Wards and the First Law

[zaq.hack]

Fifth Law Violation: Resurrect Thread

Let's say you want to build a ward based on "social stress." One obvious method would be flashing lights and sirens - the ward breaker would certainly be more stressed out about such a thing. Perhaps you build a crazy-complex ward with "divinations" built in: You want to start calling out the name of the ward breaker - certainly, another level of stress. You fill the stress track and the attacker wants to take a "moderate consequence: paranoia" in response. Later, this gets paranoia gets the guy killed in another situation. Or if your "social" stress creates a "don't bother coming in" feel that is eventually absorbed as a "depression" consequence. Well, you can easily see where that could lead.

I'm running this as a first law violation, but the Wardens are not quite as quick to "off-with-your-head" for defensive-based violations. Essentially, you'll get a warning, but doing it again will definitely make you hunted. Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice ... well, you don't get twice.

[wyvern]

Hm.  While that could be considered a (very) iffy first (or fourth) law violation, I'd say it's actually a zeroth law violation: A violation of the trust between player and GM.  If the player is going that far out of their way to make certain their wards aren't going to violate the laws of magic, and the GM decides that "oh, oops, you killed someone anyway!" - well, that's just not right.  It'd be like telling a PC "Here, have a fate point for hexing your friend's radio" - and then, once they accept it, adding "Oh, and that also hexed the pacemaker of the guy you were trying to save.  Too bad."

For the record, I wouldn't consider that a first law violation anyway.  There were multiple acts of free will involved (from the victim if nothing else) between spell effect and death.  For an example, suppose you used magic to light a campfire.  The fire, once lit, is nonmagical, and then some idiot trips over the firepit, falls in, and gets himself burned to death.  Is that your fault?  No.  You'll probably feel horrible about it, sure, and it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't lit that fire, and the wardens will investigate because you could have been using an entropy curse... but in the end, the wardens will pack up their bags and go home, because there wasn't an entropy curse, there wasn't any direct cause and effect between your action and the death, there wasn't any intent to kill, etc.

Now, on the other hand, you could make a very interesting story out of having what you described happen, and then requiring your PCs to figure out what was really going on and track down the warlock who put an entropy curse on the victim, all before the wardens showed up and started killing off PC wizards...

[Bruce Coulson]

Both.  He's a Lawbreaker (not that it matters) because his intent was murderous; you're a Lawbreaker because you had wards that would kill someone.

This becomes a grey area/make the decision for your game kind of question.  Does setting up Wards that might kill someone constitute intent?  (The Wardens are apt to say yes in any event...)

Probably the best approach (assuming you don't WANT mortal visitors...better have a PO Box!) is to set up a Veil affecting mortals, and have an interior Ward with nastier effects for supernaturals.

[sjksprocket]

I want to through my spin on the whole conjured fire/tripped first law interpretation. Now if the fire is lit by magic, but isn't sustained by magic (sustained by normal means) then absolutely not. He was killed by mundane fire. If he was tripped by magic then yes, the law violator is the tripper due to intent. If the magic is sustained by magic and the victim is tripped by mundane means (like his own feet) then it's a gray area. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you could have stopped the fire saving the persons life and didn't, law breaker. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you weren't around then you would have probably be accused of lawbreaking due to negligence. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you stopped the fire and tried to save the person but failed to, I'd say that it might be an adventure hook to try to save your wizards life and possibly resulting in the doom of Damocles.

[Kommisar]

**Spoiler tags on things relating to the novels up through Changes**

The way I look at this is that it IS complicated and full of gray areas.  Not just in terms of rules mechanics but also for the in-universe characters themselves.  This is probably one of those topics that you could hear a room full of Wardens in Edinburgh discussing/arguing over late at night over drinks.  I suspect this is also why you do not see very many wizards living in close proximity with mortals.  Especially the more powerful ones.

From the novels, we don't know a whole lot about where other wizards actually live.  We know McCoy lives on a farm in a very rural area. 

(click to show/hide)

Simon Pietrovich, the former, assumed dead, member of the Great Council lived in a tower/compound in Archangel.  I'm assuming this tower was not in the city square or anything.

  In fact, my impression was always that Harry was a bit unusual for living in a basement apartment in the middle of Chicago.  Remember, he also advertised himself as a wizard in the phone book.  This could also be a matter of level of power.  If you are a young, neophyte wizard you either A) don't have big nasties looking to beat down your doors or B) if you have gotten yourself in the situation where big nasties are out for you... your wards are rather immaterial to your existence and will not come into play.  They are to weak to present a big danger of collateral damage to civilians and are not going to really hinder the big nasty.

(click to show/hide)

Again, look at the novels.  As Harry grew as a wizard and got more and more involved in the bigger league stuff; his apartment and the civilians/mortals around him became more and more of a liability to him.  I have always seen this as a major theme of the novels and I see that as well in the RPG.

The common myth and legends of wizards have them living as mysterious hermits in far removed places surrounded by folk stories of bad things happening to those that wander to close.  Perhaps for a good reason.

[zaq.hack]

@Wyvern: I very much agree with your interpretation and have tried to let this player know that I am not actively trying screw the party (at this point, at least).

I view having big wards that call down death or probable death on mortals is 'involuntary manslaughter' when it comes to the First Law. Trying really hard to avoid this and still protecting your own stuff (i.e., possible psyche changes as opposed to fire damage) just makes the Wardens' job a bit harder. If a person dies as a result of your wards, you may get a pass once, but you won't get it a second time. My advice to this player was "Word carefully how this works."

