What happens if the Dogs take an action that directly contradicts the teachings of the Faith? What if they dedicate Sister Rachel as the town Steward, or marry Brother Thomas to Brother Luke? Does this set a precedent, or must it first be approved (or overturned) by the Prophets and Ancients? Will there be any consequences for the Dogs themselves?

Any way you cut it, it'll be a helluva story.

Yeah, I see a good session at the temple where the Dogs have to explain to the Ancients what the heck they were thinking...

You may even want to start looking at demonic influences corrupting the Faith as espoused by the Ancients themselves...

I think the more powerful, narratively speaking, interpretation is to take the basic idea of "The Dogs are the Will of the King of Life on earth" and run all the way with it. If the Dogs proclaim Sister Rachel as Steward, then obviously the King of Life lead them to do so.

Remember, women are only barred from authority by tradition; It's not unheard of for women to become Dogs, which gives them an authority above and beyond that of Steward. Therefore, if the Dogs make a woman a Steward, they're not directly contradicting the Faith..

But I'd say the town is worth a revisit later, to see how things took.. It may be that Sister Rachel had to deal with a little resentment from the menfolk after her investment, and eventually began to believe that men were lesser beings, unable to accept the judgement of the Dogs, and should be put in their place. Such Pride could easily, and rapidly, devolve into Injustice, Sin and so forth.. Or on the flipside, maybe the men end up being the ones to blame, and poor beleaguered Sister Rachel has to do the best she can with a town full of born-again misogynists.

I would stay far away from having the players' actions judged by the ancients and the prophets.

Their actions carry the Divine Mandate of the King of Life. I'd play it straight from that.

What happens if the Dogs take an action that directly contradicts the teachings of the Faith?

I generally play it by this simple rule:

The Ancients and Yadayada reveal/make the rules for the whole of the church as a group. These are the default rules that everyone follows.

The Dogs give judgement on individual cases. What the Dogs rule is the will of the king of life for that case and that case only.

So if the Ancients say homosexual marriage is wrong, it is wrong for everyone -- except those the Dogs have married because they have special dispensation.

That is one of the reasons everyone gets so crazy when Dogs come into town. If they can just convince the Dogs that their thing is a righteous exception to the rules and not really a sin, then they can have the dogs fix EVERYTHING for them with a word. Thus the moment the Dog rides into town everyone is on them to help them out and make it alright.

Of course I might change this if ever I was to play a long term game in which I wanted to have the Dog's choices change the whole face of the faith -- but so far that type of thing hasn't ever seemed all that interesting. I'm less into the idea of morphological religious studies than in handing out burning righteous judgement in the name of God.

(P.S. And it still deals with all the issues Ralph brought up. Why is God such an inconsistant bastard? Why is it a sin for one couple to one thing but not another? You can have all those questions without having to worry about the whole religion of a million people changing off stage.)

My view is, the Council of Ancients in Bridal Falls know what the Dogs are up to, one way or another. If a Dog makes a judgement, the judgement is right, as long as the player says it is. That can be in this case only, that can be a radical and departure from the previous law.

The King of Life rules by decree. The Faith is not a republic.

The reason this is most fun is, look at the mess the characters can get into!

Jedediah: These boys may have intercourse, so long as they are married, because they are married in the eyes of the King due to their love for each other.

Rebekah: What? I just got off the telegraph with the King and He says it's abomination.

Jedediah: OK, girl. Draw.

Wheee!

I'm posting from no play experience and only a single reading of the rules. However, I think that a Dog can contradict doctrine or change doctrine, depending on the player's intent. Just as it is the player who decides whether dealing with a demon is damaging to the character's soul so to does a player decide whether a Dog's ruling is true doctrine or false doctrine. It seems to me that the GM is not allowed to make the decision and would be remiss to bias it.

I think, however, that a GM ought to drive home issues of doctrine shifting. Given that NPCs are going to be invested in the situation they can enter conflicts with the Dogs over the point of doctrine, forcing the player to consider why the Dog is going against the Faith as it is currently practiced and if it is a decision based on the Dog's connection with the King of Life or worldly concerns. If the player indicates that the Dog is not acting in accordance with the King of Life then the town will not get better and when it is revisited it will be worse off than before. If it is from the King of Life then the GM shouldn't pass judgment by having that be the source of the town's later problems, except as a reaction by another individual who is out of sorts with the faith.

