The setting though... is another matter. I have some personal problems with the Morman religion (that I will not delve into) that made me uncomfortable with the game setting. I still had fun but... it put me off somewhat. The fact that it captures the setting so well, is actually a little un-nearving, making one wonder if you are playing a game or that you are in some sort of weird Morman indoctrianation program... I can see it really being a problem for some people.
I respect your position, but personally, I don't see any difference between this setting and any other fantasy setting. The author makes it clear that the setting is based on Mormon history and frontier society, but that's all. From what I know of Mormon and western history, there were no Wandering Avenging Priest Gunslingers called by the Mormon leadership to keep the faithful in line. The setting could be about the Amish if you wanted. The game is about the choices confronted by the characters and their consequences, not about the Mormon church.
On the Forge there is lots of discussion about using the rules for all kinds of settings where there is some form of Moral Authority in a closed community. Some that jump to mind are Judge Dredd or priests in the Inquisition. I would say that even a James Bond type game where the characters have a License to Kill would work, even without the closed society. There are lots of games that use the Catholic Church as an inspiration or straight from the whole cloth for their setting. Ars Magica is a notable example. Clerics from D&D were inspired by medieval priests.
If you don't believe in a specific religion, what is the problem with roleplaying it's trappings as a kind of clerical magic? If you do believe in that particular religion it seems much more likely that one would be offended. I feel like the author was extremely careful about this issue, and showed great respect and sensitivity for his source material. He walked an extremely fine line almost perfectly.
I've run this system twice as is, with the Faith and it's default setting, and once, with some minor adjustments, using Charles DeLint's setting of Newford for a modern urban faerie/magic game. After studying lots of different game systems, I found that Dogs has a distinctly literary feel because of the Fallout system and it's direct affect on the characters and their traits.
All three times, my players and I had an absolute blast. It was extremely Narrativist, with the players choosing when to escalate or bow out of conflict based on the available dice. This equates into a simulation of reality, where the dice represent the characters' best guess evaluation of a conflict situation and their odds for success with different strategies. Often, in games that I have experienced, there isn't that natural sense of what's stacked against you. It made for much more authentic reactions in my players.
Also, because they had to justify the dice they were choosing to use, they were coming up with all kinds of story elements that normally, if I wanted them included, I would have to create, but never could because I don't think like they do. Minor characters, weather phenomena, you name it. And because they were so involved in the story telling in the conflict, they felt free to do it throughout the narrative. I was hard pressed just writing down all the characters and their descriptions they made up on the spot so I could use them later because they were so cool.
I'd like to note here that all of my players had played RPGs before, but never like this. Mostly 2nd Ed. D&D and Hero System. My group also ran the gamut from guys who have played regularly since 1978 to my sister who had only ever gamed twice.
The reviewer did mention that the author encourages you (begs you, really) to not have an end in mind, but to let the players evolve the ending. I admit that this was really hard for me to do, to really let go, so I had to think quick on my feet to avoid having a great recurring character killed. It was worth it though, because my players and I created a fantastic ending together.
There are two important rules that encourage this player involvement that were not mentioned in the review. First, the Kibbutzing rule, where the author makes it practically mandatory for everyone to be involved at every stage. (I can't count the number of times I heard my players say "No, ...no wait! He should do this!" They also felt free to add description or personality to anything I or anyone else introduced, from details in the architecture to quirks and speech impediments.) Second, the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule, which applies only to the GM. The author encourages (ok, he begs; again) the GM to either give the players what they want, or turn it into a full blown conflict. This was hard to remember in play for me (I am a little old school.) But when I did it, everything worked really smoothly. I never felt cheated because I had to fudge something, and neither did my players. If it was important enough, it was a conflict. If not, it wasn't important enough to worry about.
Oh, a short note about supernatural abilities. All characters who are Dogs are required to take at least one of their traits in relation to the Dogs. If the group decides to play the setting with supernatural abilities as an option, just being a Dog is enough to have any kind of miracle working you'd care to describe. In the default setting of the Faith, it would probably be in the Biblical tradition, but it's not required to be so.
This is not to discourage anyone from having a particular gift as the reviewer describes, just that they would stack on top of the Dog trait if you were performing that particular kind of miracle (like the healing.)
I have to tell you that this game took me completely by surprise. I obviously love it, but for reasons I would never have guessed.
If $22 is too much for you, the pdf is $14. I recommend this game to anyone who loves collaborative story telling.
http://www.lumpley.com/games/dogsources.html
Christian Fasy
starshield@xmission.com