a few specific questions on 1st lawbreaker

[Walker_Blade]

OK, I know there has been a lot of debate about the lawbreaker stunts, I don't particularly want to rehash all of that, I just have two questions:

1) when do you stop getting these stunts, non of the denarian write ups included lawbreaker stunts, but I can't imagine that cassius never killed someone with magic.  Are they merely omitted because the Denarians are NPCs?  What about a Denarian PC?

2) would enchanted items cause the stunt?  If your intent at the time of creating the item was to have a generic force attack (Like Harry's rings) and you ended up using it to kill someone would it grant the stunt?  Unlike casting a spell you don't need to believe in everything you do when using an item, so it seems that it might not twist your soul like black magic does.  (In the books Harry mentions that the wardens still prosecute under these circumstances, but I'm asking about the stunt).

[Papa Gruff]

1) when do you stop getting these stunts, non of the denarian write ups included lawbreaker stunts, but I can't imagine that cassius never killed someone with magic.  Are they merely omitted because the Denarians are NPCs?  What about a Denarian PC?

First of all most of the Denarians don't even use Magic. For those who can do evocation you are right though. They probably have killed with their magic, but does it really matter if they have got the lawbreaker? They have a fallen angel riding on their shoulders. Isn't that bad enough?! 

2) would enchanted items cause the stunt?  If your intent at the time of creating the item was to have a generic force attack (Like Harry's rings) and you ended up using it to kill someone would it grant the stunt?  Unlike casting a spell you don't need to believe in everything you do when using an item, so it seems that it might not twist your soul like black magic does.  (In the books Harry mentions that the wardens still prosecute under these circumstances, but I'm asking about the stunt).

Yes. In my opinion you get the stunt using an enchanted item. I think it is in Small Favor when Harry is concerned about breaking the law, when he is about to use the rings on those mafia grunts. After all you use an item, that you have enchanted using YOUR magic. It doesn't stop being your magic only because you have put it in some kind of device. If you made it in the way that others can use it, and they use it to kill, thats an other story. In that case you would be fine I guess, because you haven't directed the magic planning to kill.

But all this was discussed in some other thread. Even Iago wrote something about it i believe...

[Archmage_Cowl]

1) when do you stop getting these stunts, non of the denarian write ups included lawbreaker stunts, but I can't imagine that cassius never killed someone with magic.  Are they merely omitted because the Denarians are NPCs?  What about a Denarian PC?

Not entirely sure but cassius probably doesnt have it because we never saw him do it in the books or explicitly heard about it. Personally i would give it to him.

2) would enchanted items cause the stunt?  If your intent at the time of creating the item was to have a generic force attack (Like Harry's rings) and you ended up using it to kill someone would it grant the stunt?  Unlike casting a spell you don't need to believe in everything you do when using an item, so it seems that it might not twist your soul like black magic does.  (In the books Harry mentions that the wardens still prosecute under these circumstances, but I'm asking about the stunt).

Yes using a magic item to kill people does give you lawbreaker if it was made for an intent to harm and you, or someone else, used it as such(in my game at least). This one is sorta open to debate and some gms might rule it very differently.

[paul_Harkonen]

Yes. In my opinion you get the stunt using an enchanted item. I think it is in Small Favor when Harry is concerned about breaking the law, when he is about to use the rings on those mafia grunts.

It may happen in again Small Favor, but Dresden also makes a point of aiming his "shot" from his ring away from a pair of humans when they attack him early on in Summer Knight during the rain of toads in order to avoid even risking killing them. 

I'm pretty sure that it's clear that the Wardens think that it's misuse of magic and violation.  As for the stunt, the items are still triggered by the individual.  The energy is stored in the item, and is controlled (think of it as a bullet and gun) but metaphorical (and magical) pulling the trigger and aiming still takes place personally.  I think at that point you're still making the conscious decision and believing in the magic and wanting it to happen.  Seems to me to fulfill all the requirements.  (my apologies if this is a re-hash of an earlier discussion and I missed it)

[JustinS]

OK, I know there has been a lot of debate about the lawbreaker stunts, I don't particularly want to rehash all of that, I just have two questions:

1) when do you stop getting these stunts, non of the denarian write ups included lawbreaker stunts, but I can't imagine that cassius never killed someone with magic.  Are they merely omitted because the Denarians are NPCs?  What about a Denarian PC?

