[DitV] Institutions

[ctrail]

I'm not sure how to interpret the rules about whether or not a relationship with an institution applies to a conflict. I don't have the book with me, but I believe in says you get the dice when the relationship is with a person with authority in the institution. If the institution itself has authority over those outside it, does this apply to everyone within the institution, or only those with authority over others in the institution.
I'm specifically thinking about the Dogs and the Territorial Authority. Does having a relationship with them mean you get dice with conflicts with all Dogs and all TAs, because they are authorities, or only to the Stewards at the Dogs Temple and TAs of higher rank?
(I assume that a relationship with the Faith doesn't apply to all members, just to Stewards and others in a position of authority.)

[lumpley]

The book says that you get to roll the dice a) when your opponent is someone of authority in the institution, or b) when what's at stake is your status with regard to the institution.

"Someone of authority" really means "someone with stewardship," of course. So you don't get the dice when you're in conflict with a fellow Dog, only when you're in conflict with someone with stewardship over the Dogs. The Stewards at the Dogs' Temple or the Prophets and Ancients, say.

For the TA, is this person speaking legitimately on behalf of the US government? If so, you get the dice.

-Vincent

[ctrail]

Your second answer seems inconsistent with your first. You said that a relationship with the Dogs only applies to someone with authority/stewardship over the dogs, not just any Dog, even though Dogs are themselves authorities over others. Then shouldn't a relationship with the Territorial Authority only work on someone with authority over the Territorial Authority, not anyone who is a TA, even though they all have authority over those in the territory?

[lumpley]

No... If you have a relationship with the Territorial Authority, you get its dice when you're in conflict with one of its officials, not with a citizen. With the claims assessor, for instance, but not with the guy waiting in his office.

If you have a relationship with a branch, you get its dice when you're in conflict with its steward, any of his advisors, or the individual Dogs assigned to it, but not with its members.

Someone of authority in the institution. Seems consistent to me.

-Vincent

[ctrail]

Maybe the Territorial Authority refers to something different than I thought it did. Are normal citizens part of the Territorial Authority? I thought the title refered only to the government representatives, not to the people represented.
I'm seeing the TA as a secular analogy to the Dogs. From what you just said, I'm wondering if they are the secular analogy to the Faith. Does that make sense?

[TonyLB]

I don't think it's defined.

For what it's worth, I've never had difficulty with the whole issue of "When does it come in?" since I decided that it's about whether you're opening the Institution's opinions and reputation to being effected by the Stakes.

A lawman who wants the Dogs to stand trial for killing a man, he can either have Stakes "Do these Dogs stand trial?" for no bonus or he can have Stakes "Do these Dogs make a mockery of the Territorial Authority?" or "Do these Dogs cause me to fail in my duty to the Territorial Authority?" and get his relationship.  Frankly, I'm absolutely thrilled to give him his relationship dice if he's willing to put the TA on the line that way.

[lumpley]

Oh! The Territorial Authority is the US government.

-Vincent

[ctrail]

Well then, that still seems a little confusing. Because "someone of authority" in the US government would be someone with authority over other members of the US government, right? And not just someone with authority over the citizens of the territory.
If having authority over the citizens, who aren't members of the government, makes one an authority in the insitution of the government, then shouldn't the Dogs, who have authority over the Faithful, be authorities in the institution of the Dogs?
I wish I could draw a picture since I think that would get my point across better, but what I'm thinking of is, to be an authority in an institution, there should be people in the institution you are above in the hierarchy. So neither local officials nor Dogs are authorities in the TA and the Dogs, only the next tier up is. Local officials have authority over citizens, and Dogs have authority over the Faithful, but that doesn't count because citizens aren't members of the TA and the Faithful aren't all Dogs.
Part of why I'm curious- I'd like to make a character who is interested in making sure the others Dogs do their job well, and I'm trying to figure out whether Dogs would be an appropriate relationship.

[John Harper]

This is getting very confusing. It's pretty simple. Here it is.

1. You have a relationship to an institution ("I'm a Dog").
2. Look at that specific instance of that institution, as specified by your trait. Who is in authority over it?
3. If you are in conflict with someone who is the answer to No. 2, you get to roll your dice.

So. Relationship: "The Pennsylvania Rail Co." Authority? The President of the company. His lawyer. Its shareholders. The local representative in charge of building the spur out to Greenwater Creek.

NOT: The engineer driving the train. Or some people on the train. Or the guy handing out broadsheets about rail ticket prices to New Salem.

It's about authority, not membership or association.

Make sense?