The First Law Question.

[Deadmanwalking]

I disagree. Being human and being a good, honorable, individual are not the same thing. And neither is the same as having free will.

Assuming you had the power, you could kill Eldest Brother Gruff without breaking the First Law, for all that he's a nice enough guy. I'd say the same would be true of a humane White Court Vampire. They may be nice enough, but they aren't human any more. And you can't kill a Refresh 0 human without violating the Laws, so saying that Refresh is the measure seems...off. At least to me.

[void]

By 'humanity' I didn't mean decency. I meant independence, ability to chart their own path. For that, refresh is a viable mechanical measure, since that's what it's meant to represent.

Remember, in the dresden files, 'free will' is considered a defining trait of the mortal. Someone might still hang onto a small sliver of it even after becoming a full White Court Vampire. We've got an example of someone managing that in our source material.

[Deadmanwalking]

True...but we don't know how relevant that is to The Laws of Magic. Which supposedly apply only to humans. The question isn't "Does he have free will?", he clearly does, but "Is he human any more?" and I'd say the answer to that is no. The White Court have become something more and less than human, and it has made them outside the scope of the Laws to some extent.

Otherwise you're opening the door to trapping your players into getting a Lawbreaker stunt for something they've done a dozen times, just because the vampire they just roasted happened to be a monster with free will. That feels wrong for both the setting and the game system. Would you give someone Lawbreaker for killing Lara Raith with magic? She clearly has a high enough Refresh to maintain free will, but that makes her no less a monster.

Now, thinking about it, there is a circumstance that would serve to define the line, at least for me: "Does your character think of him as human?"

This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.

[Moriden]

This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.

This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"

[void]

Now, thinking about it, there is a circumstance that would serve to define the line, at least for me: "Does your character think of him as human?"

This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.

For full White Court vampires, I'd say that depends on how hard they're trying to maintain their humanity, and to a lesser extent whether the spellcaster considers them to have succeeded at all.

I already went there. :D

This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"

That only works if the people he's killing aren't truly mortal.

[Deadmanwalking]

This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"

Ah! But if you kill a human knowing they're a human (regardless of thinking or knowing they've done monstrous things), you get Lawbreaker. You only don't get it if whatever you killed wasn't human.

Or to put it another way, seeing monsters as human can get you Lawbreaker, seeing humans as monsters can't save you from it. It's a one way street.

After all, someone who can casually kill humans because they're 'monstrous' should have Lawbreaker, shouldn't they?

I already went there.

Noted.  Though I'd make it the primary criteria, not a secondary one.

[void]

Well, my take on the soul-staining aspect of the Laws is kinda dependent on the victim actually HAVING free will. *shrug* Every game is a different game, yeah?

My approach would be, if the target didn't REALLY have free will but the spellcaster believed it, just an aspect shift. "Believes He's A Lawbreaker", or somesuch.

[Moriden]

Or to put it another way, seeing monsters as human can get you Lawbreaker, seeing humans as monsters can't save you from it. It's a one way street.
After all, someone who can casually kill humans because they're 'monstrous' should have Lawbreaker, shouldn't they?

Im not a fan of "one way street" logic. if the belief that you've broken the law can taint you then the belief that you haven't should protect you. and that clearly isn't the case.

Some one who can casually kill humans should have the exact same mechanical affects of the lawbreaker stunt, that being several of there aspects saying so, however that in no way is the same as having paid or been penalized refresh for it.

For example i make two characters. there are identical conceptually. they are some form of lychanthrope that views humans and monsters not "in his pack" as vermin. he has absolutely no trouble casually killing. the only difference between these two characters is one of them has purely physical powers and the other uses thaumaturgy and a few refresh of powers. they both are highly specialized practitioners who have used magic to alter themselves, have the exact same aspects, and think/act the exact same way.

however the purely physical one uses his paid for claws power to kill people does not get ooc penalized by having to take the lawbreaker stunt. whereas the thaumaturge uses a ritual or enchanted item to "temporarily" grow claws which he then uses to kill someone, he dose get the lawbreaker stunt. Because he used magic for the sole purpose of helping him to kill some , thus fully believeing that that act is right he then uses the magically created claws to kill someone.

