Newbie to the game: Non-Evil Necromancer

[Deadmanwalking]

Kumori doesn't have lawbreaker and she's clearly a necromancer and has used the abilities. In any case, I wasn't looking to butt heads on it. I understand some people might be against the idea but my GM and group think it to be a fun concept and no one sees any mechanical issues with it in the rule book. I was hoping more in input from more experienced players about the selection of skills/items and such for a wizard in their position for someone new to the game

This is almost certainly an error (or a result of the difference between PCs and NPCs), not an intentional statement on how the Laws work. Adding Lawbreaker was one of the last things that got done in OW (and considered more important on PCs than NPCs anyway), and nobody noticed its' absence on Kumori. No, really, I know, I was the one who pointed out it's absence on Grevane. They immediately put it in. Nobody did the same for her.

Indeed, I'll link you: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16539.msg784716.html#msg784716

That said, if you want to and it's fun for your group, go for it. That's by far the most important thing. Way more than any pedantic rules argument.

Personally, I think the Lawbreaker Power shouldn't be mandatory for people who break the Laws. Because having a Wizard PC break a Law and suffer the consequences for that is fun, and the mandatory-ness of the Lawbreaker Power interferes with that story.

So I recommend you just ignore the thing that says you need to take Lawbreaker. Don't let the oddities of the rules get in the way of your game.

Requiring that breaking a Law affect your Aspects is pretty cool, though. Aspect changes are a great way to represent corruption.

I disagree, I think the loss of free will involved in Lawbreaker very neatly models the reality of the books (which is what the game's trying for, obviously), and is quite fun in its own way.

But running a game without it is certainly viable. I would advise consistency, though. Either have it or don't or put a number of times you need to do X to get it, no applying it sporadically...that'd get weird.

[Sanctaphrax]

In game terms, whenever your character crosses the line for the first time-breaking a law that he has not broken before-he must immediately take a new Lawbreaker ability. A Lawbreaker ability is a supernatural power (page 158) that reduces your Refresh by one-you should sit up and take notice here.

[Sanctaphrax]

I disagree, I think the loss of free will involved in Lawbreaker very neatly models the reality of the books (which is what the game's trying for, obviously), and is quite fun in its own way.

It does model the reality in the books fairly well, but it doesn't lead to fun play. Lots of spellcasters have 1 Refresh, so if they break a Law they're instantly turned into NPCs. Which means that (unless you do some rules fiddling of the sort I recommend) you can't have the story where they break a Law and face the consequences.

It's not quite as bad if the spellcaster has spare Refresh, but even then it's not great. It screws around with the balance of the game to reduce one character's Refresh total for no real benefit.

Aspects model the loss of free will just as well (if not better), since Compels compel behaviour. And they don't have the problems that the Power does.

[Oblyss]

This is almost certainly an error (or a result of the difference between PCs and NPCs), not an intentional statement on how the Laws work. Adding Lawbreaker was one of the last things that got done in OW (and considered more important on PCs than NPCs anyway), and nobody noticed its' absence on Kumori. No, really, I know, I was the one who pointed out it's absence on Grevane. They immediately put it in. Nobody did the same for her.

Indeed, I'll link you: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16539.msg784716.html#msg784716

That said, if you want to and it's fun for your group, go for it. That's by far the most important thing. Way more than any pedantic rules argument.

I disagree, I think the loss of free will involved in Lawbreaker very neatly models the reality of the books (which is what the game's trying for, obviously), and is quite fun in its own way.

But running a game without it is certainly viable. I would advise consistency, though. Either have it or don't or put a number of times you need to do X to get it, no applying it sporadically...that'd get weird.

Well here's what I've also read on it.

Actually it’s a pretty excellent question and one that is NOT explicitly stated to my knowledge. It is generally assumed when it comes to the Faerie Knights but there are exceptions. Linked below is a thread on the DFRPG site that debates the various approaches. The book does reference it and I’m pasting that here for clarification:

This quote is from the post-its on p.236
Technically, the Laws of Magic only apply to mortal spellcasters. I haven’t seen either of the Sidhe Knights at the meetings or ice cream socials.