I view this as being involved in a death. If this person would not have died had they not run across your wards, that goes on your spiritual tab. From a "common sense" perspective, the Wardens are likely to watch you very carefully from that point forward, but it seems this is a "forgivable" if not "forgettable" offense. I don't actually give a lot of leeway to mundane killing, either, frankly. Something I use at my game are white and black glass stone markers. When the players do something particularly unseemly, I toss them a black stone. If they do something "nice," which can be relative, I toss them a white one. In this way, I have a mobster who is trying to use a "blessed weapon," which basically has no additional power in his hands. While killing with magic has special properties, killing with a mundane weapon over and over again is likely to have similar long-term ramifications on your psyche. If you want to become a Denarian, that may be an advantage. If you want to take up a Sword of the Cross, you might want to exercise some restraint.

@Kommisar: This wizard in my game lives in "Missouri wine country," which is almost as out-of-the-way as where Ebenezar lives (the Ozarks). I have no intention of having a homeless guy break in for a bottle of wine and fry himself as I consider that being a pretty evil GM.

[Kommisar]

Which is exactly the point.  Your game's wizard lives in a relatively out of the way location.  Makes it much safer to put up some bigger wards with more potential lethality.  Nothing is ever 100% of course.  You could still have a brother and sister wandering through the woods looking for candy break in or some such.    But it is FAR removed from having an exploding fire ward around apartment 5B in the heart of Manhattan.  No worries about you building super or landlord causing a mass causality event by letting a repairman into your apartment to fix a pipe while your out for the day.

Again, my opinion here, but I see most Wardens viewing things in a similar light.  They will much more lenient if your wards are set up in a place that common sense would tell someone that it is not likely someone would just accidentally run across them.  Less lenient if your 20 shift water-entropic disintegration ward melts a cop executing a legal warrant to search your home/apartment in response to you being sighting running away from the scene of a multiple homicide in a burning building late last night.  At that point, the Warden is going to look at you and say, "And what did you expect would happen?"

I also do not see the above example as being an out-of-line event for the GM to have in a game.  Having a hobo break into your Yukon fortress of solitude looking for beer while a Warden was walking up the steps to deliver your latest issue of White Council Quarterly?  Yea, that's just being spiteful.

[zaq.hack]

@Kommisar: I also assume most Wardens have "Common Sense: Good +3" ...

[Bruce Coulson]

I'm not sure that the Wardens should be viewed as having common sense.  From the books, it seems a lot of Wardens have been infected with the 'letter of the law' thinking of the Accords.

Of course, political pull may also have something to do with it.  A powerful, well-connected wizard with allies in the Senior Council might get more leniency than, say, a wiseass apprentice involved in shady dealings with a respected Warden.  Just a thought...

[zaq.hack]

Certainly, not ALL of them do. However, since this is really the beginning of the campaign, most things "are as they appear." My intention is to turn the wheels of conspiracy slowly: Oh, the White Council really is bad ... Oh, yeah, and the Catholic Church is too busy to help ... Oh, and the Government really has Men in Black ... etc. When everything starts out as untrustworthy, it doesn't mean as much when you lose faith in it. 

[Bruce Coulson]

Being 'letter of the law' doesn't necessarily equate to 'evil' (although it often equates to 'unjust').  Having wardens (rank and file) be Sgt Fridays; by the book, no exceptions, the Law applies to everyone can lead to some interesting issues; but by the same token, if you have the Wardens always apply the Laws strictly, at least the PCs will know where they stand.

And later, if the PCs begin to find that the Law isn't always being applied equally, then perhaps a local Warden, who's been a hard-ass on the PCs the whole time, might begin to change...

[Drachasor]

If you are setting up multiple wards, seems like the first one you have anyone encounter is just a simple block.  If they can get by a shift 10 block, then they certainly aren't a random bystander.  Now, the police or military could probably due this and then get to the lethal stuff, though even then a very large block (15+) probably means they'll have to go grab specialized gear after they arrive (in other words it will take a lot of time).  As long as you are a bit careful, this isn't going to be a concern though and you should have some idea if it will happen ahead of time so you can remove the more lethal stuff.

So pretty much anyone who gets by your significant block is not going to be a regular mortal.  I don't think you get lawbreaker at this point.  If you make a wall of fire and a wizard jumps into it of his own volition, then you don't get Lawbreaker for someone acting crazy (unless you made them crazy, but that's different).  If you are setting up wards so that initial contact is lethal, then you deserve anything you get for being so vicious.

[zaq.hack]

Maybe I'll just set up wards that push them into the Nevernever and see if they can get "back" ... Muah ha haa!

[sjksprocket]

So pretty much anyone who gets by your significant block is not going to be a regular mortal.  I don't think you get lawbreaker at this point.  If you make a wall of fire and a wizard jumps into it of his own volition, then you don't get Lawbreaker for someone acting crazy (unless you made them crazy, but that's different).  If you are setting up wards so that initial contact is lethal, then you deserve anything you get for being so vicious.

But you can prove that the wizard jumped in on his own volition? 

[Drachasor]

But you can prove that the wizard jumped in on his own volition? 

Council is a bit overly jumpy, they might decide you are a law breaker (though a soulgaze could change their mind, I think).  In game terms, you don't get lawbreaker though, and that's far more important than such petty issues such as whether you get killed over a misunderstanding or not.