So the first law can't be broken unless you WANT to break it, right?

[toturi]

No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell.

The character could believe that his spell could kill, but the player could still intend for his character's spell not to. To your character, that his spell didn't kill the mortals would be the result that he did not really intend to kill the mortals although he used a lethal spell.

[Ophidimancer]

Fallout is what ends up killing bystanders and making you a Lawbreaker.

[crusher_bob]

Part of the problem is a due to the system.  If I want to take out some minor opposition (3 stress, will take a mild consequence) in one attack, I have to do 6 stress to him.  If I was only doing (effective) 3 stress attacks, I'd have to hit him 3 times. 

So if I want some sort of non-lethal weapon that will take these sorts of guys out in one go, I'm looking at something like weapon 5 to be sure the job gets done.  The problem is that weapon 5 like being hit by a car.  So we could totally see someone being killed when I run them over, but being killed by the weapon 5 magical tazer I made?  not so much.

[sinker]

No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.

The main issue is that it isn't a question of can it kill. It's fire, of course it can kill just about anything. The question is Should it kill. Do I have the right to take that person's life? Then it's totally reasonable to believe that you should kill monsters but not people.

Fallout is what ends up killing bystanders and making you a Lawbreaker.

I would call shenanigans on this. Sure, fallout is supposed to suck, it is not however supposed to randomly take away your character for no apparent reason. I suppose if it was crowded and the GM explained to the player before he chose to resolve the failed roll with fallout that he would be incurring the lawbreaker power then that might be justified, but otherwise it seems like the GM being a vindictive jerk.

So if I want some sort of non-lethal weapon that will take these sorts of guys out in one go, I'm looking at something like weapon 5 to be sure the job gets done.  The problem is that weapon 5 like being hit by a car.  So we could totally see someone being killed when I run them over, but being killed by the weapon 5 magical tazer I made?  not so much.

The problem really is that comparison. Weapon:5 is supposed to be similar to getting hit by a truck, true, however what if I'm using a sleep compulsion (I'm aware that's breaking another law, but meh). What about non-lethal gas? What about bright light? These are examples of something that can only be non-lethal however I could still deal 10, 20, even 30 stress with these attacks. The damage comparison is meant to help one figure out what something might do, however it should not be used as a catch-all rule that encompasses everything. Just because I hit them with a Weapon:5 attack does not mean that I have to kill someone. The context of the attack should also be taken into account.

[Drachasor]

I would call shenanigans on this. Sure, fallout is supposed to suck, it is not however supposed to randomly take away your character for no apparent reason. I suppose if it was crowded and the GM explained to the player before he chose to resolve the failed roll with fallout that he would be incurring the lawbreaker power then that might be justified, but otherwise it seems like the GM being a vindictive jerk.

I think we all agree on that.  His point was that when you have fallout it is uncontrolled magic meaning it can easily do stuff you didn't intend it to...like kill people.  Of course the GM should point out before you decide it is fallout that this will/could result in the death of an innocent.  That or it would be ok for the GM to rule fallout murdering innocents like that doesn't count as lawbreaking if it wasn't intended.

The problem really is that comparison. Weapon:5 is supposed to be similar to getting hit by a truck, true, however what if I'm using a sleep compulsion (I'm aware that's breaking another law, but meh). What about non-lethal gas? What about bright light? These are examples of something that can only be non-lethal however I could still deal 10, 20, even 30 stress with these attacks. The damage comparison is meant to help one figure out what something might do, however it should not be used as a catch-all rule that encompasses everything. Just because I hit them with a Weapon:5 attack does not mean that I have to kill someone. The context of the attack should also be taken into account.

Putting someone to sleep doesn't imply you have to invade their thoughts (and it certainly isn't enthralling).  This can be done without breaking the 3rd law easily enough.  In fact, one could theoretically do it either as a physical or mental attack, depending on what angle you wanted to go at.

Hmm, bright light is an interesting thing.  I don't think you can easily do that as a stress inflicter.  How can you take 3 stress from bright light?  I could see a maneuver to temporarily blind someone that is then invoked for effect though.  Or I could see it done as a consequence (which in a way, is the most interesting, since it makes sense as a consequence but not so much as a stress...getting zapped with light again and again doesn't seem like something that would result in your defeat).

Even a potentially lethal weapon 5 attack doesn't necessarily kill anyone.  People get hit by cars and survive.  Heck, people get hit by cars and can walk away with very few injuries -- not a DIRECT hit at a significant speed, mind you, but that's still a hit in game terms.  Lethal hits by cars, in game terms, are probably ones with a bunch of extra shifts to hit.  But let's consider that for a lot of attacks, you can probably pull your punches in one way or another.  Seems to me that if you are doing that you should be able to essentially inflict fewer shifts.  Not in the rules, afaik, but then again it doesn't have to be since the victor decides what "taken out" means in general terms (and the loser in specific terms).  One of the elegant things about the system is that it doesn't devote a lot of time to make up rules for dealing with such things because it really isn't worth it.  If a player wants someone to die by accident, they can DECIDE that happens (or it can be compelled), but there's no reason to ever force a death on the players just because someone got lucky and rolled well.