I would say they are part of Evocation and Thamaturgy. If you use your own will and personal power, you get the lawbreaker stunts.

If you use pure hellfire, summer or winter magic, no. If you use them in conjunction with mortal magic (hellflame, summerfire, winterfrost), then you get your element bonuses, but are investing part of yourself, and still qualify.

So it depends on the Dearian in question and how they do magic. If they were a sorcerer who got a power-boost, they likely will get it if they did not already have it. If they get all their magic from the coin, then they are aiming it like a gun, and don't need to worry... but all their magic is subject to their demon.

From an in game perspective, the Denarians are signatures of the unseele accords, and so they are not under the umbrella of the White council. Besides, wardens have better things to do then die.

[Deadmanwalking]

1. They're omitted because they're NPCs, and because Denarians with Coins are all hypothetical stat blocks anyway. They should definitely have them if they possess and use magic.

2. Depends on the item, and how direct it is. A Warden's Sword clearly doesn't, and any offensive magic on it just makes the sword sharper (a very indirect way to cause death), while Harry's rings likely would, as he has to will the power to leave the ring directly (a much more direct thing). It's about using your focused will to kill someone. If you're doing that, you get Lawbreaker, if you're not you don't.



JustinS: I disagree completely on the relation between Sponsored Magic and Lawbreaking. Once bestowed, the magic is a part of the user and requires the same effort of pure belief and will to use, and it's that effort that taints murderers with Lawbreaker. There is also no meaningful thematic distinction between using raw sponsored magic and channeling it through your existing magical prowess, and so the two should not be notably differnt mechanically either.

Any other ruling leaves anyone with Sponsored Magic with the ability to casually break the Laws, and that's completely unacceptable thematically, as well as disagreeing with what we've seen in the books (Harry was never any more detached when using Hellfire or Soulfire than using other magic, just for example) and is also blatantly unfair mechanically as it allows someone with a -4 Refresh power to be allowed vastly more options than someone with -6.

[JustinS]

[...]
JustinS: I disagree completely on the relation between Sponsored Magic and Lawbreaking. Once bestowed, the magic is a part of the user and requires the same effort of pure belief and will to use, and it's that effort that taints murderers with Lawbreaker. There is also no meaningful thematic distinction between using raw sponsored magic and channeling it through your existing magical prowess, and so the two should not be notably differnt mechanically either.

Any other ruling leaves anyone with Sponsored Magic with the ability to casually break the Laws, and that's completely unacceptable thematically, as well as disagreeing with what we've seen in the books (Harry was never any more detached when using Hellfire or Soulfire than using other magic, just for example) and is also blatantly unfair mechanically as it allows someone with a -4 Refresh power to be allowed vastly more options than someone with -6.

I can certainly see your argument.

Straight sponsored vs. sponsored and aspected is mechanically different in that the later lets you use refinement bonuses.

In my mind, dealing with sponsoring power should be generally at least as constraining as the laws of magic. In the books, Harry never did use raw hellfire or soulfire (then again, as soulfire is re-bar for magic, I'm a skeptic on raw soulfire as an ability). Do you think a summer or winter knight who only has sponsored magic should get lawbreaker stunts?

I think in the end, if you take sponsored magic, you and your GM need to agree with what and who you are and how the magic works.

[Deadmanwalking]

I can certainly see your argument.

Straight sponsored vs. sponsored and aspected is mechanically different in that the later lets you use refinement bonuses.

Oh, I got that, and you clearly can make a mechanical distinction. I just don't think there's a valid thematic distinction.

In my mind, dealing with sponsoring power should be generally at least as constraining as the laws of magic. In the books, Harry never did use raw hellfire or soulfire (then again, as soulfire is re-bar for magic, I'm a skeptic on raw soulfire as an ability).

How can you tell? Would raw hellfire look different from hellfire plus the Fire element? I rather think not, which is sort of what I'm getting at: There's little thematic distinction and no reason for one.

Do you think a summer or winter knight who only has sponsored magic should get lawbreaker stunts?

Absolutely. I think it's notable that neither Fix nor even Lloyd Slate ever even tried to use their magic to kill anyone...and this despite the latter being quite the murderous bastard.

I think in the end, if you take sponsored magic, you and your GM need to agree with what and who you are and how the magic works.

I agree, but I really don't think part of that should ever be the ability to break the Laws of Magic without cost.