Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Renown for killing garou?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Renown for killing garou?

    It kinda got to me that there is no expected renown loss in the w20 chart for killing another Garou (unless Dancers, but not what I meant).

    I know there's nothing in the Litany about this and that the setting somewhat expects them to fight each others, but I think that at least some kinds of Garou deaths should suffer a Renown loss.

    i.e.: what about killing another Gaian garou in the sleep out of jealousy, or to remove a political rival? That should be defnitively a massive honor loss.
    what about slaying accidentally a garou him during a frenzy or hitting him with an excessive strength during a challenge? The latter may reward some Glory, but shouldn't remove honour and wisdom too?
    Should a war between septs be a mitigating factor for killing renown variations? Or should be a membership in some radical camp or faction (red talons, to say one) offer some kind of protection from renown loss when the kill is made in name of fighting the weaver? I mean, they still should at the very least lose Wisdom for slaying each others.

    What's your take on this? How would you handle renown after one of your players slay another gaian Garou?

  • #2
    (Please don't use the renown chart as 'things garou should/shouldn't do.')

    I think this is good worldbuilding, in that the Litany doesn't forbid garou from killing another. Because when it was written, the idea of every garou mattering so much was utterly hilarious. Many klaive duels were/are to the death, after all. Then there are the metis.

    Instead, I think modern garou use a 'no action that harms a Caern' and 'combat the Wyrm' to judge a garou for the unlawful murder of another.


    My gallery.

    Comment


    • #3
      It's also the "sample" Renown chart, not the "exhaustive" or "complete" Renown chart. Something not being there doesn't mean it doesn't impact Renown. When the game was written, the idea of the players actively killing non-baddie (even bad guy Gaian aligned Garou like Litany breakers) wasn't really something that seemed the designers thought was common enough to worry about.

      Use the Renown descriptors and the sample rewards/penalties as a guide and make the best call you can on anything not covered.

      Comment


      • #4
        Garou society is similar to human society in that respect. There is killing because it is murder - that is wrong and likely punishable by local sept justice. There is killing because it is part of war as septs go to war with other septs - that is acceptable and the Garou likely gains renown like if they killed any other comparable foe. People can be either praised or damned by society for killing another human - Garou are the same.

        And if one treacherously kills another Garou in an dishonorable way, they'll simply lose renown because everyone considers their act to be despicable. Then there are all sorts of cases inbetween. It is entirely possible for there to be a scenario where a Garou gains renown for killing another Garou but also is punished for it in the same way certain gunslingers in the Old West sought to establish their reputation by going after established gunslingers.
        I think if you just think through the particulars of each case, you can figure out what should happen.

        As Heavy Arms said, the renown chart in the books are just examples to help guide the players and STs. It is not the end all or be all.
        Last edited by Black Fox; 12-15-2018, 01:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          Use the Renown descriptors and the sample rewards/penalties as a guide and make the best call you can on anything not covered.
          Yeah, I know that. I just found it a bit striking that no mention was ever made of such a thing.
          I also wanted to get an idea of how severe you'd consider those kinds of situation. Should the murder an helpless garou cause worse renown losses than mating with another one? Should it suffer some light loss, to then face the renown consequences of a punishment Rite (that is, if anyone discovers and actually performs a rite on the murderer)? I'm trying to get an idea on how would you handle this kind of situations.

          The idea of tying it to the "do not harm a Caern" part of the litany is pretty good and it would probably allow for some spicy debate during a hearing.

          Comment


          • #6
            If there is renown loss for killing a Garou, the amount lost probably varies according to the perceived worth of the Garou much like the old wergild system. A well known hero with many accomplishments, or a young Garou with a lot of potential would probably be considered to have more worth than an old Garou who has not really accomplished much, or someone considered to be a clumsy foul up. Silver Fangs with high pure breed and good families would be worth more, in general, than an equivalent Garou who is a Bone Gnawer Metis. Nowadays lupus might be worth more than a homid. Cubs are supposed to be sacrosanct, so any killing of them would be egregious.

