ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: MijRai on February 15, 2011, 06:44:20 PM

Title: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: MijRai on February 15, 2011, 06:44:20 PM
Does Lord Raith qualify for Lawbreaker? We know he has killed with magic, and used Outsiders to do so. (For those who don't remember he was involved with the ritual spell that killed one of the pornographic models in Blood Rites, and we can't forget Harry's mom. And since the ritual was backed by an Outsider, it seems like a 7th Law violation as well)
White Court Vampires do have some kind of soul, as near as we can tell (Thomas and Lara have been soulgazed in front of us), so it seems logical it can be tainted by dark magic.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Moriden on February 15, 2011, 06:49:06 PM
Can non-humans get lawbreaker?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Tsukiomi on February 15, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
I would say its up to the gm to determine wheter they qualify. I personally would say they can.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: KOFFEYKID on February 15, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
I had this to say on the topic:

Rituals like the one Lord Raith did dont necessarily require any personal magic to work them. You are just performing a sequence of nonmagical events which gets the attention of an outsider who'll do you a good turn for following the instructions. Technically, if Harry's explanation is true and my logic holds up, you dont get a lawbreaker because you didn't use magic.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: sinker on February 15, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
The white council's laws do not apply, however the metaphysical truths behind them might. He's already a predator who has no compunction with destroying lives to get what he wants though, so I'd likely say that he's a little beyond lawbreaker.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: sinker on February 15, 2011, 06:55:17 PM
I had this to say on the topic:

Rituals like the one Lord Raith did dont necessarily require any personal magic to work them. You are just performing a sequence of nonmagical events which gets the attention of an outsider who'll do you a good turn for following the instructions. Technically, if Harry's explanation is true and my logic holds up, you dont get a lawbreaker because you didn't use magic.

Except the law is against any knowledge of outsiders. By simply asking for that power, you're breaking that law. Plus the thing with outsiders is more lovecraftian with the whole "if you are thinking of them you're bringing them closer, giving them power" sort of thing.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Katarn on February 15, 2011, 07:47:48 PM
The white council's laws do not apply, however the metaphysical truths behind them might. He's already a predator who has no compunction with destroying lives to get what he wants though, so I'd likely say that he's a little beyond lawbreaker.

Pretty sure the Laws don't apply to him, since he's not a mortal per se.  However, the Wardens would take him down anyways for being a Vampire.  I'd say they'd also whack anyone for messing around with the Outsiders.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: kihon on February 15, 2011, 08:23:00 PM
The White Council's laws do not apply to him.  Lord Raith is not even human.  End of story.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: zenten on February 15, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
The White Council's laws do not apply to him.  Lord Raith is not even human.  End of story.

We're not talking about the White Council's laws, we're asking if he should get the Lawbreaker stunt.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Katarn on February 15, 2011, 08:38:31 PM
We're not talking about the White Council's laws, we're asking if he should get the Lawbreaker stunt.

Hmmm... I'd contend sometimes.  Killing, at least, is part of his nature as a "monster"- it's a bigger deal for mortals I think, so they get lawbreaker.  However, some of the more "hard-core" Laws like the Outsider Law could warrant it.  I think his numerous abilities cover the costs of killing and some laws related to his nature already.  So I'd say Mind-Messing and Killing Laws wouldn't apply.  Other Laws not related to his nature (such as Outsiders) I could see an argument for.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: zenten on February 15, 2011, 08:52:46 PM
Hmmm... I'd contend sometimes.  Killing, at least, is part of his nature as a "monster"- it's a bigger deal for mortals I think, so they get lawbreaker.  However, some of the more "hard-core" Laws like the Outsider Law could warrant it.  I think his numerous abilities cover the costs of killing and some laws related to his nature already.  So I'd say Mind-Messing and Killing Laws wouldn't apply.  Other Laws not related to his nature (such as Outsiders) I could see an argument for.

Well, he pretty clearly has a negative refresh, so it's just a question of if he gets the bonus from the Lawbreaker power.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: devonapple on February 15, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
White Court Vampires, even the nice ones, already have a DEMON inside them. DEMON! A shiny, silvery, evil evil demon! What could possibly be worse than having that Hunger inside you, motivating you to seduce, ensnare, trap and kill mortals? At that point, 7th Law is mostly about alliances and short-term thinking than it could possibly be about a tainted psyche.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 15, 2011, 09:05:21 PM
Quote
We're not talking about the White Council's laws, we're asking if he should get the Lawbreaker stunt.

