'Mythic' Mafia and their Code of Honor

[Anaraxes]

Small note on translation: you probably want the word "whistle-blower" rather than "whistler" for a tattletale. "Whistle" or "whistler" alone doesn't really have that sense in English.

But to me, "whistle-blower" has more of a corporate or government connotation. There are lots of synonyms that are more associated with criminals. "Narc" (both a noun and a verb, from undercover narcotics officers), or less modern, "rat", as in the much imitated James Cagney line "Mmm..., that dirty, double-crossin' rat". Which of course brings up "double-crosser" as the noun form. "Stool pigeon" -> "stoolie", "snitch", and "squealer" also seem more Mafia-esque to me.

What would be really nice would be a word that fits in with the other lingo. if the Mafia are the Modest Providers, what's a word that has the sense of "interfering with a provider"?

[hari]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Are you saying that I need go no further in search of justification? Just to make sure we understand each other, I'm also aiming for a culture where high-class organized crime is actually much nicer (to quiet/clueless bystanders, not to whistlers and 'active' cops) than random street thugs and gangs.

Yeah, I suppose the fact that they are not very violent could definitely use a little explanation. I think that the main thing that would influence how violent a criminal group is would be how much violence they experience. How violent are the police? A further justification is much less needed if they are considerably less (or more for that matter) violent than the police, other criminals, and society in general. I suppose you do have to think about how they enforce their rules on the quiet and the clueless.

I wrote, "Think of it as several different competing interests in a society, one of which is represented in the government, and some of whom claim their own authority. Then the only question really is about which interest has the biggest discrepancy between real power and socially and legally accepted power." You called them high class. Maybe they have lots of real power, and it's officially illegal, but people don't really mind all that much in practice? If they are technically breaking the law but nobody cares to enforce those laws on them, they have much less reason to be violent.

What is their relationship to the central government? Is their presence somehow beneficial to the government? If so, how? That would make a lot of sense to me. I could even imagine that their ties to the government are so close that they are able to rely on the police to do their enforcing for them and don't actually have to be violent at all.

On the other hand, if they are at odds and in competition with the government, and the government is repressive or brutal, than we really would need to justify peaceful criminals. That could also be done, but would be harder, and in my opinion harder to make interesting. The first thing that comes to mind along those lines is that they might have some kind of religious reason to avoid violence as much as they can. I don't like it because that feels like dismissing the issue. It would be okay if we thought about why they're so adamantly pacifist. Justifications for them being peaceful even though the police are violent would probably all be like that. They would smell of handwavium and require more background. That could work though.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

But to me, "whistle-blower" has more of a corporate or government connotation. There are lots of synonyms that are more associated with criminals. "Narc" (both a noun and a verb, from undercover narcotics officers), or less modern, "rat", as in the much imitated James Cagney line "Mmm..., that dirty, double-crossin' rat". r"?

Those would be a little too real world for a fantasy world's organized crime. I think "whistler" is fine.

[Anaraxes]

"Rats" oppose "providers" fairly well. After all, they get into your stored provisions and ruin them. You could of course have a fantasy world without rat-equivalents, but the concept wouldn't be out of place in most of them.

But there's probably something better.

"Narc" you wouldn't use directly, certainly, but the point is motivate the question, "In this setting, who are the cops, what are they called, and how might that turn into slang?" If they're paladins, maybe your narcs are "pals". (Amusing for the inversion of meaning to the players, maybe, but again there's probably something better and more organic to the setting.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by hari

Yeah, I suppose the fact that they are not very violent could definitely use a little explanation. I think that the main thing that would influence how violent a criminal group is would be how much violence they experience. How violent are the police? A further justification is much less needed if they are considerably less (or more for that matter) violent than the police, other criminals, and society in general. I suppose you do have to think about how they enforce their rules on the quiet and the clueless.

I wrote, "Think of it as several different competing interests in a society, one of which is represented in the government, and some of whom claim their own authority. Then the only question really is about which interest has the biggest discrepancy between real power and socially and legally accepted power." You called them high class. Maybe they have lots of real power, and it's officially illegal, but people don't really mind all that much in practice? If they are technically breaking the law but nobody cares to enforce those laws on them, they have much less reason to be violent.