[Deadmanwalking]

however the purely physical one uses his paid for claws power to kill people does not get ooc penalized by having to take the lawbreaker stunt. whereas the thaumaturge uses a ritual or enchanted item to "temporarily" grow claws which he then uses to kill someone, he dose get the lawbreaker stunt. Because he used magic for the sole purpose of helping him to kill some , thus fully believeing that that act is right he then uses the magically created claws to kill someone.

Uh...no, actually. If that were true then Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't. Growing claws (which can do a variety of things besides kill, just BTW) won't get you Lawbreaker. Killing someone with Evocation by roasting them alive will, but that's not quite the same.


And actually, I do in fact allow intent to defend against Lawbreaking...as I argued extensively earlier in this thread. It just has to be a lack of intent to break the Law as opposed to questions of motivation and reasons. For example, assuming there were several living humans in the building Harry burned in Grave Peril, I still wouldn't give him Lawbreaker because killing humans wasn't his intent. He was too far gone to even think of it, really.



Now, a person who's gotten to the point of seeing people as objects, vermin, or monsters, should firstly probably not be a PC. They're a monster of the human (or free-willed) variety, after all. Secondly, using magic to directly indulge their nature should absolutely reinforce it (as the magic twists them even more into that kind of person), granting Lawbreaker stunts. Heck, mechanically speaking, if you intend to use it Lawbreaker isn't even that bad. -2 Refresh for a +2 to all offensive magical combat when you're trying to kill someone? That's not bad at all. And you can write all your Aspects about what a killer you are to start with, never changing a thing.

I don't think I'd allow a character like that in any game I ran, but if you're already allowing PCs who see the world that way, what's the difference?

[Moriden]

h...no, actually. If that were true then Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't. Growing claws (which can do a variety of things besides kill, just BTW) won't get you Lawbreaker. Killing someone with Evocation by roasting them alive will, but that's not quite the same.

Casting a spell with the intent of using the manifestation of that spell to kill someone counts. the fact that in this case your using thaumaturgy to make "claws' which are represented as one point of weapon, is in no way different from throwing fire at them. its just a little slower.

And actually, I do in fact allow intent to defend against Lawbreaking...as I argued extensively earlier in this thread. It just has to be a lack of intent to break the Law as opposed to questions of motivation and reasons. For example, assuming there were several living humans in the building Harry burned in Grave Peril, I still wouldn't give him Lawbreaker because killing humans wasn't his intent. He was too far gone to even think of it, really.

If lack of intent means you don't break the law then molly would not have gotten lawbreaker. if being "to far gone to care" doesn't give lawbreaker then you could just make a charecter with rage/frenzy like tendency's and just go berserk when you need to kill. its a slippery slope, its a bad ruling, and its not supported by the books.

Now, a person who's gotten to the point of seeing people as objects, vermin, or monsters, should firstly probably not be a PC.

Not gonna argue that, obviously it depends on the gaming group.

Heck, mechanically speaking, if you intend to use it Lawbreaker isn't even that bad. -2 Refresh for a +2 to all offensive magical combat when you're trying to kill someone? That's not bad at all. And you can write all your Aspects about what a killer you are to start with, never changing a thing.

Also not arguing this. the reason getting the lawbreaker stunt is a penalty isn't because of what it dose. as Ive argued in other threads the "penalty" of having your aspects change will happen naturally over time regardless of weather or not you get the stunt. the penalty is that it gives you negative refresh, which then because of how the "play balance" is set up can make your character an npc. I still maintain that that is flawed game design as well. the last example i gave was a pyromancer with full lawbreaker first is a fully playable character point wise but really shouldn't be for so many other reasons.

Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't.

neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.

[Victim]

neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.

Or the alternative is that some people are more strict with the laws than intended.

I mean, we haven't seen Gatekeeper use any powers obviously derived from Outsiders.  There's probably some distinction between seeking knowledge about how to defend/preserve the Outer Gate and stuff from beyond it that he can use.  It may be a fine line, but it's there.  Kind of like how you can modify your own mind or body legally.

[Moriden]

There's probably some distinction between seeking knowledge about how to defend/preserve the Outer Gate and stuff from beyond it that he can use.

