Laws of Magic and sponsored magic

[JosephKell]

Hey, at least this one is in a thread designated for such discussions as opposed to derailing some other thread. Though a definitive answer from Fred and the other folks at Evil Hat would be awesome.

I met Fred (and Lenny and Ryan) on Saturday and I did notice that the topic didn't come up.

I am pretty sure this is something they think people are mature enough to settle these discussions in their own groups.

It is nice to know there are still optimists out there.

[Korwin]

   No. Fea can't kill you if you aren't bound to their court.

Actually I was under the impression, that this is an limitation of the Queens.
Not the peasant fae's.

[JosephKell]

Actually I was under the impression, that this is an limitation of the Queens.
Not the peasant fae's.

Shh.. It's a secret and secrets have power.  At least make a trade for that info.

One example of "empirical" evidence is that

(click to show/hide)

trolls have been snatching (and eating) children that cross bridges for centuries (however the rule now requires it to be "naughty" children).  See Restoration of Faith

(Technically this has been out for a long time, but some people don't collect the multi-author anthologies.  So buy "Side Jobs" when it comes out in January, it has all of the short stories.  Plus "Post-Changes Murphy Sans Dresden.")

Faeries can kill you.  Breaking faith with a faerie (or owing a debt without a payment plan) counts as them having direct access to you (sort of like if a wizard had your blood or true name).

[vultur]

Hmmm. This is a tricky one, especially when dealing with part-humans like White Court Vampires and Red Court Infected.

I'd argue that while only spellcasting breaks the laws (the 'inherent' supernatural powers of WCVs and RCIs can't give them Lawbreaker, obviously), those beings are still human enough to get Lawbreaker. A White Court Vampire wouldn't get Lawbreaker from mind-whammying someone with Incite Emotion, but he would if he used psychomantic Thaumaturgy (presuming he had that power). The Wardens wouldn't go after someone belonging to another Accorded nation, though.

I'm not sure about things like Seelie/Unseelie Magic and Sponsored Magic, though. I kind of think the Knights should not get Lawbreaker, as being the Queens' assassins is a big part of what they're *for*, but...

[Drachasor]

Again, I'll state that I don't think it really matters for game purposes unless the caster is a PC.  If they ARE a PC, then they should get lawbreaker.

[Bruce Coulson]

I don't we ARE going to get a definitive answer...because the answer is "Whatever fits your group and campaign."  For some groups, any mortal caster is subject to the Laws, no matter what their source.  For others, where and how a caster gains their power makes all the difference.

[Bruce Coulson]

In my campaign, I'm approaching the idea that #1 is correct from a game mechanic and metaphysical standpoint.  #5 is what the White Council would LIKE to be correct.

So, a mortal spellcaster using mortal magics is subject to both the Lawbreaker stunt and Warden attention.  A mortal caster using sponsored magic does not take the Lawbreaker stunt...but the Wardens will still try to figure out a way to execute him/her.  (This may prove to be impossible, thanks to the Accords...but they'll try.)

Organizations seek to increase their power and influence.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  More extensive policing can lead to a safer population.  But it will always lead to abuses and injustice.  So, for prefectly good reasons (the White Council is trying to protect mortals from supernatural threats) the White Council is stretching their reach as far as they can...even if individual results are grossly unfair.

And it's in those individual cases that the PCs have a chance to make a difference.