But I think this could be a fertile ground for stories in someone’s game. Like one of the Knights whacks a Council-allied mortal, and there’s a movement inside the Council to apply the Laws to the situation, but the Accords get in the way…Sort of the reverse of what happened in the Death Masks case.

Stars and stones, Billy, my life is complicated enough here without pulling more politics into it!
And this quote is from p.241
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.
FORUM THREAD
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/i...c,18574.0.html

Myself, I agree with a number of the positions.

1) If it is only Sponsored Magic (not a mortal wizard tapping Sponsored for more Oomph) then it really doesn’t come from them and the soul/moral consequences of the Lawbreaker talent doesn’t seem appropriate.

2) It’s going to depend on who the Sponsor is! No Warden is going to claim jurisdiction over a Knight. (And that is explicitly stated in several offers of knighthood to Dresden that they would love to have a Wizard that was not bound by the White Council’s rules. It is also stated that the Wardens would be off his back… it was a conversation with the Faerie Ladies in McAnally’s I think). But the power of the Sponsor and the origin of the Sponsor are going to be very important in the decision-making of the Warden.

3) Is the Sponsor a member of the Accords? If so, then they and their minions do not have to answer to another member except under those terms. What do the Accords say about it? No fricking idea, they’re a plot device.

4) What kind of Sponsored Magic? After all, Kemmlerian is simply magic that delves deeper than others into darkness. Kind of necro-methampheta-magic. Anyone who has dug this deep is no longer worried about the Laws.

5) This is a decision for the group and the GM. Remembering that the use of Magic to break the Laws is something internal as well as external in the game. It implies a blot on your soul, a change in your perception, a step down the path to NPC/madness. Do not use Sponsored Magic as a way to get around the personal effects of the Laws. In fact, if you have someone who is doing so and it's considered "legal" due to the Accords, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to apply the actual character effects to the character. After all, in the end, they simply represent the character becoming less human... And, in the end, isn't that what many of the Sponsors want? Downbelow would love for the person to become less and less human. Same with the Fae. What better temptation from DownBelow than "Burn everyone you want, the Wardens can't touch you."

I honestly just do not see a necromancer having to worry about going insane easily from using the type of magic they specialize in. Cowl, Grevane, and company would have been braindead if it were the case. And also for my group it is not a case of "x times before you break the law" it's just a case of "You can do this without breaking the law, but not this."

[Richard_Chilton]

I understand some people might be against the idea but my GM and group think it to be a fun concept and no one sees any mechanical issues with it in the rule book.

Then the ultimate DFRPG authority has already ruled that your character is legal - that being the table you're playing at.  That philosophy is why there's a thread with official "suggestions" on the first law as opposed to one with a ruling.

That said, if you're replacing your trouble you might think about getting one of those "you've broken the law so often it changes one of your aspects" style thing from the Lawbreaker rules.

Something like:
I Have Power Over Death
I Can Bring Them Back
I Command The Spirits
I Raise The Dead
- to reflect how tempting it is to use forbidden power.  Your PC can do those things and the only reason she doesn't is because the White Council says she shouldn't.

And you might want to reflavour Kemmlerian Necromancy.  Call it "True Death Necromancy" or something like that, because the Kemmlerian Necromancy leads to really batshit crazy stuff.  Every single one of Kemmler's former apprentices came off looking more insane than Cowl and Kumori  - and that's saying something.

Why reflavour it? Because when you use the term on this board people will think about the default "become completely insane" power rather than the variation that your group is using.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/i...c,18574.0.html

Your link is broken.

Here's one that works:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html

PS: The Sponsored Magic thing has been argued a million times and is not going to be resolved here. I suggest not arguing it again.

[ways and means]

Then the ultimate DFRPG authority has already ruled that your character is legal - that being the table you're playing at.  That philosophy is why there's a thread with official "suggestions" on the first law as opposed to one with a ruling.

