One thing I'm about shaky about. Hopefully there's a simple answer.

Several Towns on the net have something like:
"The Demons want the Dogs to acknowledge and confirm..."
But if the Dogs do this, doesn't it make it the right thing?

Let's say a Steward is championing a false doctrine. If the Dogs confirm his actions, doesn't that then make it a True Doctrine (in this case)?

If the Steward was a sorcerer, wouldn't the demons then be driven out - and so defeating themselves.

Also, how are Stewards chosen? Are they appointed by the Elders of Bridal Falls, do the people of the community elect them, or is it some other method?
Also, how does the equivalent process work in Mormonism?

Interesting question..

The demons main goal is hate and murder.. lots of it. If the Dogs actions, even by acknowledging and confirming someone as righteous, will lead to that, then the Demons are happy.

Also, I think once you've got a relationship with a demon, unless you renounce that, the demons can't be driven out permanently.

Finally.. The Dogs actions do not make truth and right.. The players' endorsement of the Dogs actions as truth and right does so.

For the question of how a Steward is chosen.. Well, this may not be the best Answer, but in my limited experience, it's when the Dogs come in and kick the old one out...

Seriously though, I believe the Steward is typically chosen by the previous Steward, and then approval is sought from Bridal Falls. Failing the ability for the old Steward to choose and train his successor, my guess would be some sort of election with the aforementioned approval from Bridal Falls, or maybe an interim Steward will be sent from a nearby town.

It is a very interesting question.

I've always worked under the presumption that the ultimate goal of the demons is usually the utter destruction of the community.

I think it's also possible for the demons to get what they want, and for the Dogs to be right and get what they want.

For example (and it's the only example that comes quickly to mind), if the Dogs decide that the entire town needs to be 'cleansed' to keep their evil from spreading, then the Dogs are correct to wipe out all the citizens of the town, and the Demons got just what they wanted.

-Eric

Did the business about districts survive into the rulebook? I don't remember but maybe it didn't. Anyway stewards are always appointed from above, they're never elected democratically. "Above" might mean the Prophets and Ancients in Bridal Falls, it might mean a middle layer of regional stewards, it might mean the Dogs. It depends on your game and the immediate circumstances.

If you want, you can consider appointment to steward as similar to marriage. If the steward of a town dies in the middle of winter and there's no one available with authority appoint a new one, and the town elects one, that's not a sin. As soon as possible, the elected steward should submit himself to review and confirmation from above. No biggie.

-Vincent

Wolfen wrote: Interesting question..

The demons main goal is hate and murder.. lots of it. If the Dogs actions, even by acknowledging and confirming someone as righteous, will lead to that, then the Demons are happy.

Finally.. The Dogs actions do not make truth and right.. The players' endorsement of the Dogs actions as truth and right does so.

Thanks Vincent - the first paragraph is how I thought it might work, and the second one suggests possibilities for gaming.

I see a demon's major motivation as "Destroy the community", sinning, that is, the mentioned social taboos in the book, is a great way to do that and par for the course, but they also take other methods.

If a Dog says that something ain't a sin and makes it work for the whole community, the demons are going to be displeased.

If a Dog says that something ain't a sin and it tears the community irreperably apart, the demons are going to be happy.

Hello,

I'm squinting in puzzlement.

You guys do understand that "the demons" is only in-game jargon for the way in which an unspecified, general-opposition roll is treated in Dogs in the Vineyard, right?

That there don't have to be actual demons in the story? Or if there are, they're still basically Color for the general difficulty/hassle of getting stuff done when there's no direct personal opposition?

Um ... you don't understand that? OK, I'm backing away slowly.

Best,
Ron

As Ron says.

"The demons" are also in-game jargon for a thing in town creation. It's "...and then the most unlucky thing possible happened..."

The Dogs don't decide what's right and wrong. They decide how to put things right. Make sense?

-Vincent

Put another way, when you are deciding "what the demons want..." it should be something that isn't possibly a happy ending.

Frex: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15338

There just ain't no way the Dogs and the demons can both get what they want.

Or as a less extreme example, the last town I ran was relatively tame; Two sins, nothing higher up the chain at all. What the Demons wanted was for the Dogs to go overboard and shoot someone.

And while there is no built in 'fit punishment' in the system, our group's social culture and the judgments rendered so far in play made it pretty clear that shooting someone down in the street for having a drink now and then would be way over the top.
(The really awesome thing was: they almost got it!)

Keep your demons wanting things that ain't gonna mesh.

James

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

I'm squinting in puzzlement.

