[DitV] What The Demons Want...

[lumpley]

Under what imaginable circumstances would any real group of human beings honestly feel that raping the whole town was the best way to solve its problems?

If there are such circumstances, and if they arise, who's to say that raping the whole town wasn't the best way to solve its problems?

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Well, that's the point, then, Vincent. If it's true that it was the best way to solve the problem, then the Dogs have won by doing what the demons wanted. Which seems to set up a contradiction. That is, the players are saying it's right, but the set up is saying it's wrong.

Mike

[Darren Hill]

Well, that's the point, then, Vincent. If it's true that it was the best way to solve the problem, then the Dogs have won by doing what the demons wanted. Which seems to set up a contradiction. That is, the players are saying it's right, but the set up is saying it's wrong.

Mike

That's exactly my conundrum. It's a more extreme example than I'd have gone for but it makes the point well.

Since your first post I've had a bit of epiphany as regards those more obvious and vile solutions but the theological problems posed by "what the demons want" and "what the dogs decide is right" still remain.

[Darren Hill]

After Mike's post I had a bit of an epiphany. What occurred to me is that many of these theoretical problems are probably going to be sorted out during the Reflection phase. That first sentence:

Did your characters do a good thing? Is the town better than when they arrived?

is the opportunity for players to pass judgement - when they step out of their characters heads and look down on the game slightly removed from it. That's when they pass judgement and decide whether the characters did God's Will.
(Yes, this may be blindingly obvious to many people around here, but it wasn't to me.)
So if the Dogs go around raping and slaughtering, afterwards the players have the opportunity to say, "is this the best way we could have sorted this out?

I realise now that my initial question was actually two questions disguised as one:
1) How do we know which of the decisions are serving Gods Will? (answered through Reflection)
2) What criteria should be used in choosing "what the Demons want."

I'm still unclear on that second one because it does seem possible to have situations where what the demons want is exactly what the dogs decide is the right thing.
This may be a Town Design issue - being careful when picking demon's wants could eliminate the danger. The question is, does it need to be eliminated? Is it possible for demons and Dogs needs to actually be the same, and if so, does this lead to a watering down of an important pillar of the setting/game's feel? I suspect it would, which is why I raised the issue, but I don't know.

[Darren Hill]

The question is, does it need to be eliminated? Is it possible for demons and Dogs needs to actually be the same, and if so, does this lead to a watering down of an important pillar of the setting/game's feel? I suspect it would, which is why I raised the issue, but I don't know.

To rephrase that without my tendency to blather aimlessly:

Assume that "What The Demons Wants" is the same as "What The Players Decide is Gods Will." This is an apparent contradiction.
Does it matter? Why?
If not, why not?

[TonyLB]

Well, "What the demons want" is just a situation that the GM thinks couldn't possibly be God's will.

So what you've got is "What the players decide is God's will" = "What the GM thinks couldn't be God's will."  Which... y'know... interesting.  But not a contradiction.  Just a disagreement.

If you take either position to a ridiculous extreme then you have to posit ridiculous people supporting it.  Exempli gratia:

[*]Demons want every woman in town raped, and all townsfolk dead.  Dogs decide that's what needs doing.  Sort of hard to see the player position there.
[*]Demons want a young man to stick up for himself and speak out against a tyrant of a father.  Dogs decide that's what needs doing.  Sort of hard not to see the player position there.[/list:u]The fun is in the middle ground, where people can both see each other's positions but still strenuously disagree.  Say the GM decides "The Demons want townsfolk to stop worshipping together, and the meeting hall to be burnt to the ground."  The Dogs, seeing how the people in the town are prideful about their worship, rather than humbly serving the King, decide to ban the townsfolk from worshipping together for a year, after which the Dogs will evaluate whether they are humble enough to serve the King without serving their egos.  They burn down the meeting hall because it has become a center of vanity.

As GM, I could easily see myself thinking "Hey, the players are wrong about that... egotism isn't cured by isolation, and breaking a community doesn't make it stronger."  And... so what?  So the players and I disagree about something.  That's good to know.

[Brand_Robins]

Well, "What the demons want" is just a situation that the GM thinks couldn't possibly be God's will.

A lot of people look at the part in Dogs where it says, "The GM can't play God" and think, in some way, that means the GM as a person cannot judge the actions of the Dogs. To that I say bull. If, to use the running example, the Dogs go into town and rape and kill every woman and the GM, as a person, doesn't judge that in his own mind then I'm going to be worried about that GM.

Having a gut-level reaction to the situation and the judgement is what Dogs is all about. The difference between it and the more traditional setup is that when the GM has that reaction he keeps it as his reaction and has to face it as his own personal reaction, rather than reflexivly making the universe back up his personal morality.

So, it is likely that the GM will make the "What the Demons Want" something he doesn't think could be God's will -- but that has to be something he's willing to let go of, or to be proven wrong on, because he doesn't have the right to play God. He does, however, have the right to be shocked and horrified by what the players do.

Now, to toss this back to a theological level for one moment, the Book of Mormon and the Bible are full of times when the Will of God and Want the Demons want become the same thing. There are places where people turn against God, he tells them to repent, they refuse, and then he damns them -- when they get damned the demons come and drage them to hell, which is just what they wanted. At the end of the BoM a whole civilization gets whiped from the face of the earth, every man woman and child slaughtered -- which is exactly what the demons wanted from the foundation of the civilization. It was also, as it happens, Gods will that it happen because the people had become so wicked.

So while the whole "mass rape" thing is still an outlier, it is quite possible to have the demons want "The Whole Town To Die" and have the Dogs, doing exactly the Will of God, kill the whole town. God is opposed to demons so long as the people involved are struggling to be righteous, but if they have gone to far to repent then he lets them take the consequences of their own action in full measure -- and that measure includes what the demons wanted to happen to them.

[Darren Hill]

I needed to reflect on this post a while.

So, it is likely that the GM will make the "What the Demons Want" something he doesn't think could be God's will -- but that has to be something he's willing to let go of, or to be proven wrong on, because he doesn't have the right to play God. He does, however, have the right to be shocked and horrified by what the players do.

That's an insightful point. Yes, when I set up a town with a "what the demons want" and the players end up making that the right thing, there can't be anything wrong with that, metaphysics be darned. Otherwise I am exercising the traditional "GM determines right and wrong" mindset.

The rest of your post reminds me of another way out of theological conundrums, something I'd been overlooking. The demons are also instruments of God's Will.

I think I'll be okay now ;)