[DitV] Dogs and (false?) doctrine
John Adams:
Played my first game of Dogs in the Vineyard last night. We had less than 2 hours to play, nevertheless we created 4 interesting Dogs and ran through 4 pretty cool initiations. I GM'd, and there were a few times I wasn't quite sure what to do.
Is it OK for a Dog to take a Trait that obviously runs counter to doctrine? Sr. Virginia took "Hatred of the Doctrine of Polygamy" ... now would that necessarily render her unfit to be a Dog? Wouldn't the Dog's Stewards cull her out for something like that? On the other hand that smacks of the GM dictating morality to the PCs and I can see how the Trait would create great conflicts in play, so I'm torn. I figured we might go for it anyway under the guise that the Stewards see a plan for Sr. Virginia, that her time as a Dog, under the eyes of other Dogs, might turn her around and show her the Truth Immortal regarding Polygamy.
When running a "personal growth" initiation conflict, why shouldn't the player just Give right away? Even granting that the positive and negative trait are of equal value, why should the player fight to keep the PC as he is? (The conflict was "Does Br. Sunday learn how to read?") We had trouble finding that motivation and played it the other way 'round, with the GM making the task difficult and the player struggling for the positive outcome.
WillH:
Quote from: John Adams on February 13, 2008, 06:28:34 AM
When running a "personal growth" initiation conflict, why shouldn't the player just Give right away?
1. That wouldn't be much fun.
2. If he's a new player he would miss out on an opportunity to learn and get a feel for the conflict system.
3. You Loose out on the possibility of getting fallout and character growth.
oliof:
Of course it's OK for Dogs to take Traits that obviously run counter to doctrine. That they haven't been culled might just be the impetus for them to try changing the doctrine. It might even work out. If not, it's great drama, which always is good.
Ron Edwards:
I find it helpful to remember that in the setting for Dogs, the faith exists more as a lick and a promise than an established institution. It's not a Church which permeates every aspect of society for every person. Instead, the communities are quite disconnected from one another, there are no reliable justice or educational systems, and the faith's hierarchy has perhaps one whole generation of tradition to rely upon.
The Dogs themselves may feel like ordained marshals of moral justice with a full society backing them, but they're actually just a bunch of confused kids with guns, sent out to lay the groundwork for such an institution.
Best, Ron
David Artman:
Nice points, Ron. I was gonna just say "but without Dogs that 'violate' Doctrine, you'd never have Sorcerer Dogs, and that would be Unfun in the long run." Further, the existence of such a play option in the rules as written pretty much logically proves that "perfect execution of Doctrine" is not a criteria for the Ancients and Prophets to admit a Dog into service. But confused teens with little history and sketchy education works as well....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page