I'm pretty sure one begets the other, but I'm going with no. He's not mortal and not subject to the laws of the White Council (although the Evil Eye Cult he supplied the ritual with would be subject to those Laws and Lawbreaker stunts, which I believe they gave Madge Shelley). I also agree with Koffeykid's reasoning as it is also my own understanding of the source material. Rituals such as what Lord Raith and the Evil Eye Cult did are similar to magic vending machines. You put in the offering and the intent and in return get the power. That's the reason the White Council tries to publish new rituals, since it makes it harder on the being supplying the power and you end up getting weaker results or no results at all.

Side Note: In Back Up, since Lara and Thomas are Venators, do you think that Lord Raith may have used knowledge gleaned through that connection to get his ritual and maybe even his anti-magic shield that seems to be supplied by He Who Walks Behind?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 15, 2011, 09:21:03 PM
The Laws of Magic are specifically applied to mortals.  As, I would assume, are any Stunts that might stem from them.  So, Lord Raith is a monster; but not a Lawbreaker in either the legal White Council sense or the Lawbreaker sense.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: devonapple on February 15, 2011, 09:32:17 PM
So, Lord Raith is a monster; but not a Lawbreaker in either the legal White Council sense or the Lawbreaker sense.

But, and I don't think any of us is disagreeing, he may still be an Enemy or at least a Threat for such actions.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 15, 2011, 09:37:05 PM
Absolutely.  In fact, it's quite possible that the rest of the White Court (although they would never admit this) was quite happy with the outcome.  Being one of the major powers on Earth means it's hardly in their interest to support actions that threaten to end all of existence as we (and they) know it.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Drachasor on February 15, 2011, 10:09:10 PM
Does Lord Raith qualify for Lawbreaker? We know he has killed with magic, and used Outsiders to do so. (For those who don't remember he was involved with the ritual spell that killed one of the pornographic models in Blood Rites, and we can't forget Harry's mom. And since the ritual was backed by an Outsider, it seems like a 7th Law violation as well)
White Court Vampires do have some kind of soul, as near as we can tell (Thomas and Lara have been soulgazed in front of us), so it seems logical it can be tainted by dark magic.

He has Lawbreaker 7 from his immunity to magic, I think.  Harry describes Raith's defenses as very mordite-like.  I have the distinct impression that White Court was discretely working for the Black Council due to Lore Raith being an ally and Harry screwed that all up.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: vultur on February 16, 2011, 09:09:56 AM
WCVs certainly don't get Lawbreaker for their inherent mind-bending abilities (Incite Emotion/Emotional Vampire); it is never stated if a WCV with 'True Magic' abilities (Channeling/Ritual or Evocation/Thaumaturgy) gets them. I would tend to think not ... I think Vitto Malvora would have had it on his sheet if any WCV could.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Drachasor on February 16, 2011, 09:16:02 AM
WCVs certainly don't get Lawbreaker for their inherent mind-bending abilities (Incite Emotion/Emotional Vampire); it is never stated if a WCV with 'True Magic' abilities (Channeling/Ritual or Evocation/Thaumaturgy) gets them. I would tend to think not ... I think Vitto Malvora would have had it on his sheet if any WCV could.

One could consider that an oversight on his sheet.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Kommisar on February 16, 2011, 07:08:50 PM
Or that he, and maybe other vampires, don't actually have True Magic?  That they are really throwing around a form of sponsored magic from some outside source.  Of course, this completely depends on one's view/stance of the nature of sponsored magic and accruing lawbreaker status.  Which, for the record, I still hold that purely sponsored magic does not.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: sinker on February 16, 2011, 08:18:13 PM
Looking at it strictly from a GM standpoint (since lord Raith is clearly in the negative refresh) does he have any abilities that would benefit from the lawbreaker power? Not really. So I'd leave it off.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Richard_Chilton on February 16, 2011, 09:07:02 PM
Looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, the metaphysical side of the Laws of Magic is the effects of black magic warping the human using it.  We can debate if it warps his mind, his soul, or his magic, but it warps the human using it.

