Sponcered Magic ideas.

[Moriden]

This is true. However, bear in mind this is a Wizard. If he uses magic to accomplish this, there's a shortening experience in stock for him in the not-too-distant future, courtesy of our gray-cloaked friends with Big Shiny Swords.

Im completely being devils advocate here. Which law is broken by a spell that destroys the dykes, or causes a forest to spring up overnight? While both will probably kill people neither will as a direct act of the magic take a mortal life. its the secondary effects. like using magic to light a house on fire and then walking away. The people in it die, but not from your spell.

[wyvern]

If pushing someone off a building with a gust of wind, or tweaking a satellite's orbit just a hair is lawbreaker territory, I'd imagine that breaking a dam and drowning someone at the base is too.  Same goes for your light a house on fire example.  Maybe you wouldn't get lawbreaker for folks who could have evacuated but didn't, but that's about as lenient I'd get.

That said, there's nothing preventing this hypothetical crazy guy from evacuating the areas first; I mean, that's something to do with his "days to spare", right?

[Richard_Chilton]

Any Wizard trying something like that would be crushed by White Council politics.  The Wardens would be called in to restrain him and if there was no justification for them to do so then the Blackstaff would take care of things.

At least that's my take on things.

Richard

[bobjob]

Any Wizard trying something like that would be crushed by White Council politics.  The Wardens would be called in to restrain him and if there was no justification for them to do so then the Blackstaff would take care of things.

At least that's my take on things.

Richard

That is assuming anybody would know about it prior to the event. Then again, with The Gatekeeper's dabbling in flowing against time and with the Blackstaff's directive to do so to defend the White Council, I see no reason why either Rashid or McCoy couldn't pop in on said wizard for a little reality check.

[devonapple]

I think the DFRPG forums need an equivalent to Godwin's Law: "As a Dresden Files RPG Forum discussion grows longer, the probability of a dispute over what constitutes a violation of the First Law of Magic approaches."

By no means analogous to the atrocities of the Holocaust, but it does seem to be a trend.

[Richard_Chilton]

I'd modify that to "a law of magic" rather than just the first one.  After all, it probably take mind control to get everyone to leave LA.

Richard

[Moriden]

I'd modify that to "a law of magic" rather than just the first one.  After all, it probably take mind control to get everyone to leave LA.

Richard

Now now they only asked for it to be reclaimed by forest, not to remove the humans.

[Richard_Chilton]

I was going to post a long, detailed post about ethics surrounding millions of humans trying to survive in a wilderness, but instead I'll just point to the other task - flood Holland.

There's no way you could get everyone out of Holland without mind magic.

Richard

[Moriden]

There's no way you could get everyone out of Holland without mind magic.

I maintain its not your job to get them to leave. they made the decision to live in a place that should be ocean, and would be if the dykes broke. All you've got to do is destroy the dykes, the fact that the resultant flood will kill people is horrible, but morally not really your problem, the dykes would likely have broken eventually anyway. look at katrina and new orleans.

Hell you can even do it without direct use of magic. buy a demolitionist or two veil them and the some low tech explosives. =Profit.

[Richard_Chilton]

This conversation is reminding me of a long conversation that's happening in the spoiler forum.

Please see
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,467.msg8751.html#msg8751
for musing on how JB sees the laws of magic working

If blow up a dam and the water happens to kill someone... To quote JB:

The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn't something limited to wizards and gods.  Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.

As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well.  Smiley  There's something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other.  But it's going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there's no sense in ruining the fun. Smiley

Richard

[Drachasor]

Sponsor debts are pretty harsh, though, if the GM decides to get a little nasty.

So, this Seelie-sponsored wizard is taking a stroll in the park, feeling smug after his excessively overpowered insta-spell, when Eldest Gruff taps him on the shoulder...
"Hello, human. You owe us some favors. We want Los Angeles, California reclaimed by forest and The Netherlands reclaimed by the ocean - like nature would have had it if not for those dikes they built. We're not entirely unreasonable; you have a month in which to accomplish this. Oh, and should you fail... well, there'll be consequences."

I think that's beyond the reach of a proper compel.  While a compel can have consequences lasting beyond the scene, it strikes me as unseemly and unfair for a compel to force such a long-term and complicated operation on someone.

Consider (102 OS):

GMs should not rely on a player’s particular response to this kind of compel to drive a plot— remember, the purpose of a compel is to create drama, not force people into things. Keep in mind that a player can always negotiate the terms of a compel—he might have an even better idea for a dramatic way to start a scene or move the story along.

To me the compel here would simply be these entities WANTING you to do this.  That complicates one's life and you have to deal with them bugging you until you get them to stop.  A compel can't making you go and destroy a whole bunch of stuff over a long span of time.

Again from the same section in OS:

Example: Thomas has an aspect for his family: Fallen Prince of the Raith Family. This means he’s a liability for his house and his father is continually trying to find ways for other people to kill Thomas for him. The Red Court is going to be throwing a lavish ball at the Velvet Room, and Lord Raith has sent Thomas a “note” letting him know that Thomas is expected to attend. The GM suggests that this is a compel based on Thomas’ Fallen Prince aspect, because his status in the family doesn’t leave him many choices. Thomas’ player, Clark, accepts and the GM gives him a fate point.