That said, if you're replacing your trouble you might think about getting one of those "you've broken the law so often it changes one of your aspects" style thing from the Lawbreaker rules.

Something like:
I Have Power Over Death
I Can Bring Them Back
I Command The Spirits
I Raise The Dead
- to reflect how tempting it is to use forbidden power.  Your PC can do those things and the only reason she doesn't is because the White Council says she shouldn't.

And you might want to reflavour Kemmlerian Necromancy.  Call it "True Death Necromancy" or something like that, because the Kemmlerian Necromancy leads to really batshit crazy stuff.  Every single one of Kemmler's former apprentices came off looking more insane than Cowl and Kumori  - and that's saying something.

Why reflavour it? Because when you use the term on this board people will think about the default "become completely insane" power rather than the variation that your group is using.

Richard

Cowl never really came off as mad to me he seemed more like a game theorist to me, his actions all seemed measured and planned.

[Richard_Chilton]

I honestly just do not see a necromancer having to worry about going insane easily from using the type of magic they specialize in. Cowl, Grevane, and company would have been braindead if it were the case.

Personally I consider all of those characters to be insane.

The Kemmlerite were insane.  As in "Why negotiate when I can kill him then break into the morgue (killing a bunch of people) and get what I want" insane.  I see all of them as having all of their aspects twisted by the Lawbreaker power.

In White Knight it strongly hints that Cowl deals with the Outsiders.  That's only one more "I am above the concept of sanity" act that this loony does.

Even Kumori "I go around helping people" is crazy.  Read that conversation she has about how she will banish death from the world.  When Dresden points out the tiny little flaws in her plans (Hitler living forever, vast over population, etc) she completely tunes reality out - because she lives in a world where delusions can come true.

None of those were slobbing at the mouth insane, but they were all insane.

Richard
PS: Edited to address:

Cowl never really came off as mad to me he seemed more like a game theorist to me, his actions all seemed measured and planned.

Cowl believes himself above good and evil, above sanity and insanity.  He cooperates with raising the Dark Hallow because he knows he will make a Just God.  He works with capital E evil types.  The Proto-ghouls, the murdering women who have a touch of talent, the... well, almost everything he does portrays someone who considers himself amoral and asane - which shows how insane he is.

Looking at it another way - if he really has left all mortal moral judgements behind, then he's operating at a level that can't be considered sane.

Richard

[Deadmanwalking]

It does model the reality in the books fairly well, but it doesn't lead to fun play. Lots of spellcasters have 1 Refresh, so if they break a Law they're instantly turned into NPCs. Which means that (unless you do some rules fiddling of the sort I recommend) you can't have the story where they break a Law and face the consequences.

Only if you aren't willing to be flexible. I'd very much let them get by with Refresh 0 for long enough to have a Milestone if they've got good reason to keep going (probably treating it as a temporary power and charging them FP every so often till then). Heck, by any reasonable definition, Harry did something very like this in Changes (though not with Lawbreaker).

It's not quite as bad if the spellcaster has spare Refresh, but even then it's not great. It screws around with the balance of the game to reduce one character's Refresh total for no real benefit.

This is a legitimate issue, and one I myself have a House Rule about: You can use your Lawbreaker bonus whenever doing something that would break the law but doesn't due to a technicality. For example, I'd let Harry get it when killing anything, not just humans, or a Necromancer get it when raising an animal. It never made sense to me that it would behave otherwise. I also allow the bonus to apply to predicting or noticing the behavior of those who also have that particular Lawbreaker (Molly does this in Turn Coat, IMO).

That makes it useful without eliminating the downsides.

Aspects model the loss of free will just as well (if not better), since Compels compel behaviour. And they don't have the problems that the Power does.

The issue there is that while they change the nature of compels you receive, they don't make you need to accept more of them...which is really what less free will is all about.

Well here's what I've also read on it.

Which is legit. This is an old debate (hell I posted in the thread you link over two years ago!)...I was speaking explicitly and only to the use of Kumori as evidence. As Richard_Chilton states, trying to solve the Sponsored Magic/Lawbreaker thing is probably not gonna be that productive...

