Forrest had been thinking a lot recently. A lot had changed for him since he came to the big city from a hick town in the hills. But he’d always wanted more, sure his moonshining operation made him good money compared to the other folks in the hills, but it was a totally different league to the big city of Philadelphia and the wider world. Out here in the city, existed a far greater amount of rules and social conventions. Heads of different organisations  all competing for a piece of the pie, and their members, loyal and hard working beneath them.

Since I arrived in the big city, something grabbed my attention. There are lots of different organisations and each organisation has it’s own head and a Godfather (acting or otherwise) in charge of a district.

Now it would seem only logical that these people would make the rules and conventions that we follow, but is this really true? What I’m asking is, Is it leaders or our wider society that creates individuals and rules?

For example, we know that across the big cities, contracts taken out by an individual are to be left to them unless a certain amount of time has passed and they have failed to ‘take out the trash’ It would appear that these rules were created and implemented by our leaders, but in essence, was it more down to the opinion of the masses? Tired and unhappy at losing their ‘work’ to lurking thieves?

This however does work in reverse. I think every city states that nobody should shoot a member of another family without prior authorisation from the powers that be. This is a rule that was created by the leaders and is certainly enforced by them. I dare say that should everybody be left to their own devices, there would be a larger amount of blood running through the streets.

So is it individuals that shape society, in respect of the Godfathers making rules and us obeying? Or is it society and the widely held opinions that tend to shape the rules and conditions of our society? Personally I think there’s a balance between the two, Our leaders create rules and we obviously follow them, out of respect or any other reason. But the leaders that create the rules are often subjected to substantial input and pressure from members of the family and perhaps members of other Cities.

The most prevalent example that comes to my mind was the ‘death tax’. It is extensively detailed in the archives of the local Cosa Nostra museum. I believe it was in place before Pedro Rourke became Godfather of Detroit, but I remember the Death tax being largely unpopular. Being a man of honour and principle, Pedro stuck to his guns as did the leaders following him. But after that it seems to have fell out of favour rather quickly. Was this due to leaders not seeing the merit of the death tax, I mean free money? Or was it down in part, to pressures enacted by other members of our society who didn’t feel the tax to be fair?

This is not the only example of this kind of thing, but I found it the easiest example to offer and explain. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others on this subject, so ladies and gentlemen, please take to your soap boxes!

Tipping his hat, Forrest takes a swig from his hipflask before stepping back and allowing others to take the floor.

*Tommy sips from his flask*

Hmmm, age old debate – although not as physically formative as in the old days the community still to a large degree molds the general culture. Before it was much more tangible, as well trained and set up Earners could kill above Made in one shot. Even with the addition of BG’s well trained guns could impact an established family. So there was a legitimate fear of “Rogue” behavior if the masses didn’t like the current culture. Now it is more driven by political and other worldly means. If leaders do not to some extent set up an environment that allows for at minimum bearable ROI (Return on Investment) people will simply stop coming to our shores.

Most though are simple common sense rules, that apply in any culture or society. There will always be those that hang in the fringe of society, wanting things their way and not accepting common ground rules. I for one, am saddened that we do not have open heated debate anymore. It brought life to our world and leaders as well as people weren’t as thin skinned with being called out on their decisions in general. You still had to be somewhat respectful but it wasn’t common in my ancestor’s stories for people like Money-B to have heated exchanges in public with the lineage of Teq, FlyingPig, TheD, Uncle Nicky, Tiggy etc. And the same could be true about any of those lines with others. However I do respect the culture we have now in the fact that I will row with the tide, unless in a position to start effecting change in some manner.

*mumbles to himself*

In my old age, I probably rambled on without making sense.

In my rather vast experience in this world, I would say that it is the masses, and not the leaders, who make the rules Forrest. Sure, leaders have more power, more immediate sway. But the masses, the masses decide what is right and wrong, fair and unfair. If people don't like the way things are being done, they will change it. Eventually. It might not happen right away, but it does eventually.

The sad part is, that when these people rise up and make the change, they tend to do exactly what the leaders before them did. Sit on their thrones and collect money, while changing nothing. They get complacent with their place on top, and fear what might happen if they try to change the way things are done around here.

And then they end up dying as well, just like the ones before them.

It's a brutal cycle.

From what I've gathered it is the masses that dictate the rules. Perhaps they don't force leaders to adopt a specific set of rules, but rather as in the masses make certain it's obvious what they, the masses, want to see. I think most leaders like to be popular, so they adopt that set of rules. In any case, nowadays we have a more or less fixed set of rules that everyone sees as reasonable. Just take a look at city rules and notice that they're all pretty much alike. 

I agree with Ronin that the masses decide what is what. They won't (usually) rise up and drive off any unwanted tyrant, but change will come eventually. ''Revolutions'' happen, but they always become like the regime they replaced in the end. 

That all is besides the point though. I would like to stress my desire of a leader who doesn't just change rules, but convinces the masses that his rules are right. What I would like to see once (not necessarily in this time, but in general) is a true revolution where the world as we know it is radically changed by a strong leader.