Both the books and rpg are pretty clear that even doing research into the outer gates is a violation of the law. it even says that its the only law you can break without using magic. It also says that the gatekeepers job is to know about the outer gates, and to maintain the wards on them so not only must he have don e research into them and there natures. [ remember these being are innately resistant to magic so to use magic that actually keeps them out he needs to know a goodly bit about them] he also uses magic on the outer gates themselves to warn of incursions and to keep them out. ill buy that he night not have the chronomancy lawbreaker albeit just barely. but thers just no internally consistent way he hasn't broken the seventh law.


...Honestly the fact that im arguing for strict and universal interpretations of the laws astounds me. i don't even think they make any sense.

[Deadmanwalking]

Casting a spell with the intent of using the manifestation of that spell to kill someone counts. the fact that in this case your using thaumaturgy to make "claws' which are represented as one point of weapon, is in no way different from throwing fire at them. its just a little slower.

Uh, no. The reason that killing with magic taints you is that you need to believe absolutely in the magical effect you create. Believing absolutely that this sword exists isn't nearly as tainting as believing that guy should die. The end result is similar, but the devotion to the goal required is alot less.

If lack of intent means you don't break the law then molly would not have gotten lawbreaker. if being "to far gone to care" doesn't give lawbreaker then you could just make a charecter with rage/frenzy like tendency's and just go berserk when you need to kill. its a slippery slope, its a bad ruling, and its not supported by the books.

This is NOT what I mean by intent. As I've said several times already, actually. I'm not talking about WHY you might've broken a Law, I'm talking about meaning to do it at all. If you intend to kill or use mind control, your reasons don't matter and you acquire Lawbreaker. If something you do kills someone in a way you never intended to happen? Not so much.
 

Not gonna argue that, obviously it depends on the gaming group.

True, but my point was that in a game where that kind of character was okay, why would having Lawbreaker not be perfectly reasonable and cool?

Also not arguing this. the reason getting the lawbreaker stunt is a penalty isn't because of what it dose. as Ive argued in other threads the "penalty" of having your aspects change will happen naturally over time regardless of weather or not you get the stunt. the penalty is that it gives you negative refresh, which then because of how the "play balance" is set up can make your character an npc. I still maintain that that is flawed game design as well. the last example i gave was a pyromancer with full lawbreaker first is a fully playable character point wise but really shouldn't be for so many other reasons.

Uh, Lawbreaker isn't intended to necessarily put characters out of play, just reflect their inevitable Dark Side tendencies. It's only flawed for what you seem to want it to be, not what it is.

neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.

Very debatable. I've even argued with you on this one before. The Gatekeeper might easily just do mundane research and use his magic to bulwark the Outer Gates from this side, never directly touching anything on the other side.

...Honestly the fact that im arguing for strict and universal interpretations of the laws astounds me. i don't even think they make any sense.

And that's the problem, really. You've decided they don't make sense and are completely arbitrary, so that's how you run them and rule on them, with a strict mechanical approach and a tendency to ignore the why's and spirit of the Laws.

Not everyone shares that particular point of view, and if you look there are several underlying logical principles that can make the laws make sense.

[Moriden]

Uh, Lawbreaker isn't intended to necessarily put characters out of play, just reflect their inevitable Dark Side tendencies. It's only flawed for what you seem to want it to be, not what it is.

My interpretation of what the lawbreaker stunt is intended to do and yours are different. Since the non beneficial affects of the stunt will happen regardless of weather you have it or not, i view being given it in play as no more then an attempt to give a reason to forcibly retire a "problem character". This is simply my interpretation though and unless lc or iago wants to chime in and let us know what there intent is theres not much point into continuing that line of contention.

Uh, no. The reason that killing with magic taints you is that you need to believe absolutely in the magical effect you create. Believing absolutely that this sword exists isn't nearly as tainting as believing that guy should die. The end result is similar, but the devotion to the goal required is alot less.