I honestly just do not see a necromancer having to worry about going insane easily from using the type of magic they specialize in. Cowl, Grevane, and company would have been braindead if it were the case. And also for my group it is not a case of "x times before you break the law" it's just a case of "You can do this without breaking the law, but not this."

Huh? Lawbreaker doesn't make you insane, it makes you the kind of person who does that. It makes you arrogant enough to believe you have the right to do that kind of thing, and gradually subsumes everything else in your life into your use of that kind of Magic (as it changes your Aspects). All of those sound like perfect descriptions of the people in question.

[Sanctaphrax]

Only if you aren't willing to be flexible. I'd very much let them get by with Refresh 0 for long enough to have a Milestone if they've got good reason to keep going (probably treating it as a temporary power and charging them FP every so often till then). Heck, by any reasonable definition, Harry did something very like this in Changes (though not with Lawbreaker).

...

This is a legitimate issue, and one I myself have a House Rule about: You can use your Lawbreaker bonus whenever doing something that would break the law but doesn't due to a technicality. For example, I'd let Harry get it when killing anything, not just humans, or a Necromancer get it when raising an animal. It never made sense to me that it would behave otherwise. I also allow the bonus to apply to predicting or noticing the behavior of those who also have that particular Lawbreaker (Molly does this in Turn Coat, IMO).

That could work.

My houserules aren't the only houserules that could fix the issue.

The issue there is that while they change the nature of compels you receive, they don't make you need to accept more of them...which is really what less free will is all about.

Well, sort of.

Compels affect players, not characters. So "mobsters kidnapped your boyfriend, go rescue him" is just as viable a Compel as "your corrupt nature makes you want to murder people". But the latter affects the free will of your character while the former doesn't. So if your IN DEBT TO THE MOB Aspect changes to I KILL MY PROBLEMS when you fireball the Don, you lose some free will.

[Deadmanwalking]

That could work.

My houserules aren't the only houserules that could fix the issue. 

Indeed. Mine either.

Well, sort of.

Compels affect players, not characters. So "mobsters kidnapped your boyfriend, go rescue him" is just as viable a Compel as "your corrupt nature makes you want to murder people". But the latter affects the free will of your character while the former doesn't. So if your IN DEBT TO THE MOB Aspect changes to I KILL MY PROBLEMS when you fireball the Don, you lose some free will.

I disagree, actually. Being in debt to the mob (or otherwise chained by your obligations to others) is, both mechanically and thematically, at least as much of a way to represent a lack of free will as being a more dangerous/worse person. Indeed, I'd argue it's more of an imposition on your free will, since it actually keeps you from doing as you'd like, while the 'Killing Your Problems' one just defines what you like/want.

[Oblyss]

Your link is broken.

Here's one that works:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html

PS: The Sponsored Magic thing has been argued a million times and is not going to be resolved here. I suggest not arguing it again.

Wow, thread kind of exploded while I was gone.  Thanks for the working link, and I agree with you. I am not a fan of flaming old arguments that can't be resolved. I was merely pointing out my group's current view on the subject. I'm definitely much too tired these days to engage in long internet arguments. I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree here.

Then the ultimate DFRPG authority has already ruled that your character is legal - that being the table you're playing at.  That philosophy is why there's a thread with official "suggestions" on the first law as opposed to one with a ruling.

That said, if you're replacing your trouble you might think about getting one of those "you've broken the law so often it changes one of your aspects" style thing from the Lawbreaker rules.

Something like:
I Have Power Over Death
I Can Bring Them Back
I Command The Spirits
I Raise The Dead
- to reflect how tempting it is to use forbidden power.  Your PC can do those things and the only reason she doesn't is because the White Council says she shouldn't.

And you might want to reflavour Kemmlerian Necromancy.  Call it "True Death Necromancy" or something like that, because the Kemmlerian Necromancy leads to really batshit crazy stuff.  Every single one of Kemmler's former apprentices came off looking more insane than Cowl and Kumori  - and that's saying something.