You guys do understand that "the demons" is only in-game jargon for the way in which an unspecified, general-opposition roll is treated in Dogs in the Vineyard, right?

That there don't have to be actual demons in the story? Or if there are, they're still basically Color for the general difficulty/hassle of getting stuff done when there's no direct personal opposition?

Um ... you don't understand that? OK, I'm backing away slowly.

I see what you're saying, Darren - at least I think I do. Let's try a practical example, and an extreme one to make the point. Let's say that the demons want the dogs to rape all the women in town. And then the dogs do. So does that make rape right? Since everything that the dogs do is right?

I probably have this all messed up, but in correction, I think we may see the light.

Anyhow the answer was given before. The assumption that whatever the dogs do is automatically moral is incorrect. That believers will almost surely think that what they've done is right, is the case. So in the example, if the dogs rape, then the dogs have informed any believing witnesses that such is the right thing to do. But it's not the right thing to do. So the metaphorical or literal demons win big in this case. Not only do the dogs lose, they inform all sorts of people in a way that means that they will always lose.

I think that by creating "what the demons want" you create a statement of something that is definitively wrong. No matter how the dogs may be able to convince people that it's right.

Again, I'm probably out in left field here, so correct away.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
Again, I'm probably out in left field here, so correct away.

Mike Holmes wrote: Anyhow the answer was given before. The assumption that whatever the dogs do is automatically moral is incorrect. That believers will almost surely think that what they've done is right, is the case. So in the example, if the dogs rape, then the dogs have informed any believing witnesses that such is the right thing to do. But it's not the right thing to do. So the metaphorical or literal demons win big in this case. Not only do the dogs lose, they inform all sorts of people in a way that means that they will always lose.

Under what imaginable circumstances would any real group of human beings honestly feel that raping the whole town was the best way to solve its problems?

If there are such circumstances, and if they arise, who's to say that raping the whole town wasn't the best way to solve its problems?

-Vincent

Well, that's the point, then, Vincent. If it's true that it was the best way to solve the problem, then the Dogs have won by doing what the demons wanted. Which seems to set up a contradiction. That is, the players are saying it's right, but the set up is saying it's wrong.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, that's the point, then, Vincent. If it's true that it was the best way to solve the problem, then the Dogs have won by doing what the demons wanted. Which seems to set up a contradiction. That is, the players are saying it's right, but the set up is saying it's wrong.

Mike

After Mike's post I had a bit of an epiphany. What occurred to me is that many of these theoretical problems are probably going to be sorted out during the Reflection phase. That first sentence:

Did your characters do a good thing? Is the town better than when they arrived?

demiurgeastaroth wrote: The question is, does it need to be eliminated? Is it possible for demons and Dogs needs to actually be the same, and if so, does this lead to a watering down of an important pillar of the setting/game's feel? I suspect it would, which is why I raised the issue, but I don't know.

Well, "What the demons want" is just a situation that the GM thinks couldn't possibly be God's will.

So what you've got is "What the players decide is God's will" = "What the GM thinks couldn't be God's will." Which... y'know... interesting. But not a contradiction. Just a disagreement.

If you take either position to a ridiculous extreme then you have to posit ridiculous people supporting it. Exempli gratia:

• Demons want every woman in town raped, and all townsfolk dead. Dogs decide that's what needs doing. Sort of hard to see the player position there.
• Demons want a young man to stick up for himself and speak out against a tyrant of a father. Dogs decide that's what needs doing. Sort of hard not to see the player position there.

The fun is in the middle ground, where people can both see each other's positions but still strenuously disagree. Say the GM decides "The Demons want townsfolk to stop worshipping together, and the meeting hall to be burnt to the ground." The Dogs, seeing how the people in the town are prideful about their worship, rather than humbly serving the King, decide to ban the townsfolk from worshipping together for a year, after which the Dogs will evaluate whether they are humble enough to serve the King without serving their egos. They burn down the meeting hall because it has become a center of vanity.

As GM, I could easily see myself thinking "Hey, the players are wrong about that... egotism isn't cured by isolation, and breaking a community doesn't make it stronger." And... so what? So the players and I disagree about something. That's good to know.

TonyLB wrote: Well, "What the demons want" is just a situation that the GM thinks couldn't possibly be God's will.

I needed to reflect on this post a while.

Brand_Robins wrote: So, it is likely that the GM will make the "What the Demons Want" something he doesn't think could be God's will -- but that has to be something he's willing to let go of, or to be proven wrong on, because he doesn't have the right to play God. He does, however, have the right to be shocked and horrified by what the players do.