There are at least two ways Clark can fulfill the terms of this compel. Thomas can take the easier but possibly deadly choice of attending the Red Court ball, or he can defy Lord Raith, which would take the story in a very different direction—in that case, Lord Raith would come after him with intensity and fury. If he was taken by Lord Raith’s servants, he would have to answer dearly for his defiance...

A proper compel should have a very immediate effect that complicates one's life.  They don't dictate how you react to that complication at all.

[Drachasor]

Im completely being devils advocate here. Which law is broken by a spell that destroys the dykes, or causes a forest to spring up overnight? While both will probably kill people neither will as a direct act of the magic take a mortal life. its the secondary effects. like using magic to light a house on fire and then walking away. The people in it die, but not from your spell.

In another thread, I proposed this is the measure for breaking the 1st law.
If a spell would result in a series of events that would directly and obviously kill people without requiring someone else (including the caster) to do anything else willfully to make people die, then it is a violation.  So making a gust of wind to knock someone off a building that results in their death is a violation.  Making a ward on a door to someone's home that will explode when they try to go in would be a violation.  Purposefully causing a crowd of people to panic and stampede is a violation (people will get crushed to death).  Destroying a dam and the resulting rush of water killing people is also a violation.  This contains some gray area that might not count, but I do not think any violation of the 1st exists that isn't contained in this definition.

If it is unreasonable for the person to know anyone would die from it, then it is not a violation.  If they would have died in some ensuing event you were working against anyway, then not a violation (e.g. you make people run away so the zombies don't kill them).  In general, the more steps and more willful participants that need to act in a particular way (that might not happen) to result in someone's death, the more likely you are off the hook.  However, if your intention is to get people killed, then that's certainly a point against you.

Seems about right to me anyhow.

[Warpmind]

I think that's beyond the reach of a proper compel.  While a compel can have consequences lasting beyond the scene, it strikes me as unseemly and unfair for a compel to force such a long-term and complicated operation on someone.

Consider (102 OS):
To me the compel here would simply be these entities WANTING you to do this.  That complicates one's life and you have to deal with them bugging you until you get them to stop.  A compel can't making you go and destroy a whole bunch of stuff over a long span of time.

Again from the same section in OS:

A proper compel should have a very immediate effect that complicates one's life.  They don't dictate how you react to that complication at all.

True enough. On the other hand, if we're talking a wizard who racked up a half-dozen or so points of Debt in a single go...
Well, let's just say I wouldn't be altogether surprised if the Powers That Be (or Sponsor, in this case) decided to offer a somewhat... quicker solution to paying off those debts than a service here, a service there...

[Richard_Chilton]

Before Christmas I posted a version of an Envoy of Santa who had sponsored magic (at http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23084.msg991664.html#msg991664 ) where the caster was terrified about going too deeply in debt.

From that posting

He suspects that Krampus ([url[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus[/url] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_Saint_Nicholas#Krampus) was once a human emissary who fell too deeply into debt and was transformed into creature

Just knowing that if you get too deep in debt "we can own you" - that's a good reason not to owe too much.  To carefully track the debt and make sure you repay it promptly.  Especially when dealing with Fae or any other sponsor who takes debts seriously.

Richard

[Ren]

Let me clarify something; related to Bobjob's question. The 26-shift Spell was in my game and was an Evocation not Thaumaturgy, though sponsored magic was involved. I'd like to break this down further in light of our last session where a 39-shift attack was pulled off by the same character. I'm going to break it down here because something doesn't seem right about it and as it has currently caused a huge rift in our game right now and is currently costing 2 players out of eight I'd like to get it clarified so we can see if this can be prevented in the future as a 39-shift hit absolutely destroys my ability to produce challenging opponents that won't kill the mostly-mortal characters by sneezing!

So here's the breakdown, as far as I recall;
Shift 6 spell declared, well within the range of his conviction (+4) + focus item(s) to control and cast.
The roll nets him +2 for a total of +8
So Far One point of mental stress.
He takes 3 more mental stress voluntarily then takes a Mild Consequence to pay off 2 of those, thus another +3
total is now +11
With 2 mental Stress.
Tagged at least 4 separate aspects; two or so on himself and two or so others from other are tags available. So that's +8 more
Total is now +19
Used 4 points of Sponsor Magic for another +8
Total is now 27
Dropped 4 fate Points for another +8
Total is now 35!
2 Wool-gathering Maneuvers for the additional +4
So the total ended up at 39.

Mind you this is all before Dodge, Armor (which was ignored due to the attack hitting its natural weakness).
Even with an optimal dodge roll it could only subtract 8 from the hit, with taking one of every consequence in the book would only get it reduced by an additional 20 hits...so that's 11 Physical Stress after all is said and done, on average probably 15 stress. Double that particular target could take...

Is this right? It sounds horribly wrong but I don't know where the failure occurs. Should he have been taking a lot more stress? Should there have been fallout or a much more difficult roll? I'd want to get this clarified for future reference and so I can figure out how it can be fixed. Yes it was a one-shot deal for that scenario but it could be replicated and I don't want to have to deal with that every session.
I understand there will be later consequences form his sponsor, but that is a matter for another time, not to mention other RP consequences.