Not understanding ceremony

[Vaxalon]

I'm not understanding the role of ceremony in Dogs.

Sorcerers, demons, the possessed, and the souls of the Faithful can’t ignore ceremony performed with authority. That means that when your character’s in conflict with one of those sorts of opponents, you can use ceremony to See and Raise!

...

In addition, the elements of ceremony that your character uses determines the Fallout dice that your character’s opponent receives when Taking the Blow. Ceremony is like a weapon, in that way.

So by using ceremony, IF the opponent has to "take the blow" when seeing, then when he takes fallout, he takes dice appropriate to the type of ceremony used...

The thing is, lots of elements of ceremony have only 1d4 for fallout dice.   Since that's already the lowest kind of fallout die there is, what's the advantage?  If I'm in the middle of a conflict with a sorceror, why would I be better off using ceremony compared to more mundane actions?

Later in the book...

What’s at stake: do you control the demon?- The stage: this is another initiatory accomplishment. Your teachers take you to a prepared place outside of Bridal Falls City, where there’s a consecrated grove of trees and a huge marble box. The box is carved with prayers and inside it there’s a demon. Your teachers give you a crowbar and wait among the trees.- You roll Acuity + Heart. I roll 4d6 + 4d10.- Naturally your Raises and Sees will be all ceremony.

Now this one got me.  Why is it natural that all my raises and sees will be ceremony?

[inky]

Demons are non-corporeal, right? As far as I know you can't shoot 'em or punch 'em or anything; once you get past the talking stage (and I'm not even sure they talk, frankly) your only way to deal with them is with ceremony. For sorcerers and other mortals, well, it seems to me that being able to resolve a conflict with less fallout is a bonus, if you want to save their lives.

The book says, though not totally clearly,

Strictly, bringing ceremony into a conflict is not escalating. You don't get to roll new dice -- unless you've got a Trait or Belonging that now applies. No, ceremony is useful only because it lets you Raise against demons and sorcerers on their own terms.

(So if you're dealing with a demon that's just hanging out, not possessing anyone, how do you escalate? Got me -- maybe you have to wait for it to escalate, start telekinetically tossing around frying pans or whatever, and then you can dodge them and escalate to match.)

[Vaxalon]

Okay, so ceremony is only useful inasmuch as it allows you to interact with things that you otherwise couldn't interact with... right?

[Brand_Robins]

Or if you have ceremony boosting traits -- things like "I have a powerful testimony" or "I can banish demons" or "I'm a Dog" or the like.

I have noticed, however, that ceremony normally only gets used when dealing with demons or as a special effect. I think I've only once had a player Call By Name to make a normal persona pay attention, but I may be misremembering.

[lumpley]

Okay, so ceremony is only useful inasmuch as it allows you to interact with things that you otherwise couldn't interact with... right?

Right!

(Notice the evocative "souls of the Faithful"...)

-Vincent

[Vaxalon]

Okay, so it's not nearly as important as I thought it was.

I suppose also, that it's there for atmosphere and background.

That will help immensely in putting together ceremony elements for Banthas.

[TonyLB]

The hey?

I almost cross-posted my "I see!  Ceremony is fundamental!" with Fred's "I see.  Ceremony isn't all that important."

Ceremony lets you get hands-on with the souls of the faithful.  That's amazing territory for players who feel like exploring it.

I can totally imagine Dogs just saying "Okay, we're saving this person's soul.  Break out the consecrated earth.  A little of this, a little of that.  Done.  Saved.  Next!"

None of this "Let's convince them of the wrongness of their path," or "Talk them through the guilt of their own sin".  Folks can just roll their sleeves up and start mucking out a persons soul the same way they'd muck out a horse's stall.  And it would work.

In a game where I, as GM, was responsible for the moral tenor of the universe, that would be a nightmare.  "You can't do that!  It has all sorts of unfathomably nasty moral consequences!  What happened to free will?  What happened to justice and responsibility?"

In Dogs?  "Oh, you've GOT to do that!  It has all sorts of unfathomably nasty moral consequences!  Next town I can ask you about free will!  And justice and responsibility!"

[Vaxalon]

The hey?

Blowing minds since 1964.

[TonyLB]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as nasty as it did.

I was less surprised by your opinion (which, having read it, makes perfect sense) than I was by the reminder of human nature and perception:  that we can read the same thing and immediately derive two opposite (but both correct) things from it.  I was totally blindsided by the point that you thought was obvious, even as I saw how it could be obvious.

Not unlike, in fact, the way I often feel when playing and discussing the stories of Dogs.