What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice

[Richard_Chilton]

"I was aiming at monsters - not people" - this actually happens in one of the novels.

Grave Peril.

Dresden attacks a bunch of Red Court Vampires.  He really lets go.  Later, where he regains consciousness, it dawns on him that he might have killed some of those kids (aka party snacks) - causing their deaths a few moments before either the poison would have killed them or they would have been drained dry.

That hits him hard.  Very hard.  He was aiming at Vamps and might have hit people.  If Morgan was still watching him then Dresden would have lost his head over that - as it was that might have been the second act of Law Breaking for him.

Richard

[Tedronai]

Note that we do NOT see any particular 'ramping up' of Dresden's murderous tendencies attributable to this event, however, which would be the observation we would expect from the addition of a second First Lawbreaker stunt.

He feels immense guilt and self-doubt.  It's very likely that he could have been executed had he been under Warden observation.
Neither of those is evidence of a Lawbreaker stunt.

[Richard_Chilton]

Um, I think that whole "eat the ghost" thing was a bit of a ramp up.  In later books he sometimes struggles with the urge to kill, something that had been fading until then...

But you're right - the books aren't stat'ed out so we'll never know for sure.  All we do know is the feelings of Jim who says "intent doesn't matter".  So you didn't intent to kill people and you did - that's life.

Richard

[Tedronai]

Um, I think that whole "eat the ghost" thing was a bit of a ramp up.

 

Ghosts aren't people.

In later books he sometimes struggles with the urge to kill, something that had been fading until then...

Most of which can be attributed to various other influences, Lash being prominent among them

But you're right - the books aren't stat'ed out so we'll never know for sure.  All we do know is the feelings of Jim who says "intent doesn't matter".  So you didn't intent to kill people and you did - that's life.

Richard

Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.

Intent doesn't matter.  Belief does.

[Drachasor]

Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.

Intent doesn't matter.  Belief does.

That doesn't really account for Harry in Grave Peril though, unless he didn't actually kill anyone.  Or are you saying that if you just don't care if there are collateral deaths then it isn't lawbreaking?

Anyhow, the RPG is a bit vague on this point, which I think is right and proper for a game.

[zenten]

There are stats for Harry after the start of the vampire war, and he doesn't have the second lawbreaker stunt.

[Drachasor]

There are stats for Harry after the start of the vampire war, and he doesn't have the second lawbreaker stunt.

He wouldn't without breaking the Law 3 times.  However, the incident was famous and bodies were collected, studied, etc.  If the White Council had deemed it a Lawbreaking incident, then they'd have killed Harry.  Given that the event started a war, I'm sure they looked into it.

[sinker]

Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.

Intent doesn't matter.  Belief does.

Actually Jim says that neither intent or belief matters. Jim says the results matter.

[tymire]

He should get it imo.  He should have used "the sight" before letting loose *shrug*.  The fact is he acted without knowledge, which could have been easly obtained and isn't an excuse.  If I was running and the player made this mistake, I "might"  retcon it as the character would not have done it unless he didn't have any other choice.  However, when you consider he could have put up a block instead of pasting them well....

It's actually pretty clear if you read through all the laws several times and don't look at just pieces of them.  It happened so you get it, intent doesn't factor into it.  For example look at Molly, her intent was good and was to help them, it wasn't to turn them into crazy people.  However, when you break one of the laws your soul is tainted with whatever you did, otherwise it wouldn't be able to be noticed by others through a soul gaze.

So in summary yes it sucks, but that 1 refresh is also the main balancing point of playing a wizard in this game.  And if he takes the doom, remember his mentor is also putting his life on the line.  That is why it's so rare, most folks won't put thier life on the line for someone else.  Another option is that everyone keeps it hush hush and makes sure the council never finds out.

[Drachasor]

So in summary yes it sucks, but that 1 refresh is also the main balancing point of playing a wizard in this game.  And if he takes the doom, remember his mentor is also putting his life on the line.  That is why it's so rare, most folks won't put thier life on the line for someone else.  Another option is that everyone keeps it hush hush and makes sure the council never finds out.

Lawbreaking is not the main balancing point of wizards.  The fact they can only do 4 spells in a scene without taking consequences is the main balancing point.  It's not always a great one though.

[bitterpill]

I don't think Lawbreaker is such a bad stunt as long as the white council don't just know you have it the white council aren't everywhere so it would be quite easy to hide your lawbreaking especially in places with on going conflict.

[Drachasor]

You could let your player get rid of the Lawbreaker stunt over time.  Treat it similar to an extreme consequence.  Let the player know with some roleplaying about dealing with what he did he can remove it.  Perhaps toss some compels to use lethal force on humans (though let him know that using that lethal force doesn't mean he has to kill them, but it is his character's corrupting trying to force his hand) -- make sure he has the Fate points to resist if he wants to.  If all goes well, let him get rid of Lawbreaker at the next Major Milestone (assuming that's kind of far away now).

[Wolfwood2]

Does the Lawbreaker Stunt mean anything other than, "Now as punishment, I'm going to force you to play at one less Refresh than all the other player characters.  Their PCs all get 7 Refresh to play with.  You only get 6 because that Lawbreaker Stunt that will never help your character is going to squat like a toad on your character sheet, occupying space uselessly.  Congratulations on having a character that sucks more than everyone else's."

I mean, heck, even an Extreme Consequence is still an Aspect like any other.  It can turn into a Fate point factory and benefit your character.  Lawbreaker is a sucky stunt.  If Lawbreaker could actually help your PC in some fashion other than forcing more lawbreaking on him, it would be a different matter.

[tymire]

so it would be quite easy to hide your lawbreaking especially in places with on going conflict.

Even in places that are not in conflict, just don't do anything to cause notice of it.  For example

(click to show/hide)

mr. scribe and the entire senior council as well as most of the wardens that lived there.

[sinker]

Does the Lawbreaker Stunt mean anything other than, "Now as punishment, I'm going to force you to play at one less Refresh than all the other player characters.  Their PCs all get 7 Refresh to play with.  You only get 6 because that Lawbreaker Stunt that will never help your character is going to squat like a toad on your character sheet, occupying space uselessly.  Congratulations on having a character that sucks more than everyone else's."

I mean, heck, even an Extreme Consequence is still an Aspect like any other.  It can turn into a Fate point factory and benefit your character.  Lawbreaker is a sucky stunt.  If Lawbreaker could actually help your PC in some fashion other than forcing more lawbreaking on him, it would be a different matter.

Lawbreaker can be great if you want it. I played a fledgling neuromancer a while ago and Lawbreaker was a neat way to advance, both mechanically and story-wise. It gave the character some interesting depth and also gave me a frequent advantage, since I was playing a character whose whole premise was based on at least toeing the fourth law all the time.

If the character only killed once, accidentally, and never wants to again then it would be a really sucky power for them to take. As a GM I would likely ask them to change an aspect to represent the mental and social consequences of this single accident and then move on from there.