            So you might want to have a general range of renown loss based on the nature of the victim. You start with a generic loss and than add or subtract a little more based on the attributes of the victim.

            Then you would do an additional add or subtract based on the methods/nature of the killing - was it particularly dishonorable killing, did the Garou attempt to hide his responsibility, etc.
            Last edited by Black Fox; 12-15-2018, 01:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              In old Norse society, killing someone was perfectly legal, it was HIDING your responsibility for the killing which was illegal. The reason murder was legal was because there was no police force who could apprehend the killer, and no system of impartial justice and punishment that the community would accept. Instead, killing someone would lead to vendettas and blood feuds with the victim's surviving relatives and friends. They would kill the killer in return, and then the family and friends of the slain murderer would then seek blood vengeance on the person or people who killed him.

              Of course, that would lead to ongoing killings. This would be bad for the community, so that was when the community leadership would step in and try to mediate between the groups and establish peace. Both sides would air their grievances and mourn for their losses. The other side would state they understood how horrible it was because they too suffered their own losses. And then depending on which side got it worse, they'd add up the wergild and compensate each other. That is why killing someone in secret was a crime - nobody knew who to blame or who they could collect wergild from.

              Most pre-state societies had very similar systems, and ongoing problems with vendettas.

              I imagine most Garou killings would be very similar. There would not be a renown loss except in the most obviously dishonorable, foolish, or cowardly situations. (For example, even death as a result of a legal and formal challenge probably leads to no loss of renown). The real punishment from killing someone would be facing vengeance of the victim's packmates, family, or even tribe (depending on how important the victim was).

              I figure most Garou killing of Garou happens to Garou of OTHER septs, so it is highly unlikely one sept would agree to the decision of another sept - they'd just assume there was favoritism involved with the decision. The only way it could be done would be with some kind of grand moot with multiple septs summoned. And a grand moot for mediation/judgment would probably only happen after some amount of escalation or fear of escalation or horrendous nature of the crimes.

              Comment


              • #8
                "Defeating Supernatural Threat- Not of the Wyrm" would seem to apply here also "Participating in a Just Challenge" I imagine and sept duties for inter-sept conflicts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  No, challenges in that case is referred to specific formal and ritual challenges, murders or intrasept killings are not challenges. A supernatural "threat" also needs to be a threat, if you're killing a sleeping Garou there's no threat at all.

                  I really like Black Fox' take with the old Norse customs though, they seem quite fitting for several of the Garou tribes (GoF, Fianna, SL, maybe SF too)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pretty sure killing other Garou in their sleep earns you negative points of Honour and Glory

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I imagine someone who does this has a good chance of getting Nagahed/Judge of Doomed and while those are secrets there's probably all sorts of stories about how "Gaia/the spirits" strike down the dishonorable like that.. and thus a social pressure to kill people in challenges.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If one Garou murdered another, there's no way that such an act would get rewarded with Glory renown. Murder is a capital crime, even among the Garou. As such and all other things being equal, it's going to be punished. Remember the Punishment Rites in the main corebook? The Hunt and Gaia's Vengeful Teeth are *horrific* things for anyone, even a Garou, to endure. And these two Rites are specifically designed to punish murderers among the Garou. While Black Fox's reference to the old Norse system of weregild is interesting, Garou society doesn't really function that way. While Black Fox tells us that the old Norse didn't have or accept a system of impartial justice, the Philodox *do* (or at least try to) function as impartial judges; that's the very role that Luna and Gaia assigned them. A society of warriors would absolutely *need* a system of impartial justice because otherwise the Garou Nation would break down from infighting even more completely than it already is. A society that can't agree on how to settle its disputes, especially a warrior society made up of killing machines with hair-trigger tempers, is not long for this world because its people would eventually kill each other. During the Wars of Rage, the Garou actually managed to *completely exterminate* several of the Changing Breeds as well as thin the numbers of almost all the others such that they *never* recovered (the exceptions being the Corax, who were never targets of either side, and the Ratkin, who *did* manage to replenish their numbers and then some). If the Garou were powerful enough to cripple the other Changing Breeds, how likely would the Garou survive a civil war that totally engulfed the whole Garou Nation? A snowball in hell would have a better chance, IMHO.

