The Laws of Magic and psychic abilities

[UmbraLux]

I used the word spell on purpose. Check out YS page 244 paragraph 8 sentence 3. Or YS page 232 paragraph 5. Or the effects of Lawbreaker, which only boost spellcasting rolls.

While you bring up some good points, you appear to avoid mine.  What is magic / spellcasting?  Harry tells us the Alphas' shapechanging is just a good spell.  He makes similar, if less pointed, statements about most minor talents mentioned.

If Harry is correct, all those minor talents shapechanging and whatever else accomplished by humans are spellcasting.

Of course Harry has been wrong before.  And, from an outsider's view, it appears to be a self serving argument put forth by the White Council as an excuse to enforce their laws.  Which probably explains why the minor talents are so afraid of Harry and other White Council members.  Politics aside, it's how you answer the metaphysical question of "What is my magic?" that decides whether or not it's affected by Lawbreaker status. 

[Vargo Teras]

If Harry were right, and the Alphas were using magic of the same kind that he does, would they not be warlocks?

[sinker]

Nope. The book is clear that bringing yourself a weapon that you then use to kill is not breaking the law, nor is making it easier to kill. Only actions that directly result in a broken law are applicable.

[Sanctaphrax]

Evocation and Thaumaturgy are spellcasting, other powers can be spellcasting if their players choose to flavour them that way.

Still wouldn't require Lawbreaker for weres, even if they chose to be spellcasters. Lawbreaker does absolutely nothing when attached to Beast Change. Since there's no mechanical effect, use an aspect.

[Arcane257]

Sorry if someone already mentioned this but the Book says its a violation here is the text on it.

Psychic Abilities Psychic abilities seem to divide into two types—
ones which are more trouble than they’re worth
(using the Sight can drive you mad; Cassandra’s
Tears is more a source of sorrow than solace),
and those which break the hell out of the Laws
of Magic (Domination being a good example).


Hope that helps.

[sinker]

The one issue is that there's also this:

Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
As enforced, the Laws of Magic are applied
where human victims are involved, but similarly,
they’re primarily applied where human
spellcasters are the ones doing the deeds. This
means that a White Court vampire laying her
sex mojo on a tasty little morsel is not technically
breaking the Fourth Law. This doesn’t mean that
the White Council has to like it, but usually this
is a case where the Accords trump the Laws, at
least as far as the politics and legal maneuverings
are involved.
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind. No
Red Court vampire is going to get slapped with
a Lawbreaker stunt for addicting someone to his
narcotic saliva. To be frank, with all the other
abilities that come along for the ride, he’s already
made himself inhuman enough.

My inclination is that mortality is where the line is drawn, but I could see it interpreted as the power source.

[Orladdin]

I am surprised at all the "The Laws Only Apply to Magic" and "A Human Using Domination Powers Isn't Magic" arguments.

How can a human dominate another without magic?  Just because the title of the power isn't "Evocation" or "Thaumaturgy" doesn't mean it's not magic. 

The Laws apply to humans using supernatural abilities on other humans.  Vampires are not under their purview because vampires are monsters.  Hence Domination being a monster ability as mentioned by sinker and Arcane 257, above.  Monsters do it, but they're monsters and we all agree that The Laws don't apply to them (they're below 0 refresh anyway, no need to tempt them into more corruption -- they'll corrupt themselves more whenever able).

It's not about what group or faction the lawbreaker or their intended target are in.  It's about someone with a soul -- using powers -- to negatively influence other beings that also have souls (or, in the case of Law 7, looking into things that corrupt your own soul by their very nature).


Magic v. Not Magic aside: UmbraLux's argument on morality is, I think, where we should end this argument (going further will just be arguing where the line is, which I think, is group-specific and will simply devolve into "I'm right," "Nuh-uh!" exchanges):

The RPG simply states "Magic is an expression of the person who brings it forth."  It goes on to state "Whether it’s faith or magic, all power comes from the basic nature of the mortal or monster who is using it. Evil brings forth evil, and good brings forth good. We are what we do, and we do what we are."

The books really don't seem to differentiate between types of power.  A 'psychic' who can see through sheet rock and ectomancer with little power are both simply minor talents.  Where both novels and RPG draw a line is between Nature and Choice - between being a monster and being 'mortal' to one degree or another. 
...
But the books are about the choices we make, not the fuel used for a given power.

This is, I think, the most important point here.


Run your game how you and your players agree will be fun and rewarding.  Just remember, The Dresden Files are, in large part, a play about power v. corruption.

[Arcane]

I am surprised at all the "The Laws Only Apply to Magic" and "A Human Using Domination Powers Isn't Magic" arguments.

How can a human dominate another without magic?  Just because the title of the power isn't "Evocation" or "Thaumaturgy" doesn't mean it's not magic. 

