Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[toturi]

Concerning the OP's scenario: Isn't there some rule about conceding before the dice are rolled?

[Tedronai]

Concerning the OP's scenario: Isn't there some rule about conceding before the dice are rolled?

you can't concede after the dice are rolled in an attack that would mandate a 'taken out' result
the OP's scenario specified an attack of equal to or less than 13 stress: not enough to mandate such a result on a previously un-consequenced target

there is, however, a rule about concessions being negotiated, and refusable

[sinker]

I have two issues with this by RAW. If they are random mooks, then it's likely that they don't have the commitment to the conflict necessary to have consequences. In that case a 13 would mandate a taken out result and the player would be well within his rights to demand his "taken out" result. The other issue is, as stated before concessions are a negotiation with everyone involved. The player would be well within his rights to flat out refuse a concession that led to mortal death and in addition the whole group would have to agree on this action. As the GM you would have to convince everyone at the table that this player deserved what you were springing on him.

From a less RAW and more personal standpoint I'm honestly kind of appalled that this is even an issue. If the GM and the players are simply honest with each other this kind of thing is never an issue. I now this is not always the nerd's strong point but you really need to talk to your players and make sure that everyone's intent is very clear.

[nearchus]

I have two issues with this by RAW. If they are random mooks, then it's likely that they don't have the commitment to the conflict necessary to have consequences. In that case a 13 would mandate a taken out result and the player would be well within his rights to demand his "taken out" result.

This is not strictly true. The rules for "Taken Out" are not that the player gets to choose any result. The rule is that they may "demand" a reasonable result. The player is more than welcome to consistently use lethal force on mortals and claim that they'll only be knocked out if the rest of the table feels that this is reasonable.

With that said, I'd find it reasonable that in some cases people die and in others they get horrible burns (or miraculously survive relatively unharmed). After all, the outcome of horrific attacks are generally unpredictable and the rules are meant to simulate this. I wouldn't find it reasonable that only the targets that the player wanted to kill died and everyone else conveniently survived. And I wouldn't find it reasonable if it consistently turned out that people survived lethal attacks. If a player wants to play a reckless character that uses lethal force to take down their opponents on every occasion then I assume they're playing a reckless character for a reason. That is, that they want consequences for that recklessness and not total immunity to the problems that come with being a psychopath who flings fireballs into crowds of people (keep in mind that while the *player* knows he won't kill anyone, the character cannot possibly know that will be the result.)

But I feel like the game already handles this well enough. If the table feels that the "taken out" results are reasonable, then it's fine. Everyone is having fun and that's just the style of game they want to play. If they don't feel it's reasonable, then the collected group of players should discuss what they would all find reasonable. If one person finds it reasonable and they don't understand why it isn't, then I'd suggest the entire gaming group discuss with them what type of game they're attempting to play.

[Tallyrand]

a weapon:6 sleep spell, for instance
or a weapon:6 heat-stroke spell

Ok, I've noticed this argument before and it's beginning to drive me nuts.  Both of those examples could EASILY kill people and the more popular one, the 'Sleep' spell is actually a canon example of a seemingly innocuous spell that will be lethal if taken to extremes in the example of Agatha Hagglethorne.  I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.

[Vine]

This tends to drift into the old D&D problem of "if it has stats I can kill it!"  Just because the rules allow for you to be throwing 8, 9, or 10 shifts of power into your aggressive evocations, why are you, especially around mortals?  Harry is in the top 20 or so wizards when it comes to raw power, often has a bit of fallout when it comes to his big spells due to his lack of control.  Why is every Tom, Dick and, uh, Melvin throwing around Senior Council worthy evocations all the time.  It strikes me that those big spells should be saved for situations that call for really big spells and dramatic effects.
Just my thoughts on the story-based issue involved.

Thoughts for keeping it in line:
Especially for White Council characters who intended to play it straight.  Invoke and compel those aspects against them.  Using lethal force against mortals should be unpalatable to most people and an act against their nature.
People who fling major power around indiscriminately should be regarded by people who know about them as maniacs and it will discourage people from working with and helping them.  A lot of the supernatural world is political and social, reckless use of magic will seriously damage your credibility in any sort of tactful situation.

