The Law: Territorial Authority vs Steward vs Dogs
Noclue:
Quote from: cra2 on August 05, 2009, 10:33:42 AM
(pulls hair out wondering why either a) this wasn't in the book, or b) how I missed it, if it was.)
All these conflicts are where the fun is to be had. Think about it this way: If I give you a list that clears up everyone's authority in every situation, so your Steward knows "Ah, this is a Dog issue. Ah, this a me issue. Ah, the Dog's don't have any legal authority to charge taxes. They're breaking TA law, etc." how will that list improve your game?
Isn't it better to have the Steward, the Dogs, and the TA all in dissagreement about who has jurisdiction and who is justified?
Danny_K:
Another way of looking at it is that the towns where the Steward can handle the problem on his own are towns that don't need the Dogs as much -- those are the implied but unplayed towns where the Dogs don't do anything but bring the mail and have a chicken dinner and bless some babies. The towns where the Steward can't or won't handle the problems, or where he's the problem -- those are the towns that the Dogs dig into.
Also, it's very human and understandable that sometimes a Steward might want to let the Dogs handle somethings,, like a no-good brother in law who needs shooting. There was an Actual Play I read recently (Star Wars DitV) where an NPC said,something like "You'll leave soon, but I live here."
Noclue:
Quote from: cra2 on August 05, 2009, 10:33:42 AM
In other words, if they storm into town and start telling everyone their business and dishing out justice, the Steward's going to feel like they stepped all over his toes.
And this is a bad thing how?
cra2:
Quote from: Noclue on August 05, 2009, 09:44:11 PM
Quote from: cra2 on August 05, 2009, 10:33:42 AM
In other words, if they storm into town and start telling everyone their business and dishing out justice, the Steward's going to feel like they stepped all over his toes.
And this is a bad thing how?
Well I see what you're saying now about there being a built-in conflict for the game.
Guess I had never thought about that as one of the main, repeatable issues for the Dogs to face.
I figured that sort of problem only came up if the Steward was incompetent or corrupt.
(which I assumed would be a rarity, not the norm - else, the Faith would need to re-think how it selects Stewards)
I think that I thought there must be a formalized relationship there somewhere in the text and I was just missing it.
I mean, if this big organization (the Faith) exists to shepherd the flock yet they continually receive reports that the Dogs and Stewards are in conflict, I would think they'd have come up with a solution by now. Dilineate roles or whatever.
Having armed men in conflict with each over vague roles just leads to pride and anger and resentment.
Kinda counter-productive.
lumpley:
Stewards are preachers, yes. Pastors. They're responsible for the well-being of the individuals and families in their congregations, as individuals and families. They're responsible for the sinner's well-being just as much as for his victims'. That means calling the sinner to repentance, not murdering him for the good of all. If the sinner won't repent, the Steward's job is to nevertheless keep working with him. (See pages 44-45 for an example.)
One of my favorite lines for a Steward to say, when the Dogs give him grief about the state of his congregation, is this: "Dog, if God allowed me to gun my own parishioners down in the street, He wouldn't need you."
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page