The First Law Question.

[Moriden]

Quoting Iago

Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)

Or as i have repeatedly phrased it, successfully using magic to kill gets you lawbreaker regardless of the description of what that magic looks like, or your intent when you cast the spell.

And yes if you cast the spell to kill someone and fail it should change your aspects just like lawbreaker would you just don't get the actual stunt.

and the Refresh limit is a general rule, and IMO, usually a good one.

I just view it as a flaw in the system[one of the two major ones ive mentioned in other posts] im not  fan of narrativistic rules so it just rubs me the wrong way.

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.

He did not however respond to my comment that the gatekeeper not only has done research but has also used that knowledge to cast wards on the outer gates. and to use magic that successfully works against the outsiders would require knowing a goodly bit about them since with the exception of harry they are nigh invulnerable to magic.

[Rel Fexive]

I think all the Laws have two components to them, and each one consists of these components in a different ratio.  There is:

(a) "does doing this corrupt you in some way, twisting your brain or making you see it as the way to solve all your problems?"

and

(b) "is doing this a really bad idea for everyone?"

It's worth noting that (a) needn't always twist you metaphysically, as long as it encourages a dependency on doing that thing again (represented by a reduction in your ability to resist compels on your aspects by reducing your Refresh).  And (b) is more of a "legal" rather than "metaphysical" issue.

I think all the Laws have (b) in them to some degree, but not all of them explicitly have (a) in every instance.

Killing, mind reading, domination, transforming and necromancy all incorporate (a) for sure, I'd say.  They are all about Doing Bad Things to other people, even if that was not the intention - although this "intention" thing is a can of squirmy worms, as we are all well aware.

We don't know enough about the time travel one as we haven't seen it used much (only the once, really) - but it could incorporate the "dependency" aspect of (a) while the potential for world-destroying paradox definitely brings in (b) much more.

As for the Outer Gates... I suspect you can have (a) AND/OR (b) here.  This is because you could be a nasty guy wanting power and reaching out to the worst possible entities for it, which is corrupting in itself but the Outsiders are probably all about corruption as well - which is (a).  But you could be a good guy, not yet tempted by the power they offer but foolishly researching them in order to fight them.  This is clearly a Bad Idea (b) and should not be encouraged to avoid the risk of researchers being influenced by the Nasties, yet the 'perpetrator' may not be a bad person at all.  In this instance I believe it is possible for someone to research the Outer Gates and Outsiders without getting the Lawbreaker stunt and yet still be tried and executed for breaking the Seventh Law.

The Gatekeeper must be a special case of some kind or surely he would be a raving, power-mad lunatic by now.  Either he resists or is perhaps immune to their corrupting influence and has special power over them by dint of knowledge or the circumstances of his birth... just like Harry....?

[Moriden]

The Gatekeeper must be a special case of some kind or surely he would be a raving, power-mad lunatic by now.  Either he resists or is perhaps immune to their corrupting influence and has special power over them by dint of knowledge or the circumstances of his birth... just like Harry....?

Could be or maybe he just has the stunt and enough refresh to pay for it. or ic, he has broken the law, but is immune to the social consequence and has a strong enough will not to go mad from the knowledge he has learned. just like harry has the lawbreaker;first stunt but isn't a raving psychopath[ most of the time]

[Rel Fexive]

One imagines the Gatekeeper does the most work regarding enforcing the Seventh Law.  He knows the most about the Gates and Outsiders (otherwise how would he do his job?) outside of those wrong'uns dedicated to opening them and so, I would think, spends much of his time watching them, keeping an eye out (ho ho) for Seventh Law breakers, and tracking/fighting/holding back any Outsiders and Outsider servants that he finds.  If he got a Lawbreaker stunt every time he had to do any of that he'd be in big trouble, and BE big trouble.  So I think he must have some way around that, even if it's just a "Incorruptible By Outsiders" aspect.  Maybe the position comes with something like

(click to show/hide)

the actual Blackstaff

we see in Changes?

IMO, IMC, YMMV, etc etc.

[Moriden]

Well lets look at what changes haveing -2 lawbreaker:seventh would do to him and see if its reasonable that he might have it. hed gain a +2 to research or affect outsiders. that seems reasonable to me. hes been gatekeeper for a while now so reasonably 2-3 of his aspects should in some way reflect this lawbreaking. So here is some thing i think might be the gatekeepers aspects.

High calling: The Gatekeeper
Trouble: Bound by duty

Queen Mab's friend
Tainted by otherworldly knowledge   [explains his eyes "one is dark, and one is silvery and reflective"]
Just in time reflects that hes a chronomancer and his description says "If it’s one thing that the Gatekeeper has down cold, it’s timing."
Portal master   "exceptional at opening and closing portals into the Nevernever.

leaves room for one more that we dont know about him. his high calling, trouble, and two of his aspects could have been affected by lawbreaker: seventh, and one of his aspects could have been affected by lawbreaker chronomancy. so at it dose seem reasonable that he has in fact broken the seventh law[ metaphysically] and simply has been dealing with the consequences.

Edit, id like to make a note that when i put down thouse aspect i drew entirely from his description in "our world" and was not keeping in mind that i had previously said 2-3 of his aspects should have been affected.

