Re: Re: Followers

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:23:38 +0100

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:20:32 -0700, David Dunham <david_at_...> wrote:

>Xena's Gabrielle is not a follower, she's an ally. I don't really
>watch the program, but hasn't she had a whole show to herself once?

She has, more than one. But therein lies the difference in our treatment of Followers. I see no problem at all in allowing a follower a life of their own, treating them as more than just another piece of equipment. Gabrielle remains a follower, simply because she follows. She is not an equal, never leads. What she does alone, is always a side issue - her main purpose in the show is support.

>I'll concede there are cases where a follower's skill is used
>directly. But I still maintain it's always under the fairly direct
>supervision of the hero -- you don't use a follower to stay behind
>and hold the pass, or even to deliver a critically important message.

Why not? The whole purpose of followers is to extend the hero's abilities, so why should you not use the follower for those abilities. A healer could have his warrior follower stand guard while he carried news of the attack, or a warrior could send a Fleetfooted follower to deliver the message while HE stood guard. Both seem eminently sensible to me. Why should a group of two or more people be forced to fail simply because they cannot be in two places at once? They CAN.


Powered by hypermail