It seems to me that the players are, collectively, the King of Life in Dogs in the Vineyard. Their decisions about the souls of the Dogs determine what is morally correct and what is not.

Paka wrote: I would stay far away from having the players' actions judged by the ancients and the prophets.

Their actions carry the Divine Mandate of the King of Life. I'd play it straight from that.

But if the dogs are always correct, what happens when a dog falls?

The way I phrase it to my players is this: "A faithful Dog cannot make any decision that is not the will of the King of Life. If a Dog makes a decision that flies in the face of Doctrine then either the Doctrine is wrong or the Dog is faithless. Naturally, there will be some difference of opinion in which is the case."

I do not, by the way, think that having the Ancients come forth and say "NO! YOU ARE WRONG!" is the GM making a judgment. I think that you phrase that as "Their stakes are that they want you to make a public withdrawal of your position, and humbly submit to them. Oh, and remember, you can always escalate to shooting them! Let's roll."

TonyLB wrote: If a Dog makes a decision that flies in the face of Doctrine then either the Doctrine is wrong or the Dog is faithless.

Hello,

People sometimes seem to forget, in discussing this topic, that a Dog can be wrong. They get into a trap of saying, "But whatever the Dog decides is right! How can he be wrong?"

Easy. I like the way Tony just put it:

"A faithful Dog cannot make any decision that is not the will of the King of Life. If a Dog makes a decision that flies in the face of Doctrine then either the Doctrine is wrong or the Dog is faithless. Naturally, there will be some difference of opinion in which is the case."

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

People sometimes seem to forget, in discussing this topic, that a Dog can be wrong. ...

"If a Dog makes a decision that flies in the face of Doctrine then either the Doctrine is wrong or the Dog is faithless. Naturally, there will be some difference of opinion in which is the case."

The phrase I bolded seems like the key issue to me. A Dog cannot do something heinous, then turn to his friends and the Elders, blow smoke from his pistol barrel, and say, "I'm a Dog, it was right," ... and categorically expect them to agree. They can always rely on the conclusion that this particular Dog has just demonstrated an appalling lack of faith.

And thus Tony is doubly 100% on-target regarding the idea that once a "difference of opinion" exists about this situation, that difference is itself merely an in-game conflict with Stuff at Stake, as usual.

Thus I cannot see how any metaphysical wrangling over who is "really" right, in in-game terms, should ever be a concern.

Hello,

I haven't the faintest idea what any of that means in terms of our dialogue, Joshua. Please re-phrase two things, if you would.

1. What you think I'm saying

2. What you are saying

Thanks,
Ron

What I'm saying is simpler than I let on. Too many words, said I:

While I agree with you, that arguing the merits of your actions as a Dog is a matter of a regular ol' conflict, you should be clear as a player with both yourself and other players whether or not your action was righteous. I think it just makes a better situation when everyone knows, and it will definitely be better if you know your own character's motivations.

That is, a Dog can be wrong, but as the player, you should know when that happens.

That's all. It was a fluffier post than was necessary.

Okay... why? Doesn't having an inflexible opinion about whether you're righteous just get in the way?

I mean, yes, I can go in with my personal contribution on the question of "Is my character right". But if my character goes up against another Dog in a conflict about whether he did the right thing, whether I lose or win impacts my sense of whether my Dog was righteous in the first place.

I integrate the contributions of other players and the rules system into my sense of the ongoing and evolving meaning of the character and his actions.

Am I disagreeing with you, or just misunderstanding you?

Hello,

Thanks for the clarification, Joshua. I'm maybe with Tony on this one, but let me pose it differently. I'll paraphrase you, in hopes that I have it right.

What you're saying, it seems to me, is nothing more than Be mindful of Premise. This concept is central to any Narrativist play, which, I understand, is a relatively new thing for you and mainly restricted to Dogs in your experience. The Premise becomes especially hard-edged, for Dogs play, when characters differ over what Doctrine should be.

Now for my response:

Note, I said characters, not players. Whether the players even care about what fictional Doctrine should be in their fictional creation is a totally local issue. Whether the players are all grinning at one another in delight as their Dogs disagree, or feeling a kind of queasy but excited commitment to what their Dogs are espousing, or whatever, is all good. What matters is that they all like what is happening, as fellow authors and audience - not what they believe about it, if anything.

Finally, Joshua, I did request that you paraphrase my own point for a reason. I wish you had responded to that request. You are still forcing me to guess what you think I am saying, which is a terrible basis for discourse.

Best,
Ron