Why reflavour it? Because when you use the term on this board people will think about the default "become completely insane" power rather than the variation that your group is using.

Richard

Those are good points, it might be a good idea to reflavour it but my GM might want to leave it as is, I'll bring it up to them. And I will take you up on the aspect change, it's a good idea.

Personally I consider all of those characters to be insane.

The Kemmlerite were insane.  As in "Why negotiate when I can kill him then break into the morgue (killing a bunch of people) and get what I want" insane.  I see all of them as having all of their aspects twisted by the Lawbreaker power.

In White Knight it strongly hints that Cowl deals with the Outsiders.  That's only one more "I am above the concept of sanity" act that this loony does.

Even Kumori "I go around helping people" is crazy.  Read that conversation she has about how she will banish death from the world.  When Dresden points out the tiny little flaws in her plans (Hitler living forever, vast over population, etc) she completely tunes reality out - because she lives in a world where delusions can come true.

None of those were slobbing at the mouth insane, but they were all insane.

Richard
PS: Edited to address:
Cowl believes himself above good and evil, above sanity and insanity.  He cooperates with raising the Dark Hallow because he knows he will make a Just God.  He works with capital E evil types.  The Proto-ghouls, the murdering women who have a touch of talent, the... well, almost everything he does portrays someone who considers himself amoral and asane - which shows how insane he is.

Looking at it another way - if he really has left all mortal moral judgements behind, then he's operating at a level that can't be considered sane.

Richard

I don't see that as insane at all, corrupted yes but insane to me is an entirely different bag of stuff. Well, I'm not saying they're perfectly sane. But I'm also not saying they're any more insane than an average healthy individual can be. I think whenever you give someone powers like that, you're opening them up to all kinds of ideas that to us seem insane because we live in a non magical world. Where as for them, they can accomplish the impossible. That's one of the definitions of thaumaturgy in the rule book.

I'm not saying they're right either. I'm just saying most of them don't seem to have lost control of themselves by any means. Of course the corruption in the RPG isn't just about sanity, it's about how much freedom over your core nature you have. Which means you can be perfectly sane but just not in control of your fate anymore.

Huh? Lawbreaker doesn't make you insane, it makes you the kind of person who does that. It makes you arrogant enough to believe you have the right to do that kind of thing, and gradually subsumes everything else in your life into your use of that kind of Magic (as it changes your Aspects). All of those sound like perfect descriptions of the people in question.

Well my character would go 'insane' or however you'd like to put it, losing control of themselves for simply doing the type of magic they've been trained to do for years due to only having one refresh. It doesn't seem right that they'd drop down every time for simply using their main magic.

Though I am refreshing myself on Lawbreaking power and it may not be as bad as I previously thought, I was under the impression that it would have crazy refresh cost repeatedly instead of a limit cap on each law. It might actually be good to include it at the start, I'll bring it up to my GM, they'll probably agree after we discuss it. Am I correct on this? The refresh cost caps at -2 for each law then it merely changes your aspects?  If so that would be a good way to start off, one violation wouldn't instantly make me turn into an NPC and it'd symbolize my character being young and fighting the corruption, but becoming more in control after a milestone passed. They'd still corrupted from then on out (aspect changes) but not in fear of losing control of themselves, only changing into something else.

[Deadmanwalking]

Wow, thread kind of exploded while I was gone.  Thanks for the working link, and I agree with you. I am not a fan of flaming old arguments that can't be resolved. I was merely pointing out my group's current view on the subject. I'm definitely much too tired these days to engage in long internet arguments. I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree here.

Yay!  A consensus has been reached on this issue.   

Those are good points, it might be a good idea to reflavour it but my GM might want to leave it as is, I'll bring it up to them. And I will take you up on the aspect change, it's a good idea.

Seems reasonable, yeah.

I don't see that as insane at all, corrupted yes but insane to me is an entirely different bag of stuff. Well, I'm not saying they're perfectly sane. But I'm also not saying they're any more insane than an average healthy individual can be. I think whenever you give someone powers like that, you're opening them up to all kinds of ideas that to us seem insane because we live in a non magical world. Where as for them, they can accomplish the impossible. That's one of the definitions of thaumaturgy in the rule book.

