What Makes a "Good" Templar?

[Pariah]

I can't speak from experience because I've never played one, but I can make some observations of playing adjacent to them quite a bit.

The ones I enjoyed to be around were the ones that actually did things.  There was a fellow named Samos or Samus FOREVER ago, who would let you bribe him, he would give special favors to people he liked, he would hunt down folks and kill them by himself without ordering guards to do it.  He is still the best I've ever witnessed play a templar.

Now, unless there is specific "Don't do that." or "Play in this lane" rules to Templars, I see them normally too "tavern sitty" for my liking most of the time.  Very reactionary instead of proactive.  That's not a dig on anyone because again I don't know how tight the reins are on them.  But if it's similar to other sponsors roles where they give you a lot of rope to either hang yourself or climb a cliff to greatness I feel like many of them might be erring on the side of caution versus balls to the wall play.

It's hard to give actual concrete feedback without knowing those metrics or having played one, so I guess that's just me looking from the outside in.

I would wager that if I played a templar, I'd probably be killed or stored rather quickly if I was left to my own devices too far, but I'd probably have a hell of a time before then.  But I've always been more of a beg forgiveness than ask permission type fellow.

[Aruven]

The pros got this covered.

I simply wanted to add; don't forget your templar is also a human being. Likely. Lean into that a bit.

[FantasyWriter]

don't forget your templar is also a human being. Likely. Lean into that a bit.

This makes me want to app a human-passing breed templar who's noble mother had an affair with an elf.

[creeper386]

I think the best templars are the ones that rarely get involved with commoner affairs. If something comes up, use the AOD to handle it. Certainly if someone is causing so much problems that you HAVE to get involved it should be a big deal. But most things I don't think should involve Templar.

I *think* this has been pretty consistant lately in that regard, but I also only see a little segment of whats going on. So who knows.

[Tuannon]

You can be involved in commoner affairs, just pick and chose which ones you have critical gainsay over.

If the Militia Corporal has tried to resolve the situation and failed, and the templar is required to step in that is fine, so long as the Corporal has been tried first.

[Veselka]

I think it's less 'Get Involved in Commoner Affairs' and more 'Involve Themselves in Commoner Affairs'.

This also means that non-Templar PCs shouldn't try to involve a Templar unless they feel like they must. Same with Noble PCs.

Often a Templar is getting involved because someone asked them to, and not because they wanted to in the first place. And just like any authority figure coming in halfway through the movie and asked to give a review, they're going to be under-informed and pissed they're there in the first place.

At least, in my experience in playing a Templar, that's how it often played out. My Templar would not want to involve themselves, someone else would entice them to become involved, and then a Templar is involved. When the ball was in my court, I would empower others to deal with 99% of issues that didn't concern me directly.

[valeria]

I think this was very nicely put, in the cities thread:

Good templars are already reporting up to the moment of PK, wishing up prior to PK and reporting after PK.

[Lotion]

a dead one

[Kialae]

Leader 1: I think my clan's growth is more important than your personal enjoyment

Leader 2: I think that your enjoyment of the game is the most important thing, within reason

[HammerofJericho]

So if a leader says: Please stick to x area and don't go across the Known. That's acceptable?

I think players like freedom but then compassion they're not involved in deeper plots. You only get both if you're super lucky because most deeper plots require trust to be included.

[The Lonely Hunter]

Just don't be the sort of templar that tries to win the entire game and act on every bit of knowledge. The city was busy under Sahtuk because he didn't use his incredible network to do everything. And the other templar was brillant as well because he was rping as a foppish, half-incompetant Fale. That was a time of amazing templars.

Basically if you are super keen on executing everyone and dominating the PCs of your city, the city empties out pretty fast as people find other areas to play in. Templars are the MOST important role for the health of playing in one city or another. You don't have to be 100% competant and efficient.

You need to look at yourself as 50% flavour, and 50% mover and shaker. Then new PCs flock to the city and ironically you end up more powerful short term AND long term than a murderous twinky templar.

Even the majority of enemies will respect a well played templar more and not do everything in their power to bring them down, as opposed to the one who blasts any percieved threat and constantly hires assassins to eliminate even slightly annoying enemies. As a player of antagonist type pcs I guarantee the more shitty and unfair you are as a templar the stronger the indy, raider and antagonist population becomes.

Sahtuk was a blast to play and one of my all-time favorites. Thank you!

[Inks]

Sahtuk was a blast to play and one of my all-time favorites. Thank you!

Cool, I played that pro-Tek cultist guy who made the tower engraved flails -Jerric from memory?

And later Hoge.

Fun times in Nak those days, good work for your contribution