The Laws of Magic and non-mortal casters

[ahunting]

From the book:
Without the external enforcement or at least the possibility of it a character is getting a +1 (or more) bonus to lots of magic (like all killings or enthrallments), for -1 refresh. Its to cheap.  If you remove the authority of the White Council from over a character (by tying them some other Signatory of the Accords) they can not be allowed to get Lawbreaker and the bonuses that go with it. Its unfair to the other spellcasting players and is not in the spirit of game balance.

These forces are and should be separate.  (yes if you do the cost out for the bonus for law breaker you do get a lot more bang for your refresh.) But most Wizards in the game are going to be riding the bleeding edge of refresh. So if they collect the 3 law breaker cost its totally possible they will drop to 0 Refresh and lose the character.

Also just because the two mechanic are separate doesn't mean it happens in a vacuum. Someone gets blown up or some how otherwise magically killed there is a good chance that it will be reported, and that this information may well fall into the hands of the wardens. Or if they fudge around with darker forces, who's to say the regional commander won't get a call from the gatekeeper to ordering them to start looking into this.

Lawbreaker itself isn't a huge deal, Harry started the game with one law broken. What is more dramatic character wise in the imposition of an outside authority into their lives. Wardens just like cops are people first and instruments of social or this case magic policy second. But it can be an interesting session, how do your players react when a warden shows up to check them out?

[Deadmanwalking]

Killing someone with magic, for example, only requires that you truly, really want that person dead and believe you can do it.  THAT level of commitment is entirely possible with a gun, especially for someone trained to fully commit to things (as all Wizards are).  Heck, we see Harry purposefully kill people quite a bit and he has no doubts or reservations at the time, and he even remarks upon this (once or twice doubts later, but that's 100% allowable even with magic).

True! But you're forgetting something: Harry has Lawbreaker (First). He is able to kill instantly and with no doubt because he's already done it with magic. Now some people could've easily done the same, don't get me wrong, but the level of needed focus is still much lower than doing it with Magic, which is part of why it's so easy for Harry.

Further, the laws ARE overdone from a point of realism.  They are kinda of like the Categorical Imperative on steroids (where the rules are arbitrarily overgeneralized).  Just because you 100% believe person X should die, doesn't mean that desire stands in a vacuum, there can be very, very good reasons for that such as "people who rape children should die" or "killing someone to prevent the death of loved ones is ok". 

But are their motives really that clear and direct? I'd kill in both situations you describe, and only allow myself to do so for the reasons stated, but mine wouldn't be, they'd be all wrapped up in hate and rage and a desire for revenge.  And that's inevitably going to be part of the magic, and thus part of what you believe. Killing a guy with magic doesn't make you a monster (look at Harry)...but you keep doing it, in varying situations, then more and more it's gonna be those negative emotions that are internalized as when it's okay to kill: When you're angry, or hate a guy. Now it could be argued that this doesn't apply if you only kill people in one specific situation, and I might even allow that to not grant Lawbreaker again in that very specific situation (your wife being in mortal danger, say), but broadening it by killing when your sister's in danger would still get you a kill on your tally.

Having Lawbreaker doesn't make you evil, it makes you the guy who'll break that Law. Harry Dresden isn't a bad guy, but he is a killer and as cold and certain a killer as people who've been doing it for years despite only having killed human bengs a handfull of times. That's what having Lawbreaker does to you.

Obviously killing people isn't necessarily bad (though it often is), but this is highly dependent on the reasons.  Fully believing those reasons is not as rare as you think, especially for people trained to be able to fully commit to something (at least in the short term while the act is being done).  Heck, a good way to do that is just to not think about the fully ramifications of what you are doing until after it's done.  You file that away and devote your will to the task at hand...that's not THAT hard a skill, even if many people aren't capable of that level of focus.

Again, I don't think we're quite hitting the same wave-length about the insane level of devotion required for magic to work. It's not just devotion to a cause, it's enough to give suicide bombers the heebie-jeebies. Yeah, that's actually a good comparison, it requires being significantly more devoted to making X happen, than you need to be to blow yourself up.

[Drachasor]

True! But you're forgetting something: Harry has Lawbreaker (First). He is able to kill instantly and with no doubt because he's already done it with magic. Now some people could've easily done the same, don't get me wrong, but the level of needed focus is still much lower than doing it with Magic, which is part of why it's so easy for Harry.