                        To answer Maris Streck's question and respond to Moirdryd's latest post, I think people are missing the point of what happens if and when a Garou murders another Garou. Everyone here keeps saying that a murderer is going to suffer some sort of renown loss as a matter of course. Guys, we're talking about MURDER, the worst crime a person can commit. (Mass murder may technically be "worse" than murdering a single person, but there the difference is just of degree, rather than a difference in kind.) No one can deny that the Garou are, by nature, a vengeful people. When discussing the crime of murder in this post, everyone here (at least so far) keeps talking about whether the Garou being punished for committing a murder is going to suffer a renown loss of some sort. Guys, such concerns are COMPLETELY TRIVIAL when dealing with something as big a deal as murder, especially among the Garou. The Nation takes that sort of thing very seriously, as seriously as any at-least-half-functioning society will take it. The penalty for murder among the Garou is *death,* full stop. Remember what I said about The Hunt and Gaia's Vengeful Teeth above? *Those are the Garou Nation's go-to punishments for murder and/or treason.* Determining how much renown loss a convicted murderer is going to suffer is so utterly irrelevant, it's akin to rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. A Garou determined by his peers to be a murderer is *going to die a horrible death.* The sept in question (and if the crime is great enough, the Nation as a whole) is going to strike the offending Garou's name from their histories as if he never existed. As a result, *any* miniscule renown is small potatoes compared to that.

                        To see what I'm talking about, read the Philodox chapter from Book of Auspices. A visiting Black Fury Philodox is forced by circumstances to investigate a murder at a mixed sept consisting of Uktena, some Get of Fenris and a few CoGs and Shadow Lords. Long story short, the BF Half-Moon was invited by one of the CoGs without the permission of the elders because the Cog is afraid that the Uktena sept leader is unfairly blaming a Shadow Lord packmate for a recent murder at the sept. The BF Philodox conducts her own investigation (while the reader gets a look at how Philodoxes function, of course) and finds the real killer. The murderer gets subjected to The Hunt and is promptly torn apart by her septmates. There's no discussion of how much renown the murderer is supposed to lose or whatever. In Garou society, once a murderer is found guilty by the elders, either The Hunt (if a murderer is determined to still have at least a shred of honor), the Rite of Silver Death (if the murderer has no honor left) or Gaia's Vengeful Teeth (if the guilty party is guilty not only of murder but of treason against the Nation as well) is performed.

                        Guys, the penalty for murder is *death,* no less for the Garou than anyone else. Discussions about "renown loss as a punishment for murder" are trivial to the point of irrelevance.
                        Last edited by Su-tehp; 01-10-2019, 09:33 PM.



                        Complete Garou Gifts List, Fera Gifts List, Garou Totems List and other assorted OPP/White Wolf goodies

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Su-tehp View Post

                          Guys, the penalty for murder is *death,* no less for the Garou than anyone else. Discussions about "renown loss as a punishment for murder" are trivial to the point of irrelevance.
                          When the system works yes. When your sept decides "to say fuck it.." well...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Killing and murder are two different things. There are lots of circumstances where killing another person is not murder. There is killing during war, self-defense, other forms of justifiable homicide, manslaughter, etc. (What it if is a result of Frenzy? What about if the Frenzy was caused by a Wyrm attack? What if the victim was a member of the killer's own pack, and the survivors just want to move on.) In those cases, the act is not murder, and any punishment applied would be much less than death.

                            Nor do I think it is clear that the penalty for murder is always death (even the rite of The Hunt says unwarranted murder). I think it sometimes can be, but I also think the circumstances and the status of both the perpetrator and victim matter. It could be death. It could also be exile. Loss of renown or physical brand. Or a slap on the wrist. Or it might not even be anything provided the perpetrator is at the home sept and is politically powerful there and his victim is someone with no influence from a different sept, perhaps a far away one. If a Get of Fenris Jarl in Minnesota murders some Bone Gnawer hobo from New York City passing through Minnesota, how likely is it the home sept is going to punish the Jarl (if there is punishment, it isn't likely to be death)? How things play out depends on the circumstances.

                            Philodoxes do have duties according to their auspice, but that does not grant them jurisdiction and authority. It merely establishes expectations about the role they should play in society. They aren't a police force. A Philodox attempting to hold court at a strange sept and arraign justice is likely to be told to piss off UNLESS there are political reasons one or more influential Garou (factions) at the sept would welcome an outsider. What if two different Philodoxes conduct an investigation, and one rules one way and the other rules a different way. Which one is followed? Who arbitrates that? Is there an appeals process? Can a Garou be tried for the same accused crime again and again if someone doesn't like the first decision to let him go?

                            And there is also the matter of enforcement. Now that some Philodox has judged the high ranking Get of Fenris ahroun killing machine to be guilty of murder and thus killed - who is going to enforce that decision especially if the murderer tells the Philodox to screw off? If it is up to that single Philodox, he may just get killed. Then what? Are all the other Philodoxes in the region going to gang up and go after that Ahroun? Why? Just because they are Philodoxes? What if some of them think the Ahroun was innocent, or that the now dead Philodox had erred in some other important way, or have any other number of reasons why they think it is a bad idea. What if no one in the sept thinks any punishment rites should apply? Is the Philodox going to recruit other Garou who are outsiders to the sept to do it? This is looking less like a police action than war.

                            This is why those camps who take it by themselves to enact justice as they see fit are often secret and do their work clandestinely. They know full well there are lots of Garou who won't accept their judgment.

                            Now, I am not saying that Su-tehp's examples don't apply to cases of murder. I believe they do, probably even in the majority of cases. But there are bound to be other times when Garou justice either outright fails, or when the sept (or in some cases the tribe) decides a lesser penalty (or perhaps none at all) should apply. In these cases I think the circumstances of the crime, plus the political situation are going to heavily influence the end result. At some point on the spectrum, I think cases are judged less on the legal merits of the case and more on the political consequences of the verdict (and perhaps the burden of being the ones who may need to fight and kill a powerful Garou).

                            Death and Off Scott Free are two extreme positions. There will be cases when the Garou decide the punishment should be between the two in order to attempt to reconcile both the appearance of justice, and keeping the social peace and preventing more killings. It is in these scenarios that I think comparisons to weregild are apt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ok, now the conversation is getting interesting.

                              (Watch out, this is gonna be a LONG post.)

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              Killing and murder are two different things. There are lots of circumstances where killing another person is not murder. There is killing during war, self-defense, other forms of justifiable homicide, manslaughter, etc. (What it if is a result of Frenzy? What about if the Frenzy was caused by a Wyrm attack? What if the victim was a member of the killer's own pack, and the survivors just want to move on.) In those cases, the act is not murder, and any punishment applied would be much less than death.
                              Quite true as you tell it, Black Fox: murder and killing are indeed two different things. As a lawyer myself, I could go on a whole spiel/rant/monologue on the legal/ethical/moral/whatever differences between the two, but I think all of us here on this forum have at least the good sense to know that there are times when killing someone, as in say self-defense or the defense of others, is legally or morally acceptable; and when a killing is unlawful and/or qualifies as murder. And that's not going into the legal distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or death as a result of negligence and so on. The circumstances Fox cites above are certainly appropriate to say that they don't qualify as murder. But I think they may be outside the scope of Maris Streck's questions in her original post: 1) Would murdering another Garou as he slept result in a Renown loss? To my mind, a Renown loss as a punishment for murdering another Garou strikes me as *far* too much of a slap on the wrist to be an appropriate punishment for murder, which is why it seems silly (at best) to me. Now, that brings up the question of whether the ruling authority (whether it is the sept's Council of Elders, the "prosecuting" Philodox or someone else besides) is corrupt or not. If that authority is corrupt, then that's outside the context of Streck's original first question in her post. But if everything else is equal, Renown loss should be the least of the worries for the murderer if he's caught. 2) As for whether a Garou slays another Garou during a challenge duel, it even says in the Corebook that "accidents have been known to happen" (or words to that effect). But even there, the Litany mandates that Garou have to "accept an honorable surrender." There's also the sad reality that some Garou are infamous for sinking their teeth into a defeated Garou's throat after the latter had already surrendered. Here, as per Maris' question, what would happen in this case depends on the attitude of the elders of the sept in question. Would the elders just shrug at this and say the victor was just "following his instincts" and couldn't hold back in time? In a sept made up of Get of Fenris, or Silver Fangs, or Shadow Lords, those elders overseeing the duel might very well overlook the death of the defeated party. In a sept of Black Furies or Bone Gnawers or especially the Children of Gaia, that victor who just killed a fellow Garou likely wouldn't get off so easy. In this case, a Renown loss might very well be appropriate. But as this was a death during a legal challenge, most, if not all Garou, would not consider this murder, especially if the odds of the duel were fair. (If the victor had somehow cheated, however...)