What is their relationship to the central government? Is their presence somehow beneficial to the government? If so, how? That would make a lot of sense to me. I could even imagine that their ties to the government are so close that they are able to rely on the police to do their enforcing for them and don't actually have to be violent at all.

On the other hand, if they are at odds and in competition with the government, and the government is repressive or brutal, than we really would need to justify peaceful criminals. That could also be done, but would be harder, and in my opinion harder to make interesting. The first thing that comes to mind along those lines is that they might have some kind of religious reason to avoid violence as much as they can. I don't like it because that feels like dismissing the issue. It would be okay if we thought about why they're so adamantly pacifist. Justifications for them being peaceful even though the police are violent would probably all be like that. They would smell of handwavium and require more background. That could work though.

When I talked about them being not as violent, I primarily meant towards bystanders/clients. They won't pull punches on actual enemies, like another armed Provider during a recognized Feud, or a SWAT officer. But the intent is to make it a default assumption that it is cheaper/more profitable to avoid violence in less volatile situation: it's often preferable to bribe a beat cop than to kill him and risk a large-scale retaliation; it's generally preferable not to make people hate the providers - less disruptive for business.

The political leader generally do oppose them heavily, but the mid-level legal enforcement people aren't paid enough to go gun-ho at every moonshiner they think they know. In general, the organized crime and the cops can go at each other's throats, but neither is very willing to escalate the situation to something where they personally are going to risk their lives every waking hour (occasional risks are plenty enough); there just aren't too many zealots outside the congress. This is kinda like the MAD mentality of the Cold War, to some extent.

Of course, there are always some street thugs and small gangs who are not smart enough to be careful like that. And of course, those Loose Cannons end up between a hämmer and a hard place, since they're ******* off both sides by their activity. Needless to say, there aren't many of those outside of really far-off and ignored neighbourhoods (i.e. those that are neither policed well nor controlled by organized crime).

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

When I talked about them being not as violent, I primarily meant towards bystanders/clients. They won't pull punches on actual enemies, like another armed Provider during a recognized Feud, or a SWAT officer. But the intent is to make it a default assumption that it is cheaper/more profitable to avoid violence in less volatile situation: it's often preferable to bribe a beat cop than to kill him and risk a large-scale retaliation; it's generally preferable not to make people hate the providers - less disruptive for business.

The political leader generally do oppose them heavily, but the mid-level legal enforcement people aren't paid enough to go gun-ho at every moonshiner they think they know. In general, the organized crime and the cops can go at each other's throats, but neither is very willing to escalate the situation to something where they personally are going to risk their lives every waking hour (occasional risks are plenty enough); there just aren't too many zealots outside the congress. This is kinda like the MAD mentality of the Cold War, to some extent.

Of course, there are always some street thugs and small gangs who are not smart enough to be careful like that. And of course, those Loose Cannons end up between a hämmer and a hard place, since they're ******* off both sides by their activity. Needless to say, there aren't many of those outside of really far-off and ignored neighbourhoods (i.e. those that are neither policed well nor controlled by organized crime).

A lot of this sounds exactly like how the bikie gangs operate in Sons of Anarchy, so I'm not sure you need any stretch of the imagination to make it plausible either.

For that matter, it's how a lot of organised crime operates anyway, to the extent of my knowledge. Afflicting violence on innocents is usually frowned upon by the more established and traditional groups.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

A lot of this sounds exactly like how the bikie gangs operate in Sons of Anarchy, so I'm not sure you need any stretch of the imagination to make it plausible either.

For that matter, it's how a lot of organised crime operates anyway, to the extent of my knowledge. Afflicting violence on innocents is usually frowned upon by the more established and traditional groups.

I doubt things are so nice in real life. One of the threats small real-life business faces is groups of organized criminals demanding 'protection money', as in for protecting the business from the very organization that demands the money. The 'mythic' code of honour that I posted sees that kind of behaviour as unworthy of a Modest Provider.