Once a WCV has surrendered (or formed an alliance) with his demon, he's effectively no longer human.  He has a hybrid demon/human mind, soul, and magic.  Taking about the Laws of Magic and non-humans makes as much sense as comparing boat design to airplane design - there are some similarities (you have to take resist into account) but there are more differences (air resistance vs water resistance, lift vs buoyancy, etc).

If I'm right in this in, the Thomas could get the Law Breaker stunts the vast majority of his family can't.

Why do I think that the laws only apply to humans? Because fairies break them all the time.

Of course this is just my opinion, but it makes sense to me.

Richard
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Katarn on February 16, 2011, 09:35:52 PM
I'd go with Richard on this one.  Mab calls Thomas "mortal" (in respect to love), so it goes back to the man v. monster debate (the whole point of refresh)- Lawbreaker would bring him closer to monsterhood, and his refresh approaches that as well.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 16, 2011, 09:40:42 PM
Looking at it from the political standpoint, enforcement is impossible.

The White Council is the representative of, and responsible for, mortal spellcasters.  Under the Accords, the White Council has no authority whatsoever over the actions of members of other signatories (such as the White Court).  Attempting to enforce Council laws on a member of the White Court would be breach of the Accords.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 16, 2011, 10:36:11 PM
Quote
I'd go with Richard on this one.  Mab calls Thomas "mortal" (in respect to love), so it goes back to the man v. monster debate (the whole point of refresh)- Lawbreaker would bring him closer to monsterhood, and his refresh approaches that as well.

Mab said he's mortal enough to be the Winter Knight because he can love, and that was good enough for her. Who knows how that would imbalance things for the Winter/Summer War.

Here's an interesting question: Say, Marcone hires a mortal wizard who has no problem breaking the Laws of Magic. Would the White Council invite an act of War by trying to enforce their own laws on a Signatory of the Accords, or do you think that would fall to the Blackstaff to deal with?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: devonapple on February 16, 2011, 10:45:32 PM
Here's an interesting question: Say, Marcone hires a mortal wizard who has no problem breaking the Laws of Magic. Would the White Council invite an act of War by trying to enforce their own laws on a Signatory of the Accords, or do you think that would fall to the Blackstaff to deal with?

I'd imagine the Mortal is still eligible for the Lawbreaker Stunts, but the White Council's hands would be simultaneously tied (out of their jurisdiction) and clean (not their problem). There might be Summits, of course, to no avail, so long as Marcone stands firm.

But if Marcone's Mercenary Wizard was becoming a high-profile nuisance to the White Council, then Steps may need to be Taken.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 16, 2011, 10:57:37 PM
Quote
I'd imagine the Mortal is still eligible for the Lawbreaker Stunts, but the White Council's hands would be simultaneously tied (out of their jurisdiction) and clean (not their problem). There might be Summits, of course, to no avail, so long as Marcone stands firm.

But if Marcone's Mercenary Wizard was becoming a high-profile nuisance to the White Council, then Steps may need to be Taken.

Man, that would be a fun scenario to play out.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: UmbraLux on February 16, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
I'd imagine the Mortal is still eligible for the Lawbreaker Stunts, but the White Council's hands would be simultaneously tied (out of their jurisdiction) and clean (not their problem). There might be Summits, of course, to no avail, so long as Marcone stands firm.

But if Marcone's Mercenary Wizard was becoming a high-profile nuisance to the White Council, then Steps may need to be Taken.
The White Council went to war against a much more powerful signatory with less reason.  They'll simply claim the rogue wizard is a member of the WC and subject to it whether he wishes to be or not.  Remember,
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 16, 2011, 11:38:46 PM
In the case of Marcone, the White Council might go ahead and take action, and then pay any penalty clauses the Accords require.  Marcone is a Freeholding Lord; his rights may have to be respected, but there's a limit to how much shenanigans any of the Major Powers will put up with.

Now, things might get interesting if aforementioned mortal spellcaster is linked to a Major Player.  Not only are the Accords in place, but the 'nation' is capable of serious retaliation.

An even more interesting question.  A Denarian who is also a spell caster breaks numerous laws while linked with their demon.  They have a change of heart and give up the coin.  Are they a Lawbreaker?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Richard_Chilton on February 16, 2011, 11:40:33 PM
I'd imagine the Mortal is still eligible for the Lawbreaker Stunts, but the White Council's hands would be simultaneously tied (out of their jurisdiction) and clean (not their problem). There might be Summits, of course, to no avail, so long as Marcone stands firm.