And, of course, if a GM wants to make an issue of it, that's easy enough with a scene aspect, hostages, or the like.

[noclue]

If a player wants someone to die by accident, they can DECIDE that happens (or it can be compelled), but there's no reason to ever force a death on the players

QFT

[BumblingBear]

This whole thread is the reason I plan on using maneuvers more than actual attacks when there are civilians around.

Maneuver-> Invoke for effect.  Most problems solved.

[zenten]

When it comes to Lawbreaker I think it's important that the GM tells the player if what they're doing could result in it *before* they actually take any action, so they can decide to do something else instead.  So if you're going to use an AoE attack on a zone where there's a nasty vampire and a human for like 20 shifts the GM should say before the player is committed to doing that that it could result in the human dying, and thus the player would get Lawbreaker.

That said, I'm cool even with shooting guns and the like to have the PC say that the target shot isn't dead when taken out, assuming they're getting medical attention (if it's a mortal) and whatnot.  There's going to then be the consequence that you've just shot someone and put them in the hospital, and people aren't usually too happy about that.

[Ophidimancer]

In effect, yes original poster, you probably shouldn't have Lawbreaking be an issue unless the player decided it should be so.  I don't think that's a problem, though.  Remember every player is also a Storyteller, most especially for their own character.

I had a story arc where I tempted one of my players with the 7th Law Lawbreaker Stunt.  I made it juicy, too, she would have had secret control over a rather powerful Outsider spawned creature who coincidentally also took the shape of a very hot guy.  She chose not to take it, in the end, but it was a powerful internal debate.

[Moriden]

unless the player decided it should be so

The player decided it should be an issue when he cast a firestorm in the same area as a bunch of humans. [or icestorm element doesn't really matter.]

To your character, that his spell didn't kill the mortals would be the result that he did not really intend to kill the mortals although he used a lethal spell.

You want the spell to have two different effects for different targets, then use one that is the creatures cacth but harmless to humans, or pay the shifts of complexity for two different effects. Im sorry but getting lawbreaker is *not* a punishment its just the result of a characters actions. If your playing the kind of character who is doing this kind of thing you should either have wanted him to go of the deep end as the end of his story, or have planned ahead and left refresh available for the lawbreaker stunt, Hell you could probably even convince your gm to let you switch out a point of refinement for it so you can still keep playing if your character has just evolved into a more lethal direction then you had originally intended.

[Ophidimancer]

The player decided it should be an issue when he cast a firestorm in the same area as a bunch of humans. [or icestorm element doesn't really matter.]

I still think the player should have the choice for the character to face Lawbreaking or not.  They should at least get a warning before they cast the spell, and if they choose not to heed, then you hit them with the Lawbreaker stunt, after appropriately narrating the feelings and the internal choice.  Breaking one of the Law's of Magic is something that deserves the focus of the camera.

[Moriden]

@Ophidimancer

I think some of the disconnect is the experience level of the players involved. my group have all been gaming for over a decade. I don't really feel its necessary to warn them if there going to get lawbreaker because i trust that if there casting such a spell they know it will probably happen, Certainly with people who don't know the system or are new to gaming in general you should tell them before they actually cast the spell that it will likely have such a result and then let them choose weather to use that spell anyway or use a different one.

[sinker]

People still get excited or caught up in the moment and forget. If you don't believe your group would have that issue then that's fine, but some people on these boards might use that as a justification to be cruel. I have been GMing and playing for nearly twenty years and the least experienced person in my group has probably a decade of experience with one of them having been gaming in eutero. I still wouldn't "surprise" them with something like that. Feelings could get hurt.

For that matter I would expect that people with more experience would also be quite capable storytellers and so would rather share that experience. Would they enjoy the "Hey you failed a roll. Surprise lawbreaker!" or do you think they'd rather find a dramatically appropriate moment and tell you "I burn him. I burn him to ash!" When experienced players want lawbreaker they'll tell you. I know I found a great moment to start crushing minds in my game.

[Moriden]

I still wouldn't "surprise" them with something like that. Feelings could get hurt.

I in no way advocated a surprise. I would likely ask if he was sure he wanted to incinerate the room which has humans in it. I don't think the discussion is weather the player knows that his character would break the law with the spell, its weather or not someone can have a "smart spell" that only kills monsters.

Think about that for a moment, if your allowing the mechanics to work that way, the pc blaster who i assume is designed specifically to blow things up, walks into a hostage situation and just blows the entire room up. He doesn't have anything to fear hell just declare as his taken out condition that no damage was done to himself or his allies or any humans in the room.

I really don't understand this mentality that getting lawbreaker is a punitive measure. the GM isnt saying, hey you messed up Jim take a point of lawbreaker.

[sinker]

That's all we're saying about it. That we would likely warn the player that they were treading on thin ice by walking into the room and raining down fire on everything within it. I don't think anyone's advocating allowing the player to narrate a taken out of "the humans are perfectly fine, monsters incinerated."

I don't like the idea of lawbreaker as a punitive measure either (one of the reasons I argue so strongly against ever giving it to the player). Like I mentioned above it can be brilliant if played out dramatically and can be really fun for the player to play the rest of the game wondering if he's really the kind of person who does that kind of thing or spiraling into warlockery. That's a good time.