Of course, this is what the real-world mafia wanted their public image to display, which is probably one of the reasons for this mythic image. I just want to make this image quite accurate and true for a specific locale.

[Daigoro]

I haven't checked, but my feeling is that protection rackets are run by the lower end of the food-chain, and is important when they have no other means of income.

If other income sources are plentiful- gambling, drugs, arms, prostitution- then protection racketeering wouldn't be required, and indeed may be too small time.

Protection racketeering may also not come up if there's close communal bonds between the gang and the neighbourhood, which is more likely in an older neighbourhood or somewhere more rural than it is in a big city.

A further thought is that local businesses may willingly pay protection money if there's a threat of outsider crime which is genuinely kept away by the gangs, i.e. if the local law enforcement are less effective than the local gang, or if paying protection gets other benefits, such as access to contract tenders or protection from legitimate business competition. There may also be a cultural acceptance to paying protection money- it's been done for so long that no one would think of not doing it, same as paying your taxes or a tithe to the church.

For your situation, the Modest Providers may demand protection money, but stop short of personal violence when enforcing it- damage to property, arson, increased theft, or just increased prices from local suppliers might all effect the same message. So you can adjust any of the above factors to make it more "plausible".

I just found this interesting wiki article if you haven't seen it yet yourself (although the scale of it puts lie to my "low end of the food chain" idea- the Mafia gets 7% of Italy's GDP through extortion).

[hari]

Governments are legitimate and really big in comparison to organized crime. But aside from that, protection rackets are not really all that different from taxes. Sure, governments often provide services to the people taxed... but... then again... sometimes they just take the money and go kill Afghanis. And yeah, sure, criminals usually don't provide real services, but then again, sometimes they do. This is especially likely with people who don't get any services from their governments (the people that formed MEND in Nigeria, FARC in Columbia, to just name what comes to mind without thinking. This idea that protection money and tax money are similar is also supported by the fact that at least one gang, Mara Salvatrucha, calls their protection racket tax collecting.

I find this idea of organized crime as somewhat comparable to and in conflict with the state to be quite interesting, as is their relationship to one another and position in society. I think things are most interesting when put into a context. I would personally dig deeper in that general direction.

Who are the Providers? I mean, what demographic group are they drawn from? Are they an ethnic or racial minority? Are they a religious or ideological minority? Something similar? Are they otherwise average members of society who for some reason feel excluded from their society's success? Why would any individual Provider become a criminal instead of becoming a solider, police officer, banker, or politician?

Oh, and while people are on the subject, I just thought to brag that the Sons of Anarchy character Bobby Munson is played by my (sort of but not quite) uncle.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by hari

I find this idea of organized crime as somewhat comparable to and in conflict with the state to be quite interesting, as is their relationship to one another and position in society. I think things are most interesting when put into a context. I would personally dig deeper in that general direction.

That's the idea. They're called Providers because they provide services the government tries to suppress.

Originally Posted by hari

Who are the Providers? I mean, what demographic group are they drawn from? Are they an ethnic or racial minority? Are they a religious or ideological minority? Something similar? Are they otherwise average members of society who for some reason feel excluded from their society's success? Why would any individual Provider become a criminal instead of becoming a solider, police officer, banker, or politician?

As far as intended, they're meant to be the anti-dogmatists in terms of religion: the ones opposed to churches pushing their noses into stuff; in fact, I think this might translate into generic anti-church behaviour - probably of the sort of 'there should not be middlemen in the issues of faith - what is and is not a sin is a question relating the person and his/her/its god, and nobody else'. Yeah, I think this would be an interesting contrast to the other two stereotypes about criminals the (1) actually devout fellas who know the Torah/Koran/Bible by heart (think the mythic mafia of our world) and (2) the atheistic sociopaths (think the mythic/real mafiya of our world) who care either about nobody else, or only about themselves and their close friends/family.

The reason behind such an idea is that the locale in question has a the church and state somewhat entwined (though not as much as in Middle Ages Earth), but a large minority don't like things that are essentially sumptuary laws.