If you are a mortal with magical power then you are under the jurisdiction of the White Council.

Let's Lea said "F U Mab! I'm working for Marcone now and there's not a thing you can do about it!" - do you think that:
A) Mab would say "curses, foiled by my own accords", or
B) Point out where it says page X, clause Y, that once you're part of a signatory (i.e. the Winter Court) that you can't just declare you're part of another one?

I could even see Mab insisting that Marcone pay Wergild for his role in things - since he is trespassing on her turf by luring away one of her hirelings...


But say that Marcone gets a wizard and keeps him under wraps (i.e. the White Court doesn't know about him) - then the Wardens wouldn't be knocking on his door but the Wizard would still have to take the Law Breaker Stunts.

Richard
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 16, 2011, 11:53:54 PM
Quote
If you are a mortal with magical power then you are under the jurisdiction of the White Council.

Says who? The White Council? What about wizarding traditions that existed before the White Council? Maybe there were others that just plain old didn't want to be part of their organization. Maybe it's my fault for thinking of the White Council like the Jedi Order.

Quote
Let's Lea said "F U Mab! I'm working for Marcone now and there's not a thing you can do about it!" - do you think that:
A) Mab would say "curses, foiled by my own accords", or
B) Point out where it says page X, clause Y, that once you're part of a signatory (i.e. the Winter Court) that you can't just declare you're part of another one?

I could even see Mab insisting that Marcone pay Wergild for his role in things - since he is trespassing on her turf by luring away one of her hirelings...

The way you base that argument, any mortal caster born after the White Council signed their charter for the Unseelie Accords would be under the protection of the White Council, regardless of their personal traditions or if they believe in the White Council's values or authority to govern them. Man, I really hate Big Magical Government

Quote
But say that Marcone gets a wizard and keeps him under wraps (i.e. the White Court doesn't know about him) - then the Wardens wouldn't be knocking on his door but the Wizard would still have to take the Law Breaker Stunts.

Absolutely. I see the Law Breaker stunts as corruption of the mortal soul.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: devonapple on February 17, 2011, 12:00:40 AM
Part of the White Council's obligation to the Unseelie Accords is to police their own, because the other Signatories view mortal spellcasters as a White Council problem. If a mortal spellcaster proves a nuisance to other Signatories, there are Consequences for the White Council. That said, there must be some provision for switching to another Signatory.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 17, 2011, 12:08:58 AM
 I can't imagine Mab (described as the ultimate rules-lawyer) not considering the possibility of switching affiliations.

Since technically, all a mortal spellcaster has to do is take a coin to become a member of the Blackened Denarius, and thus a member of another signatory.

The question is, how easy is it?  Perhaps it requires the permission of both parties to allow for a legal (under the Accords) switch.  References are made to making wizards Red Court vampires during the War (or at least the possibility), but it's not clear that this happened very often previously.

I could see all the Signatories making it very difficult to get out from under one jurisdiction into another, for a lot of reasons.  So, probably for Marcone to legally have his own pet spell caster would require the White Council to sign off on the transfer...and I'm sure there would be a LOT of conditions attached, even if they allowed it.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 17, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
Quote
I can't imagine Mab (described as the ultimate rules-lawyer) not considering the possibility of switching affiliations.

Since technically, all a mortal spellcaster has to do is take a coin to become a member of the Blackened Denarius, and thus a member of another signatory.

The question is, how easy is it?  Perhaps it requires the permission of both parties to allow for a legal (under the Accords) switch.  References are made to making wizards Red Court vampires during the War (or at least the possibility), but it's not clear that this happened very often previously.

I could see all the Signatories making it very difficult to get out from under one jurisdiction into another, for a lot of reasons.  So, probably for Marcone to legally have his own pet spell caster would require the White Council to sign off on the transfer...and I'm sure there would be a LOT of conditions attached, even if they allowed it.