Good logic here. The question though is if i use magic to light a house on fire, is my intent to murder the inhabitants or to create fire? if there are human children in the house and they die do i get the stunt? do i only get the stunt if i'm latter told that people died in that fire? these are all metaphysical grey areas that theirs no easy answer to, that is why i don't believe the laws make sense.
If they are a metaphysical reaction to actions, much like the laws of physics [which is how they are most frequently portrayed] then     

If you break the law=you get tainted   

it has nothing to do with morality, justification, or what you meant to do at the time, weather or not those thing -should- make a difference.

True, but my point was that in a game where that kind of character was okay, why would having Lawbreaker not be perfectly reasonable and cool?

honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces" went mad and cant be played] while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be. 

just do mundane research

Even mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt

And that's the problem, really. You've decided they don't make sense and are completely arbitrary, so that's how you run them and rule on them, with a strict mechanical approach and a tendency to ignore the why's and spirit of the Laws.
Not everyone shares that particular point of view, and if you look there are several underlying logical principles that can make the laws make sense.

There not Completely arbitrary there just illogical. theirs a difference. there portrayed as universally true. and that is how i'm arguing you should portray them.  I don't actually disagree with you that intent should make a difference, i think it should. however as portrayed and as written it dose not.

Id be rather pleased to listen to how they make sense. and i'm sure it would be extremely helpful to others if you could in fact explain it in a clear and concise manner. without contradicting either how they are portrayed in the books or how there written in the rpgs, please remember to use quotes and citations for your precedents.

[Deadmanwalking]

My interpretation of what the lawbreaker stunt is intended to do and yours are different. Since the non beneficial affects of the stunt will happen regardless of weather you have it or not, i view being given it in play as no more then an attempt to give a reason to forcibly retire a "problem character". This is simply my interpretation though and unless lc or iago wants to chime in and let us know what there intent is theres not much point into continuing that line of contention.

Clearly. 

And yeah, our interpretations are somewhat divergent.

Good logic here. The question though is if i use magic to light a house on fire, is my intent to murder the inhabitants or to create fire? if there are human children in the house and they die do i get the stunt? do i only get the stunt if i'm latter told that people died in that fire? these are all metaphysical grey areas that theirs no easy answer to, that is why i don't believe the laws make sense.
If they are a metaphysical reaction to actions, much like the laws of physics [which is how they are most frequently portrayed] then     

If you break the law=you get tainted   

it has nothing to do with morality, justification, or what you meant to do at the time, weather or not those thing -should- make a difference.

See, I don't see them portrayed that way at all. I keep coming back to Harry's description of how violating a mind twists your own psyche from Proven Guilty, and how your choice to do this particular thing will twist who and what you are. That's how I see them, the inevitable response of the human mind to working certain varieties of magic. You need to believe in something absolutely to do it with magic. Believing the things that go against the Laws of magic...twists you. Makes thinking that way and doing those things easier. This is probably true of non-Lawbreaking things as well, to a lesser degree, but all magic you work changes you just a little. So the Laws only apply if you, well, work the magic with one of those particular goals (ie: killing, mind control, contacting creatures from beyond the Outer Gates, etc.) in mind. No intent? No Lawbreaker stunt (though the Wardens may not see it that way).

So people accidentally die in a fire you started? No Lawbreaker stunt. You start a fire intending to kill people? Lawbreaker stunt.

honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces" went mad and cant be played] while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be. 

I tend to agree, but it's a balance issue as much as anything. The abilities are, as mentioned, quite powerful, and the Refresh limit is a general rule, and IMO, usually a good one.

Even mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt

Uh, iago actually responded to this, and I agree with him: to get Lawbreaker you need to work magic. Mundane research is still 'illegal' and gets the Wardens on your ass (unless you're the Gatekeeper) but it doesn't net you Lawbreaker because you're not twisting your soul with magic.

There not Completely arbitrary there just illogical. theirs a difference. there portrayed as universally true. and that is how i'm arguing you should portray them.  I don't actually disagree with you that intent should make a difference, i think it should. however as portrayed and as written it dose not.

Id be rather please to listen to how they make sense. and im sure it would be extremely helpful to other if you could explain it in a clear and concise manner. without contradicting either how they are portrayed in the books or how there written in the rpgs, please remember to use quotes and citations for your precedents.

I think my above description (I even cite Proven Guilty) sums up my opinion on how and why the laws work the way they do.