The Laws of Magic and non-mortal casters

[Ryan_Singer]

Hi Everyone,

I'm having trouble finding a rule in YS. I'm starting up a DFRPG game based in San Francisco (we'll be physically playing in Redwood City, and are still recruiting!).

One of my players wants to play an intelligent Zombie (artifact of a ritual gone wrong). We've statted him as having Kemmlerian necromancy as a package like Seelie Magic, which is not normally allowed under the rules, but I'm making an exception as he is basically a walking necromantic battery.

My question is a simple one: If he kills a human with Magic, does he get the Lawbreaker stunt?

In game, the Warden's won't go after him, as he'll be the accorded ambassador of Colma, a city-state of the dead.

I haven't decided yet how stringent to be with the Laws of Magic when it comes to him.

--
Ryan

[Deadmanwalking]

Are his mind and soul basically human?

That's the question you should be asking, if you say yes, then he gets Lawbreaker, if no, then he does not.

[JosephKell]

My personal bias is that PCs have to be free-willed.

The laws aren't about fair.  They are meant to prevent mortal practitioners (in this case I read "mortal" as "free-willed") from becoming monsters.  And the reason the Wardens try to take out the first time offenders is because multiple offenders are way more dangerous.

The more broken a person becomes by lawbreaking, the more monstrous their mind becomes, and the less they are likely to refrain from further acts.

A "free-willed zombie" (I call them revenants) should be just as vulnerable.  He is basically a dead human that is still walking around.

Fae, demons, and others don't hex because they are of such a singular resolve that they just do things.  They don't have free-will, the part of the brain that says "Is this such a good idea?"

[Ryan_Singer]

Are his mind and soul basically human?

That's the question you should be asking, if you say yes, then he gets Lawbreaker, if no, then he does not.

Yes. His mind and soul are basically human.

I agree with you guys, I'm going to enforce the Laws of Magic with regard to this character.

[wyvern]

I'm going to provide a dissenting opinion here.  There are two main reasons the laws of magic *shouldn't* be applied to the character you've described.

The first reason is in character: The way mortal practitioners work, they have to absolutely believe in what they're doing.  That's where the lawbreaker powers come from - if you kill with magic, that requires a self-image as someone who kills with magic.
Sponsored magic doesn't work that way: it's more like someone gave you a gun - killing with it is bad, sure, but it's not Bad to the level of applying lawbreaker stunts.  (Note: There is a great deal of debate on this point, and it's overall probably pretty iffy.  See, for example, the discussion here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html where there's a fair amount of discussion, some good ideas, and absolutely no definitive answer.)
Think of, for comparison, these examples:
A faerie knight uses summer magic to kill someone at the order of his queen.  Does the knight need to worry about the laws of magic?  I would say no; he's not using mortal magic.
A shaman has cut a deal with a fire spirit, channeling (fire) to represent this.  She asks the fire spirit to burn a couple of thugs that are attacking her, and the flames kill them.  Does the shaman have to worry about the laws of magic?  I would say partially - it's not her power, so no lawbreaker stunt, but the wardens are probably going to be interested...

The second reason is out of character - essentially, you're telling your player "Here, you can buy this four point sponsored magic.  But if you ever do anything with it, you're going to have to buy lawbreaker stunts, and if you use it three or more times you're going to have to start changing aspects."  Remember, necromancy itself is against the laws of magic; if this character has to work within the laws, they're paying an awful lot of refresh for something they can't effectively use.

As an alternative, consider just giving the character, say, a trouble aspect of "Walking Necromantic Battery" - they can invoke it to generate minor necromantic effects, but mostly it's going to get compelled to, say, wilt plants nearby, or have necromancers come try to use the character in some ritual, or have wardens show up to try and destroy the character so that they can't be used in anybody's ritual, or... etc.

[lankyogre]

I'd think that it depends on a pair of questions. One being is his mind mostly "mortal" and two, is his magic from him or somewhere else.


