Pulling up a milk carton to the edge of the curb Lars begins to square the carton with the edge of the curb. Just after the carton is set at the side of the curb Lars straightens his black shirt and squares up his blue tie to finally button up his jacket.

My ancestor's have served many families of La Cosa Nostra. I myself though am leading a different path through this world of being a mafioso but something that I don't quite understand is a rogue.

Lars clears his throat and begins to lean down with his elbows on his knees. Looking up Lars grins and regains his train of thought.

Journals from my ancestor's have told of rogues that were specifically out to claim freedom and rule once their feet hit the road of becoming a mafioso. Other's have turned to becoming a rogue simply by poor leadership. One problem is we never know who will rogue.

My question is whose to blame when someone takes their anger and turns to cold blood killing? Is it a leaders fault because they maybe didn't train them well enough from the beginning of their life? Have we lost the ability to instill in the young mafiosi that taking it on the chin is the respectful thing to do until in the correct position of power to do something. After all, many power shifts have come by the hands of.... a rogue. 

Some bloodlines have done nothing but try to cause ripples in our way of life. Should we personally keep their bloodlines from coming to our shores? Some day I hope I'm in the position to rid our cities of a rogue and keep many innocent mafiosi alive, but I can't help but wonder how other mafiosi think, how they feel on the topic.

So who is to blame when it comes to a rogue? Are they a key part to the way we live our lives?

Leaning back Lars stands up and pours a little whiskey out of his flask.

Many have lost their lives to rogues, may they have a drink.

Lars takes a swig of his whiskey and places it back in his inside jacket pocket.

Maybe there's no one to blame, or maybe we're all to blame?

Hmmm this is a topic my bloodline has seen several times.

I believe that if it is one rogue in a completely random set of events then its the individuals fault, but when two or more crop up at different times from one family or city then you may have to start looking at the leadership.

more often then not its pretty easy to tell if the rogue in question is just an asshat looking for attention or if the young man was truely mislead by those he trusted.

What percentage of otherwise balanced and trust worthy Wise Guys choose to leave the life, but want to see what it's like to kill someone before they do?  It's probably something marginal, but I'd bet that same, marginal sliver of the population is represented across all ranks.

However, when a Consig decides to stir things up, he buys an HQ and takes a lot of good people with him/her. 

Although the nouns we use for them are different ("Rouge" or "Dumbass", respectively) I'd figure both the trigger-happy Wise Guy and the power-hungry rouge Consig are motivated by the same thing:

"I want to see what it's like, and I have nothing to lose."

Just to elaborate, I don't think that's necessarily the case for all rouges.  Perhaps some do think they will survive, others may just be desperate for attention and I suppose it's possible.  In any case, I do believe that my previous portrait of a rouge represents the vast majority when Rouge is defined at "One who decides to follow their own desires over the will of the upper echelons of society at the expense of the community."

I hope that's a little less vague.

Personally, I prefer blusher to rouge

I believe that if it is one rogue in a completely random set of events
then its the individuals fault, but when two or more crop up at
different times from one family or city then you may have to start
looking at the leadership.

I completely agree with Animal on that one, if you have more then one outburst of Rogues that are causing dissension and rebellions in the city it's time to take a look at the leadership structure. It only takes one person with good manipulative skills and bad intentions to prey on a weak leader into making bad decisions. I'm very proud that Los Angeles & Chicago has come a long way with our tightly knit families.

Personally, I prefer blusher to rouge

Ahh yes Hairy, I must agree with you. As my old grandma from Sicily used to say, " Good girls pinch their cheeks, and whores use rouge." Did she really? No.

Fayth hears the rather interesting debate and decides to speak

Well rogue's can crop up at any time even in the best families, this can stem from too much alcohol, an argument in the coffeeshops or of course they could have just plain planned it from the start.

The worst thing is you never really know about a rogue until it show's up and you have to get rid of it.

Rogues..the once diplomatic,good looking nice guy who suddenly transforms into a nobody-can touch-until im dead guy..so who's to blame is your question to the ridiculous transformation?

In my honest opinion the leader is not to blame and either one of us..so whos to blame really?of course themselves!.their sudden changes is not a leader's fault and neither us,its their decision that falls them from the top to the very bottom.

-Puck-

I feel like some sway towards the leadership being at fault if more than one or two rogues come from their family. Some sway towards the fact that no one can do anything other than it be a course that some just stray down. When reading all these responses one question comes to mind, what if guns were only given to those who the crew leader himself could personally vouch for?  Just a thought.

I don't see an outstanding rogue problem in the forseeable future.

Who is to blame? The rogue.

Who is answerable? The leader. It comes with the territory.

That is not to say a leader has to answer to anyone should a rogue pop-up from their family. Only that if it happens with any meaningful frequency, then other CLs may start to question.

First of all, usually this debate spurs up after a rogue comes out, and I haven't seen one. Secondly, I know this topic has been brought up before, but its always good to keep it fresh in mind.