Having an actual sign off transfer seems kind of cumbersome, even for Mab. Perhaps it's more of a metaphysical thing,
(click to show/hide)

Maybe it's as easy as saying "I'm with Winter now." Obviously there would be issues. For instance, since Elaine Mallory seems to have signed herself up with Summer. Would there have to be some kind of paper work that the White Council would have to sign off on saying "Oops, know that big hubub with your new star Warden killing his first master? Remember that Master having two apprentices? Yeah, about that. She's not really dead, doesn't want to have anything to do with you, and is hiding over here. kthnxbai."
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: bobjob on February 17, 2011, 12:20:53 AM
Only reason I say it that way is, true Mab is a rules lawyer, but I can't see the Red Court and White Council having a sit down pow wow to discuss the wizards the Red Court turned during their war.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 17, 2011, 12:30:04 AM
Warfare undoubtedly changes a lot of the rules, and switching sides (voluntarily or otherwise) is handled under those rules, rather than the peacetime Accords.

I also imagine it depends on how important/powerful the being switching is, to both sides.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: vultur on February 17, 2011, 12:49:39 AM
Well, the majority of possible switches are pretty obvious (becoming a Faerie Knight, being turned into a vampire). I would tend to think those sorts of things cause an automatic switch without any formalities. Similarly I think fully taking up a Denarian coin automatically makes you a Denarian rather than whatever else -- there don't seem to be any Council issues with frying them by magic, so they clearly aren't considered humans in that sense. Stuff like wizards enthralled by the White Court --are they responsible for their actions under the Laws? -- is a more open question.

I have a feeling a wizard hired by Marcone would be beholden to *both*, though. And the White Council would feel free to act with a pretty heavy hand (maybe through the Blackstaff, but not necessarily) since Marcone is a very minor power.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: rickayelm on February 17, 2011, 01:40:35 AM
I think that they would be responsible to both Marcone and the White council. Just like Miss Gard has responcibilities to both Marcone and The Monoc corporations leader(two different freeholding lords).
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: toturi on February 17, 2011, 04:18:09 AM
We do not know exactly what is in the Accords. Mab is essentially a statless NPC. We do not know how "ultimate" her rules-lawyering really is.

The difficulty here is whether the GM is going to allow a PC to get the better of Mab or any such NPC of her stature.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Richard_Chilton on February 17, 2011, 05:02:19 AM
The way you base that argument, any mortal caster born after the White Council signed their charter for the Unseelie Accords would be under the protection of the White Council, regardless of their personal traditions or if they believe in the White Council's values or authority to govern them. Man, I really hate Big Magical Government

Yes, that is how I think the Accords see it.  If you're mortal with magical powers then you're in the White Council's bailiwick.

Look at White Night.  How many of those dead women were Council members? None, yet the Council claimed the right to protect them - that an attack on them was an attack on the White Council.  They normally don't put a lot of effort into monitoring them (at least not since the war started) but if someone shows power the Wardens show up and tell them the Seven Laws and the "you break them, you die" policy.

If a wizard picks up a coin then he is no longer a mortal with power - he is a mortal/fallen angel combo.  If he becomes a vampire then he's no longer a mortal power, he is a vampire who used to be a wizard.

We can talk about Fae going from Winter to Summer to Wyldfae, but that's different that a Fae going from Fae to White Council, White Court, Marcone, or anything like that.  I'm sure that the Fae signatories kept the nature of the Fae in mind when they drew up the agreement.

What I'm basically saying is at heart you're a Fae, wizard, vampire, or whatever and you normally don't get a choice to change your inner nature.   That, and the Accords divided up the supernatural world with each faction claiming its members as its own.

I could be wrong about this - there's not a lot in the books about the accords - but the "you're with us whether you like it or not" policy seems to fit the source material.

Richard
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Kommisar on February 17, 2011, 04:32:00 PM
Remember that to the supernatural world and beings of the Nevernever, what one IS is a very simple and obvious thing.  It is part of their very nature.  I like the example of Toot Toot given above.  When Harry went over, so did his "Army" of little Fae.  And he didn't even have to send out a memo or anything.  The natural order shifted and the new reality took hold.

The White Council claims all mortal casters by default.  This was done for two reasons.  One, the other, non-mortal signatories of the Accords probably did even consider it could be otherwise.  It would be like Mab having to go through and assert that any member of her Court were actually members of her Court... individually.  The second reason was that the Wizards are shrewd, paranoid and careful types that understood that, for many reasons, having default claim to all mortal casters was the way to go.  Otherwise, it would be open season on young mortals with the gift and any faction could just go forward with a "Final Solution" to the Wizards all nice and legal like.  This is why the Red Court had to go to war to do just that.

