The Law: Territorial Authority vs Steward vs Dogs
lumpley:
(I'll add that this ended her career as a Dog, and took her out of play. Not because she wasn't justified - she was, it was the King Himself told her to gun down any TA bastard she met - but because she couldn't very well do her service as a Dog while on the run.)
-Vincent
jburneko:
One of the best towns I ever ran involved a solider of the Territorial Authority investigating rumors about a vigilante organization (i.e. The Dogs) operating amongst The Faithful. The climax involved The Dogs literally performing a miracle to show the soldier that there were things in this world, here amongst the faithful, that were best left within the faithful. It was beautiful.
Jesse
cra2:
Quote from: lumpley on August 05, 2009, 09:53:27 AM
The office of Steward is solely religious; a Steward has no legal authority at all. Same with the Dogs! ....Sometimes the TA will employ Faithful, to ease relations; sometimes Faithful will step up to be TA reps, and turn a blind eye (like a Mob guy joining the force).
excellent clarity, thanks!
(pulls hair out wondering why either a) this wasn't in the book, or b) how I missed it, if it was.)
Now then.. Stewards vs Dogs.
If Stewards have the same general responsibility for the spiritual well-being of the town, why do they need Dogs?
Or, are Dogs just "super-stewards?" - when something gets too big for a steward, the Dogs must step in.
Don't have the rules in front of me but I recall that the dogs cut off the arm (judge the sinner) to save the "Body" (Branch), while the Steward heals the wound ("tends to his flock before and after"). At least I think that's the impression I got.
Anyways.. if I have that right, then the question is, why? Why doesn't the Steward just shoot the sinner and take care of his own business (as a local sheriff would).
Is the Steward more like the local preacher? He can organize prayer meetings and call out sin, but he can't "do" anything about it.
i.e. Can't perform exorcisms and doesn't own a gun.
If that's the case then are the Dogs more like the "dad who is gonna wear your butt out when he gets back from his business trip?"
So the Steward says to the sinner, "you better behave or the King won't like it."
And if the sinner continues, then he says, "you better behave or I'll tell the Dogs when they come through."
?
This interpretation (which is mine alone and is prolly WAY off) kinda makes the Steward seem like the tattle-tale though.
But it sure makes concrete sense to my little mind that wants to sort these roles into nice, neat bins.
TA = representative of LAW back east.
Steward = preacher man
Dogs = fist of GODDDDDDDDDDD! lol.
Another interpretation could be that the Steward has all the same abilities and authority as a Dog (when a Dog's not around).
ie. Steward equals town sheriff, Dogs equal sheriff's regional boss who visits from time to time.
But then that makes the Dogs look like nosy interlopers if they take any actions without the Steward requesting it.
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. Seems like they'd ask him if he needed any help, and if he says no, they mozy on (unless they suspect HE is the threat in that particular branch).
sorry for the questions.
thanks for any more input.
cra2:
Ok, found the rulebook.
Thinking out loud til someone interrupts...(pleeeease. lol)
"Notice that the branch Steward has Stewardship over the families in his congregation, while the Dogs assigned to that route have Stewardship over his congregation as a whole, including him in his official capacity. Dogs have no authority to solve the problems of families or individuals, that’s the Steward’s job, except as the problems spill over into the congregation as a whole. (Which they pretty much do, so that’s okay.)"
Seems like intentionally blurred lines. :)
The Steward is over the families in his congregation.
The Dogs are over the Steward's congregation.
Isn't that one and the same?
The (fuzzy) takeaway I'm getting from this (and it's prolly wrong) is that the Steward does everything in a town that he can.
From taking care of families issues to dealing with issues that have grown larger and are plaguing the whole town.
If and/or when a Dog shows up, they lend that Steward a helping hand unless a) he seems competent and/or b) the problem seems to be isolated to a family or two and doesn't threaten the branch.
When the Dogs ride through, if there are no problems (or at least none worth their attention), they just bring mail, smile, preside over a wedding, and ride on.
Am I anywhere near close?
jburneko:
Quote from: cra2 on August 05, 2009, 12:26:57 PM
Seems like intentionally blurred lines. :)
The Steward is over the families in his congregation.
The Dogs are over the Steward's congregation.
Isn't that one and the same?
Yes. And Sort Of.
There is a built-in power struggle between the Dogs and a Steward. Which leads to scenes like this:
Dogs: "Brother Joseph needs to allow his daughter to marry Brother Carl."
Steward: "Hey! You can't tell Brother Joseph what to do with his family, that's MY Job!"
Dogs: "Uh, but until Brother Joseph allows his daughter to marry Brother Carl, Brother Carl will have no family to help him tend is farm which will cause everyone to starve... and that's OUR problem"
Steward: "Fine. But as I've said, Brother Carl should marry Brother Nolan's daughter and that's MY JOB!"
Who has "authority"? Both. Guess you're going to be rolling some dice soon.
In other cases I've had the Dogs "contain" a problem to a single household and then "punt" the Steward. They basically said, "Your problem now, Steward. Hope you don't screw it by the next time we ride through" before going off into the sunset. That's a weakness I have when prepping a Dogs Town. Sometimes I forget to have the problems of a single family "spill out" into the congregation because until that happens it's the Steward's responsibility, not the Dogs.
Jesse
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page