My thoughts are: It is always the rogue's fault. End of Story. If 5 rogues spur up from the same city at a time, what makes you think its leadership? Think about it this way: A person wants their leader killed, but they don't have the gun to do it. They get 5 friends to rank up within that leaders family, and rogue at the same time knowing that the leader will die to the hands of the other cities for having so many rogues. In the end, the rogue wins doesn't he? He got the leader killed even though it wasn't from their gun. You cannot say no one can have a gun unless the leader can vouch for you because it is really hard as a leader to pin point who is being generous and who is being fake. Most of these debates come from low rankers who can't think of how it would be if they had a crew.

I just don't think no matter who you are, you cannot pin it against a leader. I might hate the leader, but in no way shape or form will I blame the leader for it. I mean, the reasons might be because that leader is shit, but that's 1 or 2 men/women opinion. If the leader is one for a while, they must be doing something right, correct?

I'm just saying...

I just don't think no matter who you are, you cannot pin it against a leader.

That's just it though Avon. It may not be the leader's fault, but he is the one that is answerable if another affected city or group of affected cities decide he is. Or, more accurately, have the power to decide he is.

Yes Boaby. A leader, a godfather, a godmother can all question the leader for the actions of the rogue. But what I was saying is that leader shouldn't be punished if a rogue comes out of their family. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

If you pin it on a leader and kill that leader for 3 rogues coming from his family, that gives the "Okay" to those who hate JohnDoe. They can then set up a group to rogue and JohnDoe will be shot for it. See where I am going with this?

A person wants their leader killed, but they don't have the gun to do it. They get 5 friends to rank up within that leaders family, and rogue at the same time knowing that the leader will die to the hands of the other cities for having so many rogues.

I just don't think no matter who you are, you cannot pin it against a leader.

I have to disagree... more then likely when the rogue pops up with a bunch of his friends it is rather easy to tell its a bunch of connected people doing it, and therefor not necessarily the leaders fault, underground groups happen and some make it far enough to go bold (although very few ever amount to anything). Under the previous example you wouldn't blame the leader.

However, my statement of more then one coming from a particular city or family implied that it was several different individuals across a large amount of time. If the constant headaches that cause you pain were coming from one source wouldn't blame the source and not the headache after awhile

i apologize for my lack of block quote ability.

A rouge usually has the intentions from the start with a couple buddies or he just starts alone and recruits on the way up the ranks or other rouges just pop up from know where just trying to claim victory. Usually the intentions are to take revenge from a family line being taken out for wrong reasons or they didn't get something that they really worked hard for. There could be many reasons that we all could go through, but it is just beating the horse all over again.

I knew what you meant Avon, but - to use your example - whilst we have leaders that don't produce 3 rogues from their family, then the CL in question being held responsible is just one of the drawbacks that come with the territory of leadership. 

As you say, this might well open the window up to schemers, but that's life.

DagenhamAnimal,

It isn't so clear to tell if the rogues are all friends as you have said. If I remember correctly, my father was telling me one day about a story his great great great grandfather told him about this war that happened against someone called Doyle. He had two or three rogues I believe it was and he was killed for it. Well, in actuality they were all linked as friends and it was a well orchestrated plan to take out Doyle whether it be accident or intentional.

I would agree that if it was a different people over a large amount of time, maybe you could put the blame on the leadership capabilities of that person, however, you would have to also research to see if there were any clues that it was all connected to the original rogue attempt. Does that make sense?


Boaby, the main goal here is to stop a rogue without giving the rogue the satisfaction of knowing that once they die, their leader will be dead aswell correct? Well, in order to do this, we cannot let the rogue have the capability of possibly getting the leader shot by merely gathering some lowly gangsters looking for a purpose in life to help him.

I don't know if I am making sense here. Do you understand where I am trying to go with this?

Can't we just say Rourke is to blame and call it a day? 

If not, then the question becomes much more difficult.  I do agree with what Boaby had to say.  We blame the rogue, but the leader should also take responsibility for his actions, and really take a look at what he or she did to contribute to the member going rogue.  And,  yes, I like that word.  That doesn't mean the leader should fall on his sword because somebody from his family decided to go rogue. 

To really answer the question who is to blame you have to explore the reasons why somebody would go rogue.  As some hasve said - if that was their plan from the start because of some 'injustice' their ancestors had endured, well then that's hard to lay on the leader.  If, on the other hand, somebody goes rogue because the leader has hatched a plan and asked that member to go rogue - well then, it's easy to see the leader should be blamed. 

And let's not get too carried away and create a mathematical formula to determine when a crewleader is blamed.  1 rogue = no blame.  2 rogues = blame.  I don't really think it works that way.  Imagine, if you will, a crewleader who's been around for months and months and months.  After one month, a dumbass goes rogue.  After 3 additional months, another member goes rogue.  Under this obviously oversimplified equation, the crewleader is now to blame.   That's just me taking this conclusion to it's absurd end, but I think you get my point.  Which is...?  Well, I've gone on too long to really understand my point, but I think I've made it.

Will,

That is what I am trying to convey to the public. You shouldn't base the amount of rogues from that particular leader to decide if it is indeed the leaders fault or not. I can only think of one occasion that I was told about that this was the case, and that was with the late Don Doyle.