Quote from: WarthurAha! But at this point, you the GM have made a moral judgement that someone is guilty and that the Dogs have the responsibility to choose who.

Well, no I haven't, because if making up a town for play and not just tossing off a quick example on the internet, I would take care not to.

It's likely that the players will decide that someone's at fault, but even that isn't a foregone conclusion.

Quote from: WarthurNew theory: games shouldn't deal with matters of morality in any way, shape or form. It's not the right forum for them: you can't have a serious discussion about morality if one individual (the GM) has way more power than everyone else to define the situation being discussed.

So this is your problem with the book. Well firstly I think that all games maybe not as explicitly as Dogs deal with questions of morality and yes the GM is the one who normally defines them.

Secondly (and this is with regards to your reply to my earlier post), what I do with Dogs is to present a situation where the Dogs have to make a judgmement call based on their definition of morality. Normally it's the grey area in the morality they have defined. They define the benchmark based on ...I don't really know, they came up with the stuff, hence they are the sole arbiters.

But I do agree that the book is drenched with a specific perspective on morality, but whether this has any impact on play really depends on the individual group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

I guess I was handicapped by playing the game as written, as opposed to in accordance with a bunch of later internet posts.

In actual play we encountered demons, supernatural entities which had possessed someone and which displayed supernatural powers.

The two quotes really don't address how that tilts the question.  Vincent's works if you set the supernatural dial to zero, but the game allows you to set it to having an actual supernatural component at which point his quote really doesn't apply.  Ron's quote simply doesn't match the game as written, if in-game demons are real then in-game there are real moral judgements.  I expect Ron would witter on about how there is no in-game reality, but that simply begs the question and frankly is not as deep an insight as he seems to think it is.

Quote from: WarthurYes, but my argument is that they are LESS LIKELY TO WANT TO DO SO, because there's this little voice in their back of the head saying "You know, as presented in the book the Faith is like this..."

I think there's definitely an in-game pressure to back up some of the tenants of the Faith--but I think that's a feature, not a bug. It creates a beneficial frission: you can adhere to it or rebel against it--but in the case where you choose to rebel you still, if you decide to swim upstream, get to be morally right at the end of the day.

That's a powerful, interesting dynamic. The statements from prophets or from the text actually enhances that rather than removing it. A prophet can declare whatever he wants but if I'm a Dog I still get to point to the part of the text that unequivocally says I get to judge--and that my judgment is right.

So, yeah: pressure--but I don't think that has the ramifications I think you're implying it does.

-Marco

Oh, the reason I dislike the game is nothing to do with the moral stuff by the way, I just think it's a hellishly clunky and tedious dice mechanic.

Simple as that really.

Quote from: BalbinusI guess I was handicapped by playing the game as written, as opposed to in accordance with a bunch of later internet posts.

Somebody might have to help me out here, because I haven't got the book. But my understanding and memory is that the players get to decide.

I think you're being too literal about the demons. They're for symbolic, dramatic purposes.

Quote from: droogSomebody might have to help me out here, because I haven't got the book. But my understanding and memory is that the players get to decide.

I think you're being too literal about the demons. They're for symbolic, dramatic purposes.

The group decides on how much supernatural is in the game, but among the options are actual literal demons.

The game I played in had such, and they were not symbolic and dramatic, they were possessing spirits with powerz.

And that is in accordance with the game if you have the dial set that way, Dogs can have powers to sniff out demons or to repel them with blessed earth for example.

The demons can be purely symbolic, that's one setting of the dial, or they can be actual demons, that's another setting on the dial.  But when I played (and having later owned the game this was in line with the game text) they were actual demons, one of them near throttled a PC using demonically inspired strength.  

Now to be fair, the GM may have messed up I guess, but it didn't seem so.  That said, the moment in actual play we discovered that certain NPCs were possessed by actual demons any element of our making a moral judgement on their actions went right out of the window, they were after all doing those things because they were possessed by demons.

The town was one of the example ones in the book, I forget which.

In a way it actually disempowered us, we had decided that the woman who had usurped stewardship of the town had acted rightly, then we discovered she was in fact possessed and so changed our minds since we were evidently factually wrong in game.

Quote from: droogWell, no I haven't, because if making up a town for play and not just tossing off a quick example on the internet, I would take care not to.

It's likely that the players will decide that someone's at fault, but even that isn't a foregone conclusion.

Bullshit. The town creation process demands that you choose someone to be prideful, choose an injustice which they or someone else commits as a result of that pride, and so forth. You're explicitly saying "THIS person is being prideful, THIS deed was unjust". That's a moral call.

Quote from: David RSo this is your problem with the book.

I have several problems, but the one we're addressing right now is that the game a) denies the GM the right to make a moral call on the players' actions, and requires the GM to let the players make their own decisions, and b) gives the GM absolute freedom to present the problem facing the Dogs to the players in any way he likes, so if you really want to you can "frame the question" such that a particular outcome is nigh-inevitable. These are contradictory.

QuoteBut I do agree that the book is drenched with a specific perspective on morality, but whether this has any impact on play really depends on the individual group.

I think it is extraordinarily difficult to absolutely exclude the influence of the moral statements in the rulebook in play, simply because everyone is aware of them at some level. It would be like trying to play a sanitised version of FATAL: sure, the buttfucking ogres have been removed, but everyone knows that they used to be there.

Quote from: BalbinusIn a way it actually disempowered us, we had decided that the woman who had usurped stewardship of the town had acted rightly, then we discovered she was in fact possessed and so changed our minds since we were evidently factually wrong in game.

Even if she's possessed, she might still be right.

Quote from: droogSomebody might have to help me out here, because I haven't got the book. But my understanding and memory is that the players get to decide.

I think you're being too literal about the demons. They're for symbolic, dramatic purposes.

The point is getting overemphasised by virtue of being debated if that makes sense, you can after all set the supernatural dial at zero in which case the demon issue goes away.

I mean ultimately, it's not everything it's promised to be but then what is?  The trick is in the interaction of the town creation with the raise mechanic, if that rocks your boat you'll enjoy the game, if not, not.

Putting stress on the community is a sin? :confused:

Could the game's morality get any more bizarre and muddled?

Quote from: WarthurBullshit. The town creation process demands that you choose someone to be prideful, choose an injustice which they or someone else commits as a result of that pride, and so forth. You're explicitly saying "THIS person is being prideful, THIS deed was unjust". That's a moral call.

Town creation is just there to set up a juicy situation. It's all about what the players do after they encounter the town.

droog´s right, case settled.

Quote from: BalbinusThe point is getting overemphasised by virtue of being debated if that makes sense

It makes all too much sense, B.