Helpful Demons?

[lumpley]

Just as a note, and this is extremely nitpicky, but that says the "sorcerer's" preferred side and not the "demon's" preferred side of the conflict. Is it cool to have the demons act in a manner that opposes the sorcerer? Assuming, that the sorcerer wants the demons to aid him and not the dogs, is it still reasonable to have the demons disobey the sorcerer, as it were, and aid the dogs?

The sorcerer's side. This is very specifically an option that sorcerers have, not an option that the GM has. The GM should not be watching conflicts and declaring the demons to be on one side or the other.

Is there any reason why the Sorcerers would have to be proximate to the conflict, much less involved directly in the conflict, for them to exercise Demonic Influence over the conflict?

My reading of the rules tells me that proximity isn't necessary, much less direct involvement in the conflict. If Demonic Influence can affect conflicts regardless of who's involved, then a more directed and powerful Demonic Influence (one in the service of a Sorcerer) shouldn't suffer from greater restrictions than the kind of vague "bad luck" D.I. of lower-key towns. This reading makes Sorcerers a force to be feared, enabling them to meddle in all kinds of events from a safe distance. Am I off-base in this?

Not off-base.

As you make decisions about which conflicts your sorcerers can meddle in from afar, be aware that you're making decisions about how the supernatural works in your game, from that moment on. That means: backpedal when your players think its bogus, and stick to precedent, except when violating precedent is so awesome and so clearly correct that your players will love you for it.

-Vincent

[Tindalos]

The sorcerer's side. This is very specifically an option that sorcerers have, not an option that the GM has. The GM should not be watching conflicts and declaring the demons to be on one side or the other.

Perfectly reasonable.  This is a pretty neat discussion as it reinforces, yet again, that GMing Dogs is much different that from GMing the bulk of RPGs.  I love this game!

[Neal]

This is a pretty neat discussion as it reinforces, yet again, that GMing Dogs is much different that from GMing the bulk of RPGs.  I love this game!

I concur.  I can't recall when I've had more fun creating an "adventure" for my players.  I have to restrain my urge to spin out towns all day long.  "Must... work... on dissertation."

And I also agree that it's important to distinguish between a Sorcerer taking sides and the Demons taking sides.  In the situation I outlined above, the Sorcerers had already commanded the Demons in a general way to hurt the Dogs, which left the Demons with some degree of autonomy in choosing the manner of hurt.  The possessed girls, though they had started out as Sorcerers in their own right, had become tools for their more powerful mentors.  And their continued existence was deemed something of a risk to the cult, anyway.

Another thing this discussion (and especially Vincent's latest reply) demonstrates is a distinction (however sharp or blurry) between Demonic Influence and demonic action.  In the game as written, a "general badness" can stand against the PCs whenever it seems appropriate (for example, when the PCs are struggling to open a Wells Fargo strongbox).  This needn't reflect demonic action, but can be merely a function of atmosphere and pacing.  But when the Demons themselves are brought into play, their Influence acts as a Trait or Belonging for the Sorcerer.  A gun doesn't decide whom it's going to shoot; its wielder makes that decision.  This all fits in wonderfully with the notion that the "badness" (The Demons Attack) in a town can cease abruptly once False Doctrine (or worse) has taken root.  (And come to think of it, I'd like to try creating a town where everything is deceptively hunky-dory precisely because the Demons have gotten what they want for now.)

[Vaxalon]

Here's an example. Let's say the current demonic influence is 4d10. The stakes are something like "does the Dog get into the barn?" and the Dog's escalated to shooting.
Player, raising with a 9: I shoot her! Bam bam bam!
You: the bullets burst into flame and scream as they leave your gun.
You roll 4d10 and slide it over to the player.
You, taking the blow: she goes down in a heap. All the bullet holes are cauterized and smoking.

How's that? Make sense?

I know I'm engaging in just a little thread necromancy, but I just have to say that this little piece of text is just too sweet.