I'm not saying they're right either. I'm just saying most of them don't seem to have lost control of themselves by any means. Of course the corruption in the RPG isn't just about sanity, it's about how much freedom over your core nature you have. Which means you can be perfectly sane but just not in control of your fate anymore.

I agree with this. They're not insane in any normal sense of the word, they're monsters driven by their nature...but that's not quite the same thing.

Well my character would go 'insane' or however you'd like to put it, losing control of themselves for simply doing the type of magic they've been trained to do for years due to only having one refresh. It doesn't seem right that they'd drop down every time for simply using their main magic.

Though I am refreshing myself on Lawbreaking power and it may not be as bad as I previously thought, I was under the impression that it would have crazy refresh cost repeatedly instead of a limit cap on each law. It might actually be good to include it at the start, I'll bring it up to my GM, they'll probably agree after we discuss it. Am I correct on this? The refresh cost caps at -2 for each law then it merely changes your aspects?  If so that would be a good way to start off, one violation wouldn't instantly make me turn into an NPC and it'd symbolize my character being young and fighting the corruption, but becoming more in control after a milestone passed. They'd still corrupted from then on out (aspect changes) but not in fear of losing control of themselves, only changing into something else.

Yep. There's a solid cap there. Also, if you're actually gonna use it, Lawbreaker is actually pretty nice mechanically. +2 Control to every single roll you make using Necromancy either Evocation or Thaumaturgy? That's not bad at all.

And front-loading it is definitely the way I'd do that, yeah. Indeed, my first post pointing out your lack of it was intended to suggest something like this...apparently very poorly. Sorry about that.

[Oblyss]

Yep. There's a solid cap there. Also, if you're actually gonna use it, Lawbreaker is actually pretty nice mechanically. +2 Control to every single roll you make using Necromancy either Evocation or Thaumaturgy? That's not bad at all.

And front-loading it is definitely the way I'd do that, yeah. Indeed, my first post pointing out your lack of it was intended to suggest something like this...apparently very poorly. Sorry about that.

No worries, I may have misunderstood and I definitely misunderstood the rule to some degree. I was under the impression it was going to start dropping my refresh like crazy every single time I tried to do what my character does. Starting off with lawbreaker -1 means a bit of careful sailing until my first refresh point.

I still need to figure out how to set up my items, but my aspects and powers seem about complete now.

[DFJunkie]

A couple thoughts now that the conversation has gotten rolling.

I don't want to butt into your game too much, but being an active, practicing, still-breaking-the-Laws Necromancer while maintaining council membership is dicey.  If your character is found out she will be hunted and killed by insanely powerful wizards.  The ways around this (while keeping your character pretty much as statted) are:

1) You haven't used Necromancy on a human being in a long time.  Whether or not Lawbreaker goes away over time is one of those "talk to your GM about it" topics.  If we assume your character was a Kemmlerite 50+ years ago and stopped with the full-blown Necromancy when she came over to the Council there's a pretty strong argument to be made that the "taint" would dissipate.

2) You're newer to Necromancy.  Maybe instead of being involved in Kemmler's actual circle you were trained by one of his apprentices after his death, and betrayed that master rather than Kemmler himself to the council.  If that was the case it's also possible that your character never got to actually use her powers on a human corpse, thus dodging lawbreaker.

Outside of that, another angle you might want to look into is that your character is a full-blown Necromancer who continues to practice, but you have something over the council.  Kemmler was, to quote Bob, a certified nightmare.  It is possible that, by the end, the Council would be willing to deal with just about anyone to get a shot at taking him out.  Maybe a couple of the Senior Council are willing to not just accept you as a member, but also cover for future Lawbreaking on your part, and were willing to swear that on their power, or otherwise give you some leverage to use against them.  Now, in this case you might have refresh problems, so maybe talk to your GM about either being in the hole for 2 refresh or learning full-blown Kemmlerian necromancy later.  Or something.