I don't think it is that different inherently.  Harry really has some trouble working up to killing people without doubts.  Of course, the issue with his mentor was very different emotionally compared any time he's killed a mortal and was also an act of desperation.
 

But are their motives really that clear and direct? I'd kill in both situations you describe, and only allow myself to do so for the reasons stated, but mine wouldn't be, they'd be all wrapped up in hate and rage and a desire for revenge.  And that's inevitably going to be part of the magic, and thus part of what you believe. Killing a guy with magic doesn't make you a monster (look at Harry)...but you keep doing it, in varying situations, then more and more it's gonna be those negative emotions that are internalized as when it's okay to kill: When you're angry, or hate a guy. Now it could be argued that this doesn't apply if you only kill people in one specific situation, and I might even allow that to not grant Lawbreaker again in that very specific situation (your wife being in mortal danger, say), but broadening it by killing when your sister's in danger would still get you a kill on your tally.

I wouldn't think there'd be any doubt in killing someone to save your sister's life (unless you are unusually estranged, perhaps).  Magic is also about will, so you don't necessarily need to have a whole bunch of hate and emotion built in (that's just a short-cut for some and handy for the emotionally).  Doubts are the main obstacle.  I'd think even killing to defend your wife gets you lawbreaker (Harry has it).  My argument is that whatever is going on with the magic produces a kind of psychic backlash.

Having Lawbreaker doesn't make you evil, it makes you the guy who'll break that Law. Harry Dresden isn't a bad guy, but he is a killer and as cold and certain a killer as people who've been doing it for years despite only having killed human bengs a handfull of times. That's what having Lawbreaker does to you.

It makes you less human, getting you closer to zero refresh.  Also, Dresden might seem really cold now, but you have to bear in mind that in the first book he was pretty gentle overall.  He's gotten colder and it's had zero to do with having lawbreaker.

Again, I don't think we're quite hitting the same wave-length about the insane level of devotion required for magic to work. It's not just devotion to a cause, it's enough to give suicide bombers the heebie-jeebies. Yeah, that's actually a good comparison, it requires being significantly more devoted to making X happen, than you need to be to blow yourself up.

There's nothing in the books that suggests this is the case though.  Molly certainly isn't a fanatic for altering people's brains when she did it.  Certainly no more so than someone killing in self-defense with a gun or in the defense of a loved one.  There's really no indication that Harry was some sort of fanatic for killing people with magic either, rather he was just traumatized by all the trauma he had been through.

Further go beyond killing.  Harry uses fire all the time, but that doesn't make him insanely devoted to fire and hence a pyromaniac.  There's something odd at work regarding the rules of magic.

[Deadmanwalking]

I don't think it is that different inherently.  Harry really has some trouble working up to killing people without doubts.  Of course, the issue with his mentor was very different emotionally compared any time he's killed a mortal and was also an act of desperation.

Sure, but he still knows, in his heart of hearts, that he's a killer. That's a large part of what bothers him about it.
 

I wouldn't think there'd be any doubt in killing someone to save your sister's life (unless you are unusually estranged, perhaps). 

Doubt? No. Anger and hatred at the guy trying to do it? God yes. My point was...well, I'll get to that in a moment.

Magic is also about will, so you don't necessarily need to have a whole bunch of hate and emotion built in (that's just a short-cut for some and handy for the emotionally).  Doubts are the main obstacle. 

True! I'm just saying that, inevitably (unless one is a sociopath, and likely even then...rage is one of the things they do feel) killing somebody in any situation where you have to use magic to do it is likely to be in some part influenced by rage and hate. I mean, think about it.

I'd think even killing to defend your wife gets you lawbreaker (Harry has it). 

Oh, it does. I was saying that, debatably, you shouldn't get it a second time for having to do the same thing again. But would if you were in a different situation (even if only slightly so, hence the sister reference).

My argument is that whatever is going on with the magic produces a kind of psychic backlash.

So's mine. Sorta, anyway. I'm just explaining why there's a psychic backlash.

It makes you less human, getting you closer to zero refresh.  Also, Dresden might seem really cold now, but you have to bear in mind that in the first book he was pretty gentle overall.  He's gotten colder and it's had zero to do with having lawbreaker.

