Law Talk

[Troy]

Because you have your character heroically fighting against the crazy guy with the ax (or something like that) and then the GM says "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that", when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong. Or even the GM actually taking your character away from you for trying to be a hero.

Hmm... maybe I could make this work by imagining that the Lawbreaker bonus in this specific case reflects less homicidal mania and more the sort of psychic conditioning that soldiers get to train them to fight and kill when necessary.

How many people are going to die by your magic because you're "doing the right thing?"

That's the question the White Council's asking when they find you and put you on trial to behead you. That's the question they wrestled with over the centuries. Imagine back in the day before there was a White Council. They probably let people off the hook, trusting that they were sincere when they said "I had not choice" or "It was the right thing to do" or "I didn't mean to." Hundreds of years of this... maybe thousands of years... of mortal practitioners using their power over others, warping their own souls, until Pure Mortals discovered them and the torches and pitch forks came out.

They've seen it before. They've heard it before.
They aren't interested making the mistake of leniency.
I'm not sure how this addresses the issue of the Lawbreaker power... only to say it's a slippery slope...

My main point of contention is that you can find another way to solve the problem rather than breaking one of the Laws of Magic. In my estimate that means that when you break one of the Laws your only complaint should be about your lack of restraint, creativity, or resourcefulness. A great and powerful wizard named Albus Dumbledore once said (I'm paraphrasing): "There will come a time when you will have to make a choice between what is easy and what is right. Choose wisely."

That's what Lawbreaker is about.

[ReaderAt2046]

I think I see the disconnect here. I had forgotten that, as Lucio put it, "The Laws have nothing to do with right or wrong," so I was assuming that breaking the Laws made you evil.

Also, I remembered something I read that seems to present a good parallel. The army discovered a long time ago that all humans have a sort of mental block against killing other humans, hardwired into our emotions. So what they do is they take recruits and they subject them to battlefield conditions: chaos, explosions, noise, etc, and they have them "kill" targets over and over until the very instincts of the soldiers have been rewritten, so that when they are under stress their default setting is "Kill!". All armies have to do that, the good as well as the bad. Perhaps breaking the First Law does the same sort of thing.

[Troy]

I think I see the disconnect here. I had forgotten that, as Lucio put it, "The Laws have nothing to do with right or wrong," so I was assuming that breaking the Laws made you evil.

Also, I remembered something I read that seems to present a good parallel. The army discovered a long time ago that all humans have a sort of mental block against killing other humans, hardwired into our emotions. So what they do is they take recruits and they subject them to battlefield conditions: chaos, explosions, noise, etc, and they have them "kill" targets over and over until the very instincts of the soldiers have been rewritten, so that when they are under stress their default setting is "Kill!". All armies have to do that, the good as well as the bad. Perhaps breaking the First Law does the same sort of thing.

Exactly!

Elsewhere on the forums it's pointed out the Laws are one part "don't do this because it's bad" and one part "this is damages your soul."

I try not to look at things with judgment, I just try to look at the truth of the situation. In the Dresdenverse, certain acts of magic damage a person's soul. That's a fact. It's not a judgment call, it's not saying a Lawbreaker is a bad person or a good person, or evil or saintly. It's saying that some acts of magic change you and if you keep doing it, you're going to be changed forever. Maybe it's like heroine? I don't consider anyone "evil" for using heroine, but I'm not going to pretend that doesn't affect a person in damaging ways.

I think that's the point behind the Lawbreaker Power. It's sort of the reason Batman and Superman won't kill anyone, the reason Wolverine hates killing people, the reason Professor X doesn't rewrite the entire world's minds to love and accept mutant kind, the reason the Sam Winchester is an alcoholic who believes he doesn't deserve happiness. Stuff like that.

[ReaderAt2046]

Two interesting hypothetical scenarios:

1. Does it break the First Law if you kill someone with a spell intended to be non-lethal? (I.e. Wizard John Conrad has a "mystic Tazer" rote that is intended to paralyze and knock out, but sometimes it can cause heart attacks or otherwise kill, just like with a real Tazer.)

2. Do you get the Lawbreaker bonus on spells that don't technically break the Law again, but are very similar thematically? For example, suppose that pretty early on, before getting rid of his Lawbreaker (First) power, Harry goes up against a Red Vamp and tries to blow it up. Would he get the +1 from the Lawbreaker to his attack rolls?