Now, mortals are cheeky things.  They have a free will that is recognized by (if not entirely understood) by supernatural beings like the Fae.  So, a mortal can choose to serve or align with another power.  But that choice leaves an indelible mark upon their soul that is, usually, readily apparent to anyone in the know.  If a new Winter Knight walking around bumped into the Erlking on the street, the Erlking would immediately recognize him for what he is.  The touch of Winter would permeate his very being and soul.  Same if mortal picks up a Coin, sells his soul to a Dark Power or demon, or swears faith to a god like Odin. 

Now, other mortals may not be able to instinctual know.  But, to those beings of the Nevernever, it is as simple as reading a name badge at a convention.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: zenten on February 17, 2011, 05:47:41 PM
Remember that to the supernatural world and beings of the Nevernever, what one IS is a very simple and obvious thing.  It is part of their very nature.  I like the example of Toot Toot given above.  When Harry went over, so did his "Army" of little Fae.  And he didn't even have to send out a memo or anything.  The natural order shifted and the new reality took hold.

The White Council claims all mortal casters by default.  This was done for two reasons.  One, the other, non-mortal signatories of the Accords probably did even consider it could be otherwise.  It would be like Mab having to go through and assert that any member of her Court were actually members of her Court... individually.  The second reason was that the Wizards are shrewd, paranoid and careful types that understood that, for many reasons, having default claim to all mortal casters was the way to go.  Otherwise, it would be open season on young mortals with the gift and any faction could just go forward with a "Final Solution" to the Wizards all nice and legal like.  This is why the Red Court had to go to war to do just that.

Now, mortals are cheeky things.  They have a free will that is recognized by (if not entirely understood) by supernatural beings like the Fae.  So, a mortal can choose to serve or align with another power.  But that choice leaves an indelible mark upon their soul that is, usually, readily apparent to anyone in the know.  If a new Winter Knight walking around bumped into the Erlking on the street, the Erlking would immediately recognize him for what he is.  The touch of Winter would permeate his very being and soul.  Same if mortal picks up a Coin, sells his soul to a Dark Power or demon, or swears faith to a god like Odin. 

Now, other mortals may not be able to instinctual know.  But, to those beings of the Nevernever, it is as simple as reading a name badge at a convention.

Mechanically would this be the Mark of Power power?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Kommisar on February 17, 2011, 07:02:23 PM
I believe it would.  Though, to be honest, I have never been sure as to why this power costs 1 refresh.  To me, it seems a wash.  You get the club's membership card, but you also get the baggage and enemies that come with it.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: sinker on February 17, 2011, 07:14:18 PM
I think it's simply because of the bonus to all social skills.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Kommisar on February 17, 2011, 07:17:47 PM
LOL.  I forgot about that part.

I suppose it also makes sense that giving yourself to a power like this costs you refresh.  After all, one gives up part of themselves in such an arrangement; part of their free will.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 17, 2011, 07:27:58 PM
You also get meta-physical recognition of your membership, which includes allies as well.  Every group in the Dresdenverse has enemies; but they also have allies, and groups that might not want to tangle with whatever group you are a member of.

Example: an NPC in my game is the Emissary of Summer in the city.  Yes, he automatically has the enmity of Winter.  But he also now has some measure of respect from all Summer-aligned Fae and changelings, and the respect all of Summer's allies in the region.  Smaller groups (like the local ghoul clan) may not like him.  But attacking the Emissary also means attracting Summer's attention.  Maybe they won't care what happened to their toy...or maybe they'll find it a handy excuse/ casus belli.  Why take the chance if you don't have to?
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: Kommisar on February 17, 2011, 07:32:55 PM
Oh, absolutely.  Which is why I consider that part (Allies vs Enemies gained) a break-even.  After all, don't forget that with the allies and respect comes a commitment to be a team player.
Title: Re: Lord Raith: Lawbreaker?
Post by: zenten on February 17, 2011, 08:47:25 PM
Oh, absolutely.  Which is why I consider that part (Allies vs Enemies gained) a break-even.  After all, don't forget that with the allies and respect comes a commitment to be a team player.

But those generally produce situations that can be compelled, usually from the high concept.  So you're getting something from that.