[DitV] Dogs using Sorcery

[Lance D. Allen]

My whole take on players deciding what is right is this:

If the players agree on something, then it is right, and what the rest of the setting might think can go whistle. Mind, that whistling may turn into a storm that kills the Dogs, but they were the ones in the right.. I mean, who's never heard of righteous people dying for their beliefs?

If the characters state something or agree on something, but the players agree that their characters are mistaken or just out and out wrong, then the Dogs are wrong, EVEN IF the Dogs are spouting straight from doctrine.

If the players disagree, the King of Life is mulling it over. If the character's disagree, then the King of Life is, to quote someone's actual play "Thinking Out Loud".

Why such a hardline stance on the players being able to determine objective morality? Because of two things: First, it allows them to challenge the beliefs of the system without feeling like they're doing something wrong. Their Dogs may get hanged in the streets for heresy, but the players will be left with the tale to tell how their characters ended up martyrs for a better way of life. A much cooler epitaph than being misguided or foolish dogs that had to be put down for the good of the community. Secondly, to steal an idea from Ralph, it allows the players to make bold statements about what they believe is right and wrong. Dogs isn't purely about how fictional characters define morality; Matter of fact, it's more about how the players define morality, and how they view God. If the characters put forth contradictory and whimsical judgements, and the players back it up as their Dogs being right and good, then that's a statement on their view of morality, and a pretty much bald-faced accusation that God is whimsical and arbitrary.

And... despite being fairly conservative and Christian, I utterly love that. I love that I, with my fellow players, get to define how we see God and religion in a fictional setting.

[Simon Kamber]

Yep, and here the important point is that the GM must be willing to push it there. Just because we accept that the player has a right to moral determination (we should accept that in real life too, it's just D&D that claims to know better than real people), we don't need to let his character be accepted by other characters all the time. So the GM should pull no punches just because the player takes some stance.

Ah. So very true. That's where it gets interesting. As long as it's NPCs disagreeing with the dogs, and not the GM claiming that they're wrong.

And by the way, I think the elders disagreeing with dogs should be reserved for very special occasions. Unless you're willing to take it all the way to "even the elders of the faith are wrong", they should just stay out of the picture. Because your players might decide to fight against the elders and you as a GM are in no position to stop them.

[Simon Kamber]

EDIT: Whoops, double post. Sorry about that.