[Tedronai]

Two interesting hypothetical scenarios:

1. Does it break the First Law if you kill someone with a spell intended to be non-lethal?

Yes.  Though, this will only happen if A) the player want it to or B) the GM Compels the player, and the player accepts (a GM compelling a character where the player has no choice but to accept, with the result that the character loses Refresh, is generally considered a 'dick move').

2. Do you get the Lawbreaker bonus on spells that don't technically break the Law again, but are very similar thematically?

Technically, no.  Individual GMs may be more lenient at their discretion.

[toturi]

How many people are going to die by your magic because you're "doing the right thing?"

My main point of contention is that you can find another way to solve the problem rather than breaking one of the Laws of Magic. In my estimate that means that when you break one of the Laws your only complaint should be about your lack of restraint, creativity, or resourcefulness. A great and powerful wizard named Albus Dumbledore once said (I'm paraphrasing): "There will come a time when you will have to make a choice between what is easy and what is right. Choose wisely."

That's what Lawbreaker is about.

Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.

[Hick Jr]

Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.

As a GM, isn't that kind of a dick move to the guy playing the wizard? Railroading him into taking Lawbreaker?

[Tedronai]

It might be (it probably is), but on the other hand, the group may have explicitly asked for a game where such choices were a distinct possibility.

It could happen.

The point being, communication is key - on this issue as with any other.

[Troy]

Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.

I think I will always argue that there is another way as long as the protagonist has something like magic at his disposal. You don't have to damn your soul to save the world. That seems like a weak justification for every bad thing that could happen.

I also find it hard to believe that you couldn't think of an alternative to Lawbreaking in order to stop someone from "holding the world hostage" or "letting it burn."

[toturi]

I think I will always argue that there is another way as long as the protagonist has something like magic at his disposal. You don't have to damn your soul to save the world. That seems like a weak justification for every bad thing that could happen.

I also find it hard to believe that you couldn't think of an alternative to Lawbreaking in order to stop someone from "holding the world hostage" or "letting it burn."

I can make the same argument. But with the caveat that given enough time and resources. I could think of several alternatives but they all require time to prepare or a lot more resources. Which in my example, the character would not have.

[Troy]

I can make the same argument. But with the caveat that given enough time and resources. I could think of several alternatives but they all require time to prepare or a lot more resources. Which in my example, the character would not have.

Making the opposite argument would be like the infamous Kobayashi Maru test of Starfleet. Or even the "lifeboat" game. You would have to construct a scenario and place a rule on me (or yourself) that the only way to resolve this scenario for the win is to use your magic to kill another human being (or otherwise be a Lawbreaker).

That's dramatic, I won't argue with that. And if that's how your group wants to roll, it makes for awesome stories. But it's not the truth. It's a box. It's a fiction you've constructed for your story and it removes a certain amount of agency from the player. And, like James T Kirk, that's what I would argue against.

[Tedronai]

Making the opposite argument would be like the infamous Kobayashi Maru test of Starfleet. Or even the "lifeboat" game. You would have to construct a scenario and place a rule on me (or yourself) that the only way to resolve this scenario for the win is to use your magic to kill another human being (or otherwise be a Lawbreaker).

Well, you'd either have to kill a human with magic, or cheat (ie. use a solution sufficiently far outside the imagined options of the framer of the challenge that they did not prepare for it and so could not prevent its successful implementation).

[toturi]

Making the opposite argument would be like the infamous Kobayashi Maru test of Starfleet. Or even the "lifeboat" game. You would have to construct a scenario and place a rule on me (or yourself) that the only way to resolve this scenario for the win is to use your magic to kill another human being (or otherwise be a Lawbreaker).

That's dramatic, I won't argue with that. And if that's how your group wants to roll, it makes for awesome stories. But it's not the truth. It's a box. It's a fiction you've constructed for your story and it removes a certain amount of agency from the player. And, like James T Kirk, that's what I would argue against.

But it would well be within the bounds of the setting and I would argue even well within the supposed themes of the DFRPG.

[Troy]

But it would well be within the bounds of the setting and I would argue even well within the supposed themes of the DFRPG.

Yes, indeed.

[Hick Jr]

Speaking as a DFRPG player and someone who played a paladin in D&D 3.5, this kind of "do this wrongbad thing or let her die/world burn/villain win" type of thing is infuriating. Really. In DND, taking the bad option turned your character into a joke. Here, it might actually turn him into an NPC. It's dramatic, yes, but it's also hackneyed and extremely rude if your player hasn't already discussed becoming a Lawbreaker, and what that means for his character.