[kihon]

While I may agree with most of the comments, I think they are missing the point of the post (somewhat).  Apparently the "poster" is asking HOW to give teeth to "The Laws."  How to keep wizards in check.  Perhaps someone cares to answer that question more directly, because I've seen the same thing.  A wizard in combat, that absolutely decides what his spells do, is pretty tough to deal with.  Not take out, but even to give a tough challenge.  Of course the whole game is aimed at wizards, but that's besides the point.

[Drachasor]

Ok, I've noticed this argument before and it's beginning to drive me nuts.  Both of those examples could EASILY kill people and the more popular one, the 'Sleep' spell is actually a canon example of a seemingly innocuous spell that will be lethal if taken to extremes in the example of Agatha Hagglethorne.  I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.

Agatha Hagglethorne is hardly a good example to go by here for a sleep spell.  She was TRYING to kill those babies (and she was a ghost).  For what it is worth, most people can't use an evocation to do a sleep spell, imho (you'd need thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation to do it).  Heatstroke seems reasonable.

I think you are being a bit silly here, as you seem to be demanding that the only way players can knock someone out is by using...what...weapon 1 attacks?  Oh, no, that's like stabbing someone with a dinner knife, I think.  Weapon 0?  Well, people can be beaten to death.  I think that's a bit ridiculous.  If a spell is specifically designed to be non-lethal, then it should be treated as such.

[DFJunkie]

I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.

Harry's force ring.  Check YS 280, the ring is stated to be Weapon:4 and if you recall Harry uses it to take out an uzi armed thug in the park at the beginning of Summer Knight.  As he's doing so his internal monologue is going on about hitting the guy a glancing blow, so he's only knocked out and not killed, which is the player's way of Taking Out the gunman without killing him.

[Bruce Coulson]

Overwhelming numbers.  In waves.  That's the basic method.  But there are others...

Put the wizard in situations where magic is not an answer.  Social settings and combat.

Really tough opponents who require knowledge, not just raw force, to overcome.

Moral dilemmas; you've just stopped a cult, and the teenaged half-demon son of the cult's worship is charging at you, screaming you've killed his father.  The son hasn't done anything seriously wrong; he's been kept away at boarding school in preparation for something.

Other casters.  A necromancer can block and counter many spells, while having undead try and rip your throat out.

Also, see what the other players want out of the game. 

[zenten]

Ogres.  Lots of ogres 

[Wolfwood2]

If I were the referee and I wanted to challenge the player to think about the consequences of his PC's actions, the last thing I would do would be to outright kill those mortals.  That's far too easy.  However, neither would I allow him to take them out in order to 'just knock them out'.

What I would do is load the mortals down with enough Consequences to withstand the attack.  An Extreme consequence of 'Horrific Burns', a severe of 'Scorched Lungs', and a moderate of 'Agonizing Pain' ought to be enough to do the job.  Naturally they wouldn't be interested in fighting after that and will concede against any further attack.

So the PC isn't a lawbreaker.  There's no permanent change to his character.  Yet at the same time he's done horrific damage to human beings and he knows it and will have to live with that.  So sure, I'd never force Lawbreaker on anybody's PC, but nor am I barred from having my NPCs take any Consequences appropriate in order to drive home the... well, the Consequences of the PC's actions.

I view the decision to take consequences as a metagame one, and so appropriate in this case.

[tymire]

Fyi 

"Unlike heat cramps and heat exhaustion, two other forms of hyperthermia that are less severe, heat stroke is a true medical emergency that can be fatal if not properly and promptly treated."  -  MedicineNet.com

So that really isn't an option.....

Overkill, with extreme consequences can also bring up the never fun revenge situation.  You know the one which everyone says is completely unfair, where 1 relative out of those 15 folks you just put in the hospital for life believes what happens and decides to snipe the wizard character (this is assuming the 15 folks aren't just scared for life and don't decide to kill him themselves).

[Wolfwood2]

Overkill, with extreme consequences can also bring up the never fun revenge situation. 

I trust you mean "the always fun revenge situation".  It may not be fun for the character, but you wouldn't run it if it weren't going to be fun for the player!

[Drachasor]

Fyi 

"Unlike heat cramps and heat exhaustion, two other forms of hyperthermia that are less severe, heat stroke is a true medical emergency that can be fatal if not properly and promptly treated."  -  MedicineNet.com

So that really isn't an option.....

That's just a semantic quibble.  People are really meaning Heat Exhaustion here.