Essentially like Wyvern said. If it is your magic, then its guided solely by your thoughts and you have to believe in it. If its not your, ...

[Deadmanwalking]

Essentially like Wyvern said. If it is your magic, then its guided solely by your thoughts and you have to believe in it. If its not your, ...

I disagree with this point completely, and have argued it at length. My argument comes down to: Whoever's magic it is, you're the one exercising your Will to make it happen (as evidenced by your use of Conviction and Discipline) and it's that will, that complete belief that this must happen, that taints your soul.



Now, for the character in question, I'd suggest that Lawbreaker (Fifth) [-2] should definitely be part of the package, and I'd consider all his Aspects tainted by it already (what with being a Zombie) and thus not subject to further change. It's even really useful if you do that, since with Kemmlerite Necromancy you can use Necromancy Control bonuses on Evocation (which I'd totally say Lawbreaker counts for).

[wyvern]

Deadmanwalking: Does that mean you'd also apply the laws of magic (and lawbreaker stunts) to non-human beings?  After all, they have to apply their wills to use, say, unseelie magic (or whatever they've got).  Does a black court vampire have to buy lawbreaker stunts on top of evocation and thaumaturgy if they want to use magic to kill, raise undead, or break people's minds?

If your answer is "No, of course not" - then obviously merely having a Will isn't the defining factor.  What about near-human creatures?  A changeling?  A scion?  A red court vampire?  A white court vampire?  A sentient corpse that still has a human mind and soul attached to it?  A free-willed golem that never had a human mind or soul, but acts more or less human anyway?  Where's the dividing line?

I choose to place that distinction at "Are you using mortal magic?"  In other words, the laws of magic are an issue for a focused practitioner, sorcerer, or wizard.  (Of course, the Wardens may not be quite so picky...)

[JosephKell]

Deadmanwalking: Does that mean you'd also apply the laws of magic (and lawbreaker stunts) to non-human beings?  After all, they have to apply their wills to use, say, unseelie magic (or whatever they've got).  Does a black court vampire have to buy lawbreaker stunts on top of evocation and thaumaturgy if they want to use magic to kill, raise undead, or break people's minds?

If your answer is "No, of course not" - then obviously merely having a Will isn't the defining factor.  What about near-human creatures?  A changeling?  A scion?  A red court vampire?  A white court vampire?  A sentient corpse that still has a human mind and soul attached to it?  A free-willed golem that never had a human mind or soul, but acts more or less human anyway?  Where's the dividing line?

I choose to place that distinction at "Are you using mortal magic?"  In other words, the laws of magic are an issue for a focused practitioner, sorcerer, or wizard.  (Of course, the Wardens may not be quite so picky...)

Ryan said that the character is basically a human.. but dead.

The dividing line is free-will.

If a deadman/revenant/"free-willed zombie" just had a non-necromancy form of spellcasting, I wouldn't require a lawbreaker (unless there was a different reason for it, like this wizard died using his death curse, but is back, so he has the Lawbreaker-1st), but the Kemmlerian Necromancy bit does seem to mandate Lawbreaker (5th) [-2].

(click to show/hide)

Madge Shelly used Outsider Sponsored magic to directly kill Trixie Vixen in Blood Rites.  She has Lawbreakers.  In the books her thaumaturgy rituals were sponsored by HWWB and she has Lawbreaker (1st] [-2].

  Sponsored magic is no guard against lawbreaking.  We haven't seen evidence that the faerie knights have used their sponsored magic to kill mortals (why would they need to?  They just need to pop up behind them and shoot or stab them).

[wyvern]

Oddly enough, I would've used your example as a demonstration of my point; the character you list isn't running off sponsored magic.  She's got thaumaturgy, and is a focused practitioner.  Sure, she's also got a sponsored magic for a bit of extra oomph - much like a certain wizard who we know backed up his magic with hellfire - but she's using a core of normal mortal magic, and has to deal with lawbreaker stunts because of that.

