn't that mean he _is_ helping the villagers?  "Well, yeah, Simon, I 
killed 10 of the village's invading Black Hats even though the villagers 
were scummed.   But only because my party needed the ammo."  I can't imagine 
that going down very well based on the source material.

The problem is, the various source stuff makes it clear that sometimes the 
Templars _do_ let the greater of the two evils, the invading Black Hats, win 
out.

I don't think "getting away" is an option:  in the example given, it's not 
like the rest of the party were trapped there.  Rather, they were there 
voluntarily to defend the village in return for payment.

>As for PEG making adventures 'Templar-friendly', I would say "No". Being
>a Templar isn't easy and it isn't supposed to be. 'Templar-friendly'
>adventures would take away a big portion of who the Templars are.
>

It shouldn't be easy.  And as Mr. Flory noted, it can lead to role-playing 
possibilities.  But it shouldn't be intrinsically self-destructive to the 
player group.  And I think Ryan's point, which is one that I've witnessed 
myself, is that it _can_ be self-destructive.

If a Templar hangs around with a party that typically and willingly defends 
"unworthy" folks, it seems like he's going to have problems.  Law Dogs are 
the ones cited throughout the source materials as the types who often do it 
"foolishly", but in the group I run, pretty much everyone other than the 
Templar chips in.  There's always a few Chosen that may not be "worthy" but 
the Doomsayer will defend.  Someone else has a Heroic Edge.  And so on.

> > 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.
>
>I wouldn't say that it has no meaning. It's more of a case-by-case basis
>and the Templar is trusted to make what he feels is the right choice. If
>he's running around defending every town he comes across, word will get
>back to Simon and then he'll have to answer for it. Templars have
>elected themselves to be the judges of mankind and are trusted to make a
>wise decision, on their own, depending on the situation. See above
>mentioned example. It's not easy being a Templar.
>

The problem is that the only way that PC Templars can "answer for it" is by 
being blackballed and hunted down, or choosing to become Anti-Templars.  I 
suppose they could, say, be re-Squired or something to prove their 
worthiness and re-acquired knowledge of "Templar Ideals," but that 
effectively removes them from play.

Given that choice, the alternative seems to be for a Templar to refuse to 
help his party, by not allowing himself to (directly or indirectly) defend 
the unworthy.  But that seems equally self-destructive.

The only alternative I've found to date is to kinda compromise.  The Templar 
kinda ignores his vows (he goes the "indirectly save the Village by helping 
his comrades fight even though the villagers themselves aren't worthy") and 
I kinda ignore Templar HQ oversight.  But this is kinda growing unsatisfying 
to me and to the Templar PC as well...

>Mgkelly
>--
>"You do any Martial Arts?"
>"I got a Black Belt in Smith & Wesson Gun-Fu."


---

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