It is this sort of back-to-front thinking which I was trying to explain earlier. It is the sort of thing which is used to justify all sorts of behaviour and can easily be used to explain why it is fine to thieve.
I read the first half of Peter Ackroyd's "London The Biography" over Christmas. It is truly inspirational (in a terrifying way) for this sort of thing - I'd strongly recommend it. Have a look at the story of Jack Sheppard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sheppard) - in the Victorian age, children in London knew who he was when they had never heard of Queen Victoria or Jesus Christ. Hell, I grew up to heroic stories of Dick Turpin around my part of London - the bugger was a murderer.
I'd use Jack Sheppard's story as a heroquest :)
I just find it is very easy to slip into this whole "The Church [or other authority] does it like this" mode of thinking and think that is how things actually operate. In truth, in the real world, things are an awful lot more interesting.
The Catholic Church has 10,000 saints (or some equally remarkable figure).
So, when Greg says:
> Normally, a "real saint" is one who is sanctioned by the Church. The
> Church, whether Rokari or Hrestoli or some obscure church, does not
> sanction theft. God or bad, protection of property rights is pretty
> standard for mainstream religions.
...I kinda wonder if they have so very much control over (a) who was canonized in the past, (b) how people revere these figures these days. Pope Benedict is currently casting doubt (my interpretation of a news report) on Saint Pio's stigmata (seems pretty dodgy to me, the guy buying quantities of certain acids which can keep wounds from healing, all hush hush).
That sort of thing sounds like fun material for a game with a potentially dodgy saint.
Just another sixpenth 'orth.
Sam.
Powered by hypermail