Litany Interpretations for the Sept of the Lost Coast

Nothing overtly said or written. Use this forum to track minor occurrences that may be noticed, or general word of mouth.
User avatar
The Medusae
Storyteller
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:01 am

Litany Interpretations for the Sept of the Lost Coast

Postby The Medusae » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:32 am

Trent Walton wrote:"Garou Shall Not Mate With Other Garou. We interpret "mate" to cover a sexual encounter, and it is officially forbidden. The sept's general stance is that mating between Garou is more than the risk of a metis. It does a tremendous disservice to our kin, and it presents a great risk of conflict and danger in terms of unusually heightened emotions between beings of rage."

"Combat the Wyrm Wherever It Dwells and Wherever It Breeds. Our sept's current interpretation is that any discovery of the wyrm must be actively countered. In contrast to our more martial brethren, we maintain that "combat" can be applied in a multitude of senses. Just because we do not lunge claws first into a matter does not mean it is not being combated. For example, the town has had issues with leeches for many years, and has required more subtle means of stymying the wyrm's encroachment than all-out open war. This does not mean the wyrm is not combated. This tenet is violated when one discovers the wyrm and takes no action to prevent its spread or success. Withholding information about a threat, ignoring obvious signs of wyrm activity, letting an agent go with no intent of follow up, etc." Trent paused. "Now, granted, facing the wyrm head on with guns blazing is fine too." Was that... did Trent make a joke?

"Respect the Territory of Another.* By the book, this just means announce your presence when you come into our territory, but considering every other sept I've encountered has expanded its meaning, we will too. Simply put, this means to acknowledge and honor the claim members of the sept have over their property, be it physical territory, personal items or financial assets. Permission is the key. It's also worth noting that kin are not considered 'territory', lest there be any confusion on that point. A claim is expected to be made clear, through either legal documentation, labeling or scent-marking. Establishing guilt is a simple twofold process. Gifts are used to deduce if the trespasser knowingly violated territory. If they did, they are guilty. If not, the burden of proof falls to the owner of that territory to prove that the territory was claimed in a manner that was reasonably obvious. If it was, the trespasser is guilty. If it was not, there is no crime."

"Accept an honorable surrender. This is straightforward. The surrender, however, must be made obvious. An overt showing of throat or stomach are acceptable for qualification, but some verbal addition is strongly recommended. We have too many problem neighbors who have been fast to claim 'I didn't know it was surrender.' A surrender that is obvious to a reasonable person must be accepted, and hostilities must cease. If a surrender is used to try and get out of an issue that still needs addressing, and the other party remains dissatisfied, they can get a philodox to mediate from that point forward."

"Submission to Those of Higher Station is straightforward. If one of a higher rank gives you an order, obey it. If you take issue with it, bring it up later with a philodox or ragabash. But orders are given to get things done, and rank is earned by proven deeds. Asking questions for clarification is permitted, but the orders must be obeyed. Position trumps rank as a general practice, given ranking members should be holding those positions. In matters of equal rank, it is deferred first to the position, and then to the auspice with the most relevant expertise."

"The First Share of the Kill for the Greatest in Station. Archaic, but relevant in its own way. In modern usage, it is considered to mean presenting the spoils of war to the greatest in station. Fetishes or valuable items uncovered, trophies of the defeated and things along those lines are to be presented to the greatest of station, in this case Rose, who reserves the right to claim it. This walks a precarious line with Respecting the Territory of Another, but is considered to supercede it, as, through Submission to Higher Station, it is assumed that the greatest in station will best know how these things can be used. The value of this rule exists in the form of ensuring the hierarchy is aware of what assets can be called upon in facing our future enemies. Furthermore, it means when items are offered to a group, such as food, it is taken in order of station."

"Ye Shall Not Eat the Flesh of Humans. It's straightforward. For all intents and purposes, "eating" is qualified by swallowing. We don't prosecute garou who bite off a chunk of flesh in battle. While we assume this to go without saying, it is also sept policy not to eat the flesh of wolves."

"Respect Those Beneath Ye, All Are of Gaia.* Beneath Ye we interpret to mean any gaian creature below your rank, including kin, spirits, mortals and so forth. Our sept defines 'disrespect' as the willful attempt to make someone feel worthless. Our sept recognizes the impact this can have on morale, and that it can pave the path to darker influences, so the intentional effort to cause another of Gaia to feel that way will not be tolerated."

"The Veil Shall Not Be Lifted. We consider this tenet breached in the event that the rending of the Veil is not immediately remedied. In events with no risk of lasting damage, it is considered unwise, but not a crime."

"The Veil Shall Not Be Lifted. We consider this tenet breached in the event that the rending of the Veil is not immediately remedied. In events with no risk of lasting damage, it is considered unwise, but not a crime."

"Do Not Suffer Thy People to Tend Thy Sickness. Tending the sickness of others covers an individual whose mental or physical faculties are impaired to the point that it necessitates others to intervene to their own disadvantage. A sickness is tolerated so long as it does not affect others."

"The Leader May Be Challenged at Any Time During Peace. A 'leader' we consider to mean sept officials, pack alphas and anyone given a task to take command of. And 'may be challenged' simply means that the option to challenge as normal is there for appropriate parties. A Master of the Challenge retains the right to refuse a dishonorable challenge."

"The Leader May Not Be Challenged During Wartime. This does not mean just a formal challenge. This means that a leader's orders may not be challenged, and must be carried out. Questioned, sure, to ensure all are on the same page and following the same logic. But a leader's word during war must be the sovereign command. This is why it is important to challenge anyone in peacetime that you would dread following during war."

"Ye Shall Take No Action That Causes a Caern to Be Violated. The thing of note is "that causes", not "that may cause". We define violation as 'any action that exposes the sept to an enemy's machinations, causes taint upon the sept's grounds, or subjects the sept to public scrutiny'."


*See below for additional clarification.

User avatar
The Medusae
Storyteller
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:01 am

Re: Litany Interpretations for the Sept of the Lost Coast

Postby The Medusae » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:32 am

Mama Cass wrote:"I'd like to ask for rationale and also clarify something, and I apologize for waiting until now, but I needed to see if there was a pattern. Twice you've used terms like 'knowingly'--in the case of territory violations--and 'willingly'--in the case of disrespect to those beneath you. Both prioritize intent over impact, which disadvantages the wronged party and risks breeding resentment, and as far as I can make out, they'd both potentially allow somebody to claim either ignorance or 'I didn't mean to' to avoid being held accountable for something.

I acknowledge there are probably reasons for it I'm not thinking of, but I'd like to hear the rationale. I'd also like clarification on whether or not someone's wisdom can still be challenged or called into question under those circumstances, even if it's not a Litany violation per se, to ensure nobody is going around being thoughtless and then making no effort to be less so in the future in order to maintain that excuse for their behavior."


Trent Walton wrote:"Deliberately, yes. Good point."

"There is a difference between a crime and a misstep. A misstep is the purview of a ragabash or someone else to point out and correct, generally impacting renown. These are not litany violations, they're just bad behavior. The wisdom can be challenged, a ragabash may call it into question, and so on and so forth. But not as a litany violation, just as a lack of wisdom, honor or glory. You can claim ignorance or no intent to do so, and if it holds up to a philodox's scrutiny, they are to be corrected, challenged or docked renown, but not punished with the severity of one who violates a caern or consumes flesh."

"A crime violates the litany, and warrants intervention by the philodox, and likely a punishment rite or corporal punishment. Knowingly violating territory, ignoring surrender, disrespecting others... This does not show something to be corrected, but actions to be punished."


Return to “Public Knowledge”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests