Blood Magic - Repercussions?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Not to be dense, but how is that anything more than semantics?

[devonapple]

My observation is that this is becoming more of a game style issue than a mechanics issue. The rules as stated don't seem to penalize a regenerating PC from contributing energy (consequences, blood, etc.) to a ritual. Theoretically, if a villain got the drop on the players right after that ritual, most of those consequences could still be hanging like an albatross around the regenerating PC's neck, so it is still something of a consequence.

This could even spark a Threat, when a power-hungry warlock realizes the potential of having regenerating ritual blood batteries, and begins enthralling local werefolk to serve as willing and regenerating power sources. Guess where the warlock got the idea? And guess who is on the warlock's list to get kidnapped next?

[Jack B]

Well, there is not real reason to use consequences to fuel a ritual. Let's say that my ritualist has Lore 5 (naturally), Discipline 5, Conviction 4, Resources 4.
In the same scene they make skill navel-gazing maneuvers as follows;
Lore: construct a "magic circle with arcane symbolism" (i.e. a circle with obscure runes), using "appropriately symbolic materials" (i.e. iron and copper wire for fae-summoning)
Discipline: focus to "clear mind of all disruption" and "chant preparatory spells in perfect cadence"
Conviction: call forth power to create "magically charged atmosphere" and rationalize for "believe truly it needs to be done"
Resources: buy "high-quality items" (NOT play-doh)
Then, having done all that, he tags the 7 aspects for +14 shifts of complexity. In the next scene, he simply repeats with other aspects - the only limit would be his creativity.

I don't want to go off on a tangent here but I thought that
a) maneuvers are only used in a conflict situation and;
b) only perception and knowledge skills can be used for declarations.

If this is the case then only the Lore example above would be applicable.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Your b) is not correct, actually. While that usually is the case, there are many things, like the Martial Arts stunt, that allow for declarations with another skill.

Point well made, however.

[Richard_Chilton]

Why is a PC acting like a person and not exploiting the game's rules important?

Metagaming is usually bad.  When Harry gets into a grey situation he doesn't say "Okay, I can do X but not Y" because Harry doesn't know that X is allowed and Y isn't.  He doesn't know that he need a certain number of shifts for a given action.  That's what makes him real in the game world.

I've read a lot of game fiction - and the worse ones were when it was clear that the PC was exploiting the rules... For example, there was a Forgotten Realms bit where the text made it clear that someone had just leveled and soon after he was caught in a situation where he needed to cast a spell that he had memorized but didn't have the material components at hand - but he tries to cast it anyway and "discovers" that during leveling he gain that feat that let you cast spells without material components.  That scene ruined that book because it was so false.

Richard
Seriously, if the character knows how things work he isn't going to try something he knows isn't going work any more than most people do.  If a character knows that he can't cast spells without the gunk then he isn't going to 'just try' to do so anymore than I'm going to jump out a window and hope that I can fly.

A Dresden game example:
If a character is into voodoo then he's into voodoo.  He uses the voodoo motif and trappings.  The player knows that his PC has thaumaturgy on his sheet, the same thaumaturgy that every character uses, but that doesn't mean that his PC should ever use it for anything except voodoo themed magic.  The player knows that the power covers all styles of magic but the character doesn't.

A real life example:
Drugging people to have sex with them is wrong.  Buying someone a drink generally isn't.  How many drinks can you buy before it becomes wrong to sleep with them? That's a grey area.  Without blood tests or a breathalyzer you can't really be sure if someone is legally drunk (and thus can't provide consent) so how drunk someone can be is a judgment call.  If real life had a rule book we could just cross reference someone's constitution and the potency of the drink and come up with a solid figure, but it doesn't.  Sometimes there's a point where you can tell that the other person is too drunk, but if someone has only three or four drinks on an empty stomach they could be at that point and you not realise it.

In Dresden, blood magic is like that.  Your PC knows that killing someone is wrong but using blood is a grey area.  The PC doesn't think in terms of consequences but has to wonder "how badly would it hurt that person if I stuck him with this knife - would it kill him or not?".  As a player you know just how what sort of damage you are looking at so know that it will be safe, but the PC doesn't and shouldn't know that.


Then there are the Wardens.  When they see someone doing blood magic they don't look for metaphysical markers like "Lawbreaker -2" but assume that the person is (or soon will be a warlock) and move to arrest him.  And if he resists arrest, well, that's why they have those Swords and why blood doesn't stick to their cloaks.  If at the end of the investigation they find out that he hasn't killed they give him a stern warning about how (if he keeps on this path) he will soon find himself breaking the laws of magic.

See, Wardens know that Warlocks rarely go straight to killing.  That the Warlock has to work up to it, to escalate.  That's the way it is for the vast majority of the Warlocks they have to deal with and (since they confuse correlation with causality) they assume that virtually everyone who does blood magic will eventually end up killing.

[Richard_Chilton]

I don't want to go off on a tangent here but I thought that
a) maneuvers are only used in a conflict situation and;
b) only perception and knowledge skills can be used for declarations.

If this is the case then only the Lore example above would be applicable.

You might want to read:
http://www.rickneal.ca/?p=639

It was written by one of the playtesters and gives 5 ways that every skill could be used for thaumaturgy.

Richard

[Belial666]

When Harry gets into a grey situation he doesn't say "Okay, I can do X but not Y" because Harry doesn't know that X is allowed and Y isn't.

Totally wrong. Wizards do just that; know the rules for magic and use them - that's what the Lore skill does. Harry even comments on it. In addition, Harry has Bob, a spirit of intellect specifically bound by Kemmler to track the rules of magic and serve as an advisor for exactly that kind of thing.

A Dresden game example:
If a character is into voodoo then he's into voodoo.  He uses the voodoo motif and trappings.  The player knows that his PC has thaumaturgy on his sheet, the same thaumaturgy that every character uses, but that doesn't mean that his PC should ever use it for anything except voodoo themed magic.  The player knows that the power covers all styles of magic but the character doesn't.

Nope. That character does not have Thaumaturgy. They got the much more limited Ritual: Voodoo Magic. Someone with Thaumaturgy is like a wizard; they can do Voodoo, summon demons, curse people, pull meteors from the sky, raise the dead, try to become gods, tear holes in the fabric of the universe and whatever else they could possibly imagine. That's another reason why wizards with enough experience to know how to use Thaumaturgy best are terrifyingly powerful.

In Dresden, blood magic is like that.  Your PC knows that killing someone is wrong but using blood is a grey area.  The PC doesn't think in terms of consequences but has to wonder "how badly would it hurt that person if I stuck him with this knife - would it kill him or not?".  As a player you know just how what sort of damage you are looking at so know that it will be safe, but the PC doesn't and shouldn't know that.

Again, almost certainly wrong. If you have Recovery, you have probably used it to heal from wounds already. So you already know that you can recover from those wounds or similar and lesser wounds. I mean, if a Lycanthrope recovers from several broken bones or being bitten by a ghoul (i.e. can recover from moderate consequences), a bleeding wound from a knife, being much smaller (a mild consequence) is not going to faze them much.
Ditto for toughness. Dresden knows a pistol's bullets would simply bounce off an Ogre because he has seen it before or others have seen and documented it.

Then there are the Wardens.  When they see someone doing blood magic they don't look for metaphysical markers like "Lawbreaker -2" but assume that the person is (or soon will be a warlock) and move to arrest him.

If they find you having bound some people with chains over an altar and are cutting them to fuel your ritual? Sure. If they see you standing with your werewolf buddy and using his blood, willingly given, to fuel said ritual whith the two of you joking about the red robe reccomendation in your book of spells, not really. It is all about context.

[UmbraLux]

Nope. That character does not have Thaumaturgy. They got the much more limited Ritual: Voodoo Magic. Someone with Thaumaturgy is like a wizard; they can do Voodoo, summon demons, curse people, pull meteors from the sky, raise the dead, try to become gods, tear holes in the fabric of the universe and whatever else they could possibly imagine. That's another reason why wizards with enough experience to know how to use Thaumaturgy best are terrifyingly powerful.

Not certain I agree.  A powerful houngan or mambo (one with Thaumaturgy) could accomplish the same things as any other thaumaturgist, they simply use different trappings.  The houngan may sacrifice chickens and create a blood circle while a druid weaves his circle out of woven holly and the wizard simply uses salt.  The end result is the same. 

-----
On a slight tangent - assuming the wizard and werewolf pair in question have just completed their ritual and they're attacked.  The werewolf still has most if not all of the consequences, hasn't had time to heal.  If he is killed by one of the attackers who tags the consequences received from the wizard's ritual, how does that affect lawbreaker status?  Separately, how will wardens react?

[Belial666]

A wizard can do a salt circle. Or a blood circle. Or woven holly. He can also do it with a cheap marker bought at the wal-mart or do it in his mind. Full thaumaturgy isn't limited by trappings beyond what the wizard chooses out of habit, belief or familiarity. As long as said houngan believes it would work, he could use pink crayons and do it just as well as in a blood circle. (as long as the social consequence he'd take from being a cheapskate would be the same level as the physical from drawing a circle in blood)


As for being caught with consequences, other people cannot tag consequences for free - only the guy that dealt them. So, only the wizard could tag said consequences. On the other hand, the GM can compel them instead.

[UmbraLux]

A wizard can do a salt circle. Or a blood circle. Or woven holly. He can also do it with a cheap marker bought at the wal-mart or do it in his mind. Full thaumaturgy isn't limited by trappings beyond what the wizard chooses out of habit, belief or familiarity. As long as said houngan believes it would work, he could use pink crayons and do it just as well as in a blood circle. (as long as the social consequence he'd take from being a cheapskate would be the same level as the physical from drawing a circle in blood)

From an external PoV, I think it would be difficult to tell the difference between a houngan ritualist and a houngan thaumaturgist with refinements specializing in a particular ritual theme.  For that matter, don't the books state one of the senior council

(click to show/hide)

Injun Joe

is trained in a different tradition?  To me, this means different trappings may be used to get the same results.  Not that trappings limit you to lesser results.

As for being caught with consequences, other people cannot tag consequences for free - only the guy that dealt them. So, only the wizard could tag said consequences. On the other hand, the GM can compel them instead.

Meh, the terminology is one thing I dislike about FATE.  The point was, if that attacking character, PC* or NPC, spends a couple fate points to take advantage of those consequences, does the wizard share some responsibility for the werewolf's death?

*I suspect this is far more likely to be a PC attacker with NPC wizard and werewolf - at least if I'm GMing.  It's too much like intentionally killing a PC otherwise.

[Belial666]

You can defeat someone with magic, tie him up, blindfold him and deliver him personally to his executioner and it isn't going to be a law violation because you did not, personally, kill him with magic. Yes, you are a murderer but not a Lawbreaker. Hell, do it enough times for a certain type of reasons and you'll be a Warden.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

From an external PoV, I think it would be difficult to tell the difference between a houngan ritualist and a houngan thaumaturgist with refinements specializing in a particular ritual theme.  For that matter, don't the books state one of the senior council

(click to show/hide)

Injun Joe

is trained in a different tradition?  To me, this means different trappings may be used to get the same results.  Not that trappings limit you to lesser results.

This is true on the surface, but I think you might be missing part of it (or at least I'm not seeing it represented here):

Basically, you can take Ritual (Voodoo). This allows you to use any effect that is appropriate to voodoo, which you will have to define at the point of taking it with your GM, since it's outside of the set thaumaturgy themes and stuff. That's fine, but you pretty much explain it when you do it.

If you spend the extra Refresh to get to Thaumaturgy, then the whole game changes. Basically, you can do absolutely everything that the character with Ritual (Voodoo) can do, but it is literally a minute fraction of the power and options you have before you. You can do anything in the book in the Thaumaturgy section. It's an absolutely tremendous increase in power and versatility.

Also, with Thaumaturgy, you can take Refinement. You also have a Specialization, which could be in Voodoo, making you automatically better than the guy who took Channelling.

Now, both the Channeler and the full on Thaumaturge can be Voodoo priests. Both of them can use the trappings of Voodoo, and both of them can come from that background. But one has gone WAY beyond the other.

Please pardon me if this isn't what was confusing you, I may have misunderstood. Otherwise, I hope I helped.

[Morfedel]

Frankly, I don't think it entirely matters if the regenerating "victim" is willing or not.  Well, it does matter, but, even.if willing, it also says you are willing to hurt people to power spells.

These guys still generally feel pain. Think about it, how would Billy react if Harry walked up and said, "Hey, Billy, I need your help with something, and it wont hurt... for long."

Even if the person is willing, and will recover quickly, it still is a dark path to tread.

After all, Victor Sells didn't START with the orgies and sacrifices... he slid down the slope to there.

[babel2uk]

I seem to remember a line in the section on the First Law (I may be wrong on the location of the line - it may be in the inflicting consequences to power a spell section), that seems to say that hurting a willing victim to power a ritual is as bad or worse than harming an unwilling person.

I'd agree with the general point of view that using someone with supernatural regeneration as a living battery for thaumaturgy is likely to change your personality for the worse over time. It's not as immediate as gaining Law Breaker, but it's certainly something I as a GM would be looking at if it was a regular occurance. And if it became too regular I'd probably insist that one of the character's minor milestones was spent re-wording an aspect to reflect the change to a slightly darker view. If the willing victim was the same one time and again I'd probably insist on a similar aspect change for the victim.

You'd arguably reach a stage where the wizard simply starts assuming it'll be OK to use the victim to power a spell, and the victim will reach a stage where they will quite happily bleed to death (or have their minds reduced to jelly) because "the wizard would never hurt me!"

[Belial666]

These guys still generally feel pain.

Painkillers. Lots of them. Or an evocation spell that applies an aspect of "no pain". Besides, blood loss is not painful; if you bleed someone in the safe and clean way, they'll barely feel a sting - just lots of dizziness from the blood loss.

hurting a willing victim to power a ritual is as bad or worse than harming an unwilling person.

1st Law is about killing. Hurting is in no way part of the Laws.
Besides, the solution is easy. Say the following three times;

"Upon my Power, and my hope for salvation and rebirth, I, [insert true name] will never violate the Laws of Magic"



No wizard, especially a dark wizard, will violate that oath because it will do horrible things to their own Power. The more they violate it, the more it will eat at their power and that is the one thing a power-hungry wizard will never do. A good wizard might violate it, sacrificing their Power to do good, but once they fall to the Dark Side, they will no longer want to do dark things, lest they lose their power. Nice standoff, don't you think?