Um, having Counselor or Doctor decreases your Refresh too, but I don't think it makes you less human. It makes you a certain kind of person, one more bound by their nature, but not less of one.

There's nothing in the books that suggests this is the case though.  Molly certainly isn't a fanatic for altering people's brains when she did it.  Certainly no more so than someone killing in self-defense with a gun or in the defense of a loved one.  There's really no indication that Harry was some sort of fanatic for killing people with magic either, rather he was just traumatized by all the trauma he had been through.

Further go beyond killing.  Harry uses fire all the time, but that doesn't make him insanely devoted to fire and hence a pyromaniac.  There's something odd at work regarding the rules of magic.

Ah! But I'm not saying they're fanatics per se, I'm saying they need the same level of belief as a fanatic for magic to work at all. They're as devoted to magic as a whole as ever any fanatic was to their cause. They have to be. And, by focusing that level of will and belief on something inherently traumatic, psychologically speaking, they've twisted themselves as well as twisting or killing others.

[Fedifensor]

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but isn't one of the jobs of the Summer Knight and the Winter Knight to kill mortals who would otherwise be protected from the fey (via thresholds, etc)?  Granted, you could use that as an argument either way - the two Summer Knights we've seen, based on all the evidence we've seen to date, are/were nice guys.  Lloyd Slate was a complete bastard, who has undoubtedly killed several times with sponsored magic.

However, I have yet to find a writeup for an NPC with sponsored magic (only) who has Lawbreaker, which indicates that the intent of the authors is that sponsored magic doesn't count towards breaking the Laws of Magic.  However, sponsored magic has debt, which incurs its own costs.

[Rel Fexive]

Actually, I think they just didn't bother with Lawbreakers for everyone who someone thinks should have them, unless it's really obvious they should (Harry, necromancers, Molly, etc).  Interesting interpretation, though.

[luminos]

  Lloyd Slate was a complete bastard, who has undoubtedly killed several times with sponsored magic.

However, I have yet to find a writeup for an NPC with sponsored magic (only) who has Lawbreaker, which indicates that the intent of the authors is that sponsored magic doesn't count towards breaking the Laws of Magic.  However, sponsored magic has debt, which incurs its own costs.

For the most part, they didn't give lawbreakers to character in OW unless those people actually broke one of the laws on screen.  It is pure speculation that Lloyd Slate killed using magic.  Using that as a premise for an argument is question begging, because that is one of the conclusions that have yet to be reached.

Also, the sponsored magic has debt line of argument is broken from a rules mechanics perspective.  The debt is a compel, in exchange for using a fate point you don't already have.  Its exactly the same as the fate point invoke/compel mechanics every one else uses, except it can work on credit, whereas no one else has that option.

[Nomad]

One note about Kumori: This might be a veeeeeery long shot but technichally, you don't have to work with free willed beings to use necromancy. If she has been careful like a... well madwoman, she could have developed her abilities by draining the ambient life and using it as fuel instead of dense fuel rods (ie humans).

Maybe she can do things that take enough power equvalent to a blood sacrifice (1, Male, Adult, Any Ethnicity please) by turning 13 acres of grass yellow.
All we can be absolutely sure about is the little fact that necromancy (like mind magic) is extremely easy to abuse and follow to a dark path.

Edit: And no, in the book the guy on the ground had just died. Brain death occurs somewhere between 60 and 300 seconds after heart stops pumping blood. You could argue that all she did was empowering his whole body (minus the brain) externally so it could overcome the shock effects of the wound. It is this close (__| |__) to the border but I would argue that act wasn't actually a lawbreaker. (Just a massive use of cold magic. Edit 2: sorry I call necromancy cold magic.)

[JosephKell]

One note about Kumori: This might be a veeeeeery long shot but technichally, you don't have to work with free willed beings to use necromancy. If she has been careful like a... well madwoman, she could have developed her abilities by draining the ambient life and using it as fuel instead of dense fuel rods (ie humans).

Kumori violated the 5th law during Dead Beat when she saved that guy's life in front of the EMTs.  He was gone and she brought him back.

And I have been hesitant to say this (because I don't believe these debates actually make a difference) by Fix always brought a gun when he confronted Dresden, despite being better with magic (guns is believed to be Fair, while his discipline is Good).  Why?  Because Dresden is mortal and Fix doesn't want to start down the slippery slope and risk becoming like Lloyd Slate.