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              Nor do I think it is clear that the penalty for murder is always death (even the rite of The Hunt says unwarranted murder). I think it sometimes can be, but I also think the circumstances and the status of both the perpetrator and victim matter. It could be death. It could also be exile. Loss of renown or physical brand. Or a slap on the wrist. Or it might not even be anything provided the perpetrator is at the home sept and is politically powerful there and his victim is someone with no influence from a different sept, perhaps a far away one. If a Get of Fenris Jarl in Minnesota murders some Bone Gnawer hobo from New York City passing through Minnesota, how likely is it the home sept is going to punish the Jarl (if there is punishment, it isn't likely to be death)? How things play out depends on the circumstances.
                              The New York Bone Gnawers are certainly going to want to judge that Jarl if they can prove that he did indeed murder their fellow Bone Gnawer. Then again, it could be that the dead Gnawer had violated the Get's territory and broke the third tenet of the Litany (Respect the Territory of Another). But if the Gnawer was really murdered by the Jarl and the Gnawer sept found out about it, there are other Garou authorities above and beyond the sept level: The Gnawers could call for a multi-tribal concolation of all Garou in the immediate area and raise the issue there. Of course, it would take some serious politicking from the Bone Gnawers to convince the elders of at least four other elders from four other tribes to call for the concolation on what could be considered a "minor matter", not to mention getting the evidence that the Jarl did indeed commit murder. (But just think of the story potential if the Gnawers did manage to pull that off!) Sure, a corrupt Garou elder can get away with murdering a foreign Garou and usurp the Garou system of justice, but that's not what Maris is asking, is it? She's asking what would be the result of a Garou murdering another Garou if the Garou system of justice *wasn't* corrupt. And what if the Bone Gnawers actually *did* manage to prove to the other Get of Fenris that their Jarl did indeed murder another Garou? Would those other Get be willing to stand by their Jarl when it's proven beyond a doubt that he murdered another warrior of Gaia? One could make the argument that by committing such a murder, the Jarl violated the eighth tenet of the Litany (Respect all those beneath ye--all are of Gaia). If it can be proven that the Jarl violated the Litany, or committed the murder as a result of Wyrm-taint, would the other Get still be willing to stand by their Jarl? The Get may have a reputation for being insular but even they have their limits. If a Jarl was proven to have murdered another Garou and then covered it up, would the other Get be so willing to keep trusting him enough to follow him into battle knowing that he wasn't honest with them? Untrustworthy leaders make for unworthy leaders, no less for the Get than for anyone else.