[Korwin]

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. 

In my opinion too.

The existence of the Lawbreaker stunt implies that a Char. should be playable as long as he has enough refresh.
Thats not really the case...

[KOFFEYKID]

I think that the Gatekeeper doesn't have a lawbreaker, and here is why.

To get a lawbreaker you have to do magic. The only law that mentions not even doing magic is the 7th. My guess is that studying the outer gates doesn't give you a lawbeaker (the stunt), but gives you the social consequences of a lawbreaker. Since the Gatekeeper is basically appointed to do that, he doesn't suffer from the social consequences.

[Moriden]

To get a lawbreaker you have to do magic. The only law that mentions not even doing magic is the 7th. My guess is that studying the outer gates doesn't give you a lawbeaker (the stunt), but gives you the social consequences of a lawbreaker. Since the Gatekeeper is basically appointed to do that, he doesn't suffer from the social consequences.

Hes definitely using that knowledge to cast spells.

the gatekeeper not only has done research but has also used that knowledge to cast wards on the outer gates. and to use magic that successfully works against the outsiders would require knowing a goodly bit about them since with the exception of harry they are nigh invulnerable to magic.

[KOFFEYKID]

yeah, but the law is "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates."

Casting wards on the outer gates isn't the same as breaching them. Now if he opened them up, and cast a ward on the other side, I guess you could give him a lawbreaker for that.

[Moriden]

yeah, but the law is "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates."

You are definitely correct. the wording of the law itself would say that hes clean, but everything else written about the law contradicts that. so i guess it comes down to what exactly is The seventh law, is it "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates." or is it as the detailed description would lead us to believe, "Do not seek knowledge or power about the outer gates or the beings beyond them. "

[Deadmanwalking]

You are definitely correct. the wording of the law itself would say that hes clean, but everything else written about the law contradicts that. so i guess it comes down to what exactly is The seventh law, is it "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates." or is it as the detailed description would lead us to believe, "Do not seek knowledge or power about the outer gates or the beings beyond them. "

As has been mentioned a few times, including by iago, I'd say that the acual Law is what you need to break to get Lawbreaker, while the description is what the Wardens will punish you for. Well, unless you're the Gatekeeper.

[Ala Alba]

In Dead Beat, Harry states the law as "Thou Shalt Not Open the Outer Gates".

IMO, that is the version of the law given by Merlin(presumably), and presumably the part that stains your soul/mind/magic/whatever.

If that's the case, you can learn anything you want ABOUT the Outsiders, you just can't Open the Outer Gates to interact with them. Of course, I'm sure that the WC feels that it's unnecessary for anyone besides the Gatekeeper to know any about the Outsiders, or that it's unlikely that anyone would have a good reason to learn about them. Thus the stigma on learning anything at all about Outsiders, which might have made it unofficially part of the law as far as the Wardens and execution are concerned.

[Moriden]

You could be correct deadmanwalking. I tend to come down on favoring the elaboration on what the law actually is over the one sentence description of what the law is at the top[ much like laws in real life have elaborate clarifications on how they actually function that are much more detailed then the original wording of the laws], and that elaboration clearly says that even researching into the matters is a violation. even if you then go further and demand that you need to use magic with that knowledge to break the law the gatekeeper still qualify's. if you want to interpret that law as "dont draw power from beyond the gates, or open the gates, or bring forth beings from beyond" then yes i would agree that he hasn't broken that law. Personally since i  dont place any moral judgements on the laws, and if i was going to give the gatekeeper aspects they would all be heavily influenced by his job as gatekeeper there is no real difference to him haveing the stunt or not other then the additional refresh cost.

[Nudge]

If that's the case, you can learn anything you want ABOUT the Outsiders, you just can't Open the Outer Gates to interact with them. Of course, I'm sure that the WC feels that it's unnecessary for anyone besides the Gatekeeper to know any about the Outsiders, or that it's unlikely that anyone would have a good reason to learn about them. Thus the stigma on learning anything at all about Outsiders, which might have made it unofficially part of the law as far as the Wardens and execution are concerned.

Remember: Knowledge is power.  At what point do you have enough grains of sand to have a pile?  When is your knowledge of the Beyond corrupting?  Best to play it safe because some things may not be easy to identify a hard line on.

[Ala Alba]

Remember: Knowledge is power.  At what point do you have enough grains of sand to have a pile?  When is your knowledge of the Beyond corrupting?  Best to play it safe because some things may not be easy to identify a hard line on.

I disagree, because the knowledge on its own shouldn't ever be corrupting, only acting on it. Or do you feel that having knowledge of how to kill someone with magic(or invade someone's mind, or transform another, etc) is corrupting also? I'll admit that having the knowledge may make it more tempting, and it certainly might make you look bad(for example, Harry's nervousness in Storm Front when asked to research Sell's killing magic stems from this), but it doesn't have any corrupting effects as such, nor does it actually break a law(it only makes you a suspect).

Yes, knowledge is power, but that power goes both ways. Knowing how to, say, rip someone's life out of them with magic, might equal the power to defend yourself against such an attack as well.