[CMEast]

I don't think the natural law would apply to a zombie, just as it wouldn't apply to a ghoul or vampire.

However, the lawbreaker stunt might be a useful way to model the magic itself, it being especially effective at killing, just like a standard refinement.

[Slife]

Ryan said that the character is basically a human.. but dead.

The dividing line is free-will.

Thomas doesn't have lawbreaker, and he's extremely close to baseline human (enough humanity for TRU LUV^TM, to directly oppose his own nature, and to be converted into a black court vamp).  Heck, as a player character he'd have more refresh than Harry.

[luminos]

Thomas hasn't broken any magic laws though.

[Wordmaker]

I'm a bit more forgiving about the Lawbreaker Stunt, mainly because I believe the descent into evil and corruption should be a choice rather than an accident.

For Sponsored Magic, I take each case seperately and judge it based on the nature of the magic. For Kemmlerian Necromancy, a mortal spellcaster is definitely going to get the Lawbreaker Stunt, because I see it as a particualr school of magic rather than acting as a conduit for power that's not your own.

[Deadmanwalking]

Deadmanwalking: Does that mean you'd also apply the laws of magic (and lawbreaker stunts) to non-human beings?  After all, they have to apply their wills to use, say, unseelie magic (or whatever they've got).  Does a black court vampire have to buy lawbreaker stunts on top of evocation and thaumaturgy if they want to use magic to kill, raise undead, or break people's minds?

If your answer is "No, of course not" - then obviously merely having a Will isn't the defining factor.

 

My answer is "No, of course not." on things like the Fae and the Black Court but that doesn't mean what you want it to.

Magic twists the soul, you must believe in it utterly to make it work. Really, truly, believe in the effect. That's why breaking a Law changes you, it means you're the kind of guy who'll break that Law. Harry Dresden is a killer. He doesn't like that about himself, but it's true. He'll kill people quickly and efficiently without a second thought if he feels the need, and that's what Lawbreaker (First) means.

Now to make that decision you need a mortal Will but not mortal Magic. There's a distinction.

Creatures who are inherently slaves to their nature (the Fae and the Black Court) don't really have the ability to choose to be twisted in that fashion. They are what they are and are incapable of resisting or changing that in the way that gaining Lawbreaker would imply (because, to me, gaining Lawbreaker is always a choice, a matter of intent never just the whims of fate).

What about near-human creatures?  A changeling?  A scion?  A red court vampire?  A white court vampire?  A sentient corpse that still has a human mind and soul attached to it?  A free-willed golem that never had a human mind or soul, but acts more or less human anyway?  Where's the dividing line?

I choose to place that distinction at "Are you using mortal magic?"  In other words, the laws of magic are an issue for a focused practitioner, sorcerer, or wizard.  (Of course, the Wardens may not be quite so picky...)

Everything you've just listed but the Red Court can and would gain Lawbreaker if they broke the Laws. Why wouldn't they? Are you really saying that if Harry killed a guy with pure Soulfire or Hellfire he'd not get Lawbreaker? Really? Does that seem in the spirit of the books to you? Because it doesn't to me. The Laws have grey areas but they're very real, and saying that people using Sponsored Magic can just break them seems the height of violating the spirit of the world.


Leaving logic aside entirely, there's the mechanics stuff: Why should Joe, who paid 4 Refresh for his magic, not be limited in the same ways as Steve who paid 8 (for Sorcerer + Sponsored Magic)...and if Steve isn't limited then how do you distinguish between 'pure' sponsored magic and what Harry does with Hellfire, or Madge with Outsider Magic? And why would him putting the exact same thought processes and willingness and belief into the spell not result in the same consequences?

It's not the magic itself that changes you, it's believing, with all your heart and soul, on a level that defines you, that that man needs to be dead now (or whatever other Law you're breaking).