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              Philodoxes do have duties according to their auspice, but that does not grant them jurisdiction and authority. It merely establishes expectations about the role they should play in society. They aren't a police force. A Philodox attempting to hold court at a strange sept and arraign justice is likely to be told to piss off UNLESS there are political reasons one or more influential Garou (factions) at the sept would welcome an outsider. What if two different Philodoxes conduct an investigation, and one rules one way and the other rules a different way. Which one is followed? Who arbitrates that? Is there an appeals process? Can a Garou be tried for the same accused crime again and again if someone doesn't like the first decision to let him go?
                              All good questions. On the question of a visiting Philodox making judgments at a strange sept, I can only point to the example from the Book of Auspices I cited earlier. Of course, there's nothing to say that every visiting Philodox at a sept not his own is going to get the same reception. The circumstances will always vary. As for the questions of arbitration between two opposed Philodox, an appeals process (if any), and double jeopardy, who can say? The Garou are a warrior race and justice for them tends to be swift and final, so they likely won't be concerned with such legalistic trivialities (or what qualifies for them as trivialities). As for how to break a stalemate between two opposed Philodox, that's a VERY interesting question.

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              And there is also the matter of enforcement. Now that some Philodox has judged the high ranking Get of Fenris ahroun killing machine to be guilty of murder and thus killed - who is going to enforce that decision especially if the murderer tells the Philodox to screw off? If it is up to that single Philodox, he may just get killed. Then what? Are all the other Philodoxes in the region going to gang up and go after that Ahroun? Why? Just because they are Philodoxes? What if some of them think the Ahroun was innocent, or that the now dead Philodox had erred in some other important way, or have any other number of reasons why they think it is a bad idea. What if no one in the sept thinks any punishment rites should apply? Is the Philodox going to recruit other Garou who are outsiders to the sept to do it? This is looking less like a police action than war.
                              It could depend on who the Philodox is reporting to. If he's conducting his investigation on behalf of the sept's Council of Elders, then it's likely the Council that will enforce the decision. If irrefutable proof is brought before the Council that their Jarl/Grand Elder committed murder and/or broke the Litany in some way (and the Elders don't have any corrupt motive to let the Jarl/Grand Elder off scot-free), then it's more than likely that the Council will enforce the verdict. If the Philodox is just acting on his own behalf, then Black Fox is likely correct that he won't be able to enforce his decision. And even more wrinkles are added if the Philodox is reporting not to the Council of Elders, but instead to a different office of the sept, for example say, the Warden, who is concerned that having a corrupt Grand Elder might compromise the safety of the caern.

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              This is why those camps who take it by themselves to enact justice as they see fit are often secret and do their work clandestinely. They know full well there are lots of Garou who won't accept their judgment.
                              Yup, the existence of those camps can certainly be justified (at least to themselves) for exactly that reason. Hell, it's the same reason that secret operatives, both in fiction and in real life, exist.

                              Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                              Now, I am not saying that Su-tehp's examples don't apply to cases of murder. I believe they do, probably even in the majority of cases. But there are bound to be other times when Garou justice either outright fails, or when the sept (or in some cases the tribe) decides a lesser penalty (or perhaps none at all) should apply. In these cases I think the circumstances of the crime, plus the political situation are going to heavily influence the end result. At some point on the spectrum, I think cases are judged less on the legal merits of the case and more on the political consequences of the verdict (and perhaps the burden of being the ones who may need to fight and kill a powerful Garou).

                              Death and Off Scot-Free are two extreme positions. There will be cases when the Garou decide the punishment should be between the two in order to attempt to reconcile both the appearance of justice, and keeping the social peace and preventing more killings. It is in these scenarios that I think comparisons to weregild are apt.
                              A very good point. The weregild scenario seems a very apt way for the other Get of Fenris to justify deposing their Jarl if the Bone Gnawers can prove that he did indeed commit murder. After all, that Jarl hid his responsibility for murdering that Gnawer and wound up causing a schism/dispute/blood feud between two tribes just for his own benefit. The Get very likely would not tolerate any escalation of the dispute if the Gnawers could prove that they needed to be compensated/paid weregild.

                              Yeah, I'm starting to like this idea of the Get of Fenris using the weregild custom since it's an Old Germanic custom, the same tradition the Get are descended from. It certainly seems apt enough.



                              Complete Garou Gifts List, Fera Gifts List, Garou Totems List and other assorted OPP/White Wolf goodies

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X