The Laws apply to humans using supernatural abilities on other humans.  Vampires are not under their purview because vampires are monsters.  Hence Domination being a monster ability as mentioned by sinker and Arcane 257, above.  Monsters do it, but they're monsters and we all agree that The Laws don't apply to them (they're below 0 refresh anyway, no need to tempt them into more corruption -- they'll corrupt themselves more whenever able).

It's not about what group or faction the lawbreaker or their intended target are in.  It's about someone with a soul -- using powers -- to negatively influence other beings that also have souls (or, in the case of Law 7, looking into things that corrupt your own soul by their very nature).

I would say where this breaks down is White Court Vampires, which do have souls.  They happen to be humans whose souls are unfortunately entwined with a demon which gives them their powers and their Hunger.  They've got souls and they use their powers on people with souls, yet they don't earn the Lawbreaker stunt for doing so.  And they're PC options with a positive Refresh, so the whole argument that they're just monsters who don't have to worry about corruption doesn't apply either.

Another thing to consider is perhaps the reason powers don't earn you Lawbreaker powers is because those powers already encompass them.  It's the same reason you don't need to buy Channeling if you've got Evocation.  The powers are already a better form of Lawbreaker.  Lawbreaker makes you better at breaking a particular Law of Magic?  How much better can you get than being able to do so at will with no stress cost whatsoever?  Powers don't earn you Lawbreaker because the relevant powers are already the uber-form of that Lawbreaker power.

[Sanctaphrax]

No, Orladdin, Lawbreaker only applies to spellcasting. This is made clear in the rules.

So if you say that your Domination ability works through brain-rewiring neurosurgery or something, then there's no Lawbreaker attached.

Shooting a dude in the head breaks no Law, and you can chop people up with your IoP sword and your Supernatural Strength all day without changing an aspect.

[Mr. Death]

As the passage that Sinker linked says, the costs and benefits of Lawbreaking are more or less built into the power. What's the max roll bonus you can get for breaking one law? +2, unless I'm mistaken. What's the bonus that Incite Emotion gives to deceit rolls? +2. Same with Addictive Saliva.

Put it this way:

Does using Domination or Incite Emotion to screw with someone's mind break a Law of Magic? Yes.

Does it mean you take the Lawbreaker power, with its refresh, and spellcasting bonus? No.

Does it mean you have an aspect of yours reflecting and/or twisted by the breaking of the law? Probably.

[Orladdin]

No, Orladdin, Lawbreaker only applies to spellcasting. This is made clear in the rules.

This is a flavoring issue, then; not a mechanical one?

So if you say that your Domination ability works through brain-rewiring neurosurgery or something, then there's no Lawbreaker attached.

Except that such a massive reflavoring isn't covered as RAW.  "Neurosurgery" is not what is priced at X refresh in the DFRPG.  "Domination" is.

Shooting a dude in the head breaks no Law, and you can chop people up with your IoP sword and your Supernatural Strength all day without changing an aspect.

Right in all these cases.  None of these cases cover the application of a "magical force" directly to "possible law-breaking event".  The IoP does the killing in the case of a magic sword (see: warden swords.  items containing magic, yes, but not "magic" themselves).  Same with supernatural strength.  Same with a veil to become invisible which allows you to knife someone in the back.  But as soon as you use that fireball, mind-whammy, time-rewriting balefire, etc, you have broken the laws.

What if you use a clearly law-breaking Thaumaturgy mind-rewriting spell?  What if you use it to rewrite the mind of a blampire?  No longer law-breaking, right?  What if you use that mind-whammy on said blampire to have it murder a human?  What about now?



Like I said above, this is devolving into a "where to draw the line" and "You're wrong / nuh-uh!" contest.  It should always be decided in-group on a case-by-case basis with Intent in mind.

[ways and means]

Well from what we have seen of the psychic powers none of them count as direct magic, addictive saliva is a narcotic, incite emotion is done at least partially through pheromones and suggestion and we have no idea how exactly Renfields are made other than it requires a powerless victims and it takes a day so it could just as easily be torture and infecting the poor sap with vampire blood as anything magical.

[Sanctaphrax]

As a general rule, powers in DFRPG can be flavoured however the heck you want. And whether there exist magical forces that aren't spells is kind of open to interpretation.

[Richard_Chilton]

I would say where this breaks down is White Court Vampires, which do have souls.

Looking at Fred's "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking post (one of the stickies above) it's clear that some White Court Vampires have souls - but most don't.  The exact quote on them having souls is:

Most don't. I think of Thomas -- someone who's actively fighting off his demon, not giving in to it -- as more an exception than a rule.

How do they go from "have soul" to "you can kill them without worrying about the first law"? My guess is it that's multiple law breaker stunts driving them into negative refresh territory.  Thomas doesn't feed like most of his kin and thus is still positive refresh.

Which would make the end of Turn Coat a compromise where the player negotiated for an extreme social consequence (Unfeeling Predator) as opposed to taking all the law breaker stunts that ravaging those Does would have brought.

Richard

[GryMor]

Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
...
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind.

This seems to be definitive