But later, we see the difference between "let the world burn" and "let Molly burn."

He said that, and he did that, but that's because he was being an idiot without really thinking about what that would actually mean.

Well, yes. But on the other hand, if it was the only way to save his daughter then I'm not remarkably convinced he wouldn't do the same again, so...

Precisely, amen...   Nor did he really act upon that...

What? He was told specifically that if he kept pushing this, he might cause a disaster, and then proceeded to keep pushing until he caused a disaster. How is that not acting upon what he said? He didn't say "I'm going to set out to destroy the world," he said, "I'm going to rescue my daughter no matter what the consequences are."

What happened in the aftermath of C.I. wasn't because Harry really intended for the world to burn or failed to care if it did..  If anyone is to blame it is the Red King who set the whole thing up in the first place.  He never thought through the idea that both Harry and Eb were first rate wizards and if anyone one could foil his plans for revenge, they could.  Nor did he plan on the child's mother being there and willing to give up her life, which saved her child and wiped out the Red Court..

Victim blaming much? The Red King is responsible for a lot of awful things, but I don't think we can legitimately say that he was 100% responsible for the genocide of his own species. I mean, Harry did have other options: both Susan and the Eebs pointed them out. He just objected to them.

Also before this all went down there was no one warning Harry that if he succeeds in wiping out the Red Court some badder asses would step in to take up the slack.. 

Um, yes there was. Harry's "let the world burn" thing was said directly in response to Murphy warning him that if he kept pushing then really bad things might happen. He might not have known the specifics, but he was warned as to the risks.

Planning is everything....

No, planning is one component. I can plan meticulously how to blow up the White House, but if I don't then do so then I have done nothing wrong.

That what Death Masks is all about, Nic knew very well what he was going
to bring about, and he had goals...

This is why what Nicodemus did is the equivalent of (attempted) first degree murder.

Yes, and this is why context is very important,

If it were important, you would have provided it. If you can't actually refute my argument, feel free to say so rather than bringing up specious and unsupported points.

forgive my poor spelling, but it doesn't change what I said...

I never claimed it did.

One might have been said in the emotion of the moment....  Let the world burn, I am going to do what I need to do to save my daughter...  However I do like the world and I do care for the people like Molly who live in it.. However I am upset..

Let the world burn because I really don't care about it and if little Maggie inherits ashes that's perfectly fine...

Let the world burn because I really hate it and want it to burn, saving my daughter is a good excuse....

Saying,  "let the world burn," really murder? Now giving an old man the plague so he might infect a whole city or worse could be considered, committing...  Is there a difference between saying and committing?   

If all he did was say it, no. The issue is that he said "let the world burn," and then followed through on that.

Page please, book, please....

Are you incapable of reading? Because I specifically said that I don't have the books with me--they're in storage.

Did anyone tell him if he wipes out the Red Court the Fomor would move in before hand?

Not specifically. But he was told that something really bad was likely to happen.

That was an unintentional consequence, not what he planned..  Harry did not have an agenda to destabilize the supernatural world..

If I shoot a gun through my apartment wall and kill someone, I may not have had an agenda to kill them, but I am still legally liable for murder/manslaughter because I have acted in a way that shows incredible recklessness and disregard for human life.

He never pre-planned to reverse the bloodline spell, the spell was set up by the Red King in the first place. He is the one who didn't care or was so arrogant he didn't think it possible that Harry or anyone else could reverse it, and that he and all the RCVs could die as a consequence.

The fact that the Red King was arrogant/didn't care does not actually absolve Harry of all consequences of his actions.

Sure, Harry could have just surrendered and let his daughter, himself, and his grandfather die..

You know, I actually responded to you saying essentially the same thing back on page one. Here is my response:

I don't think there was a better way at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it was horrible.

Perhaps the natural balance between vamps and humans wouldn't have been destabilized, but then again what would have been the consequences if Eb's bloodline had been wiped out?  A bloodline that includes a starborn..

And Harry knew none of this, so it has no relevance. If I shoot a gun through my apartment wall and end up hitting someone who's trying to rape my next door neighbor, that doesn't absolve me of my recklessness or my disregard for human life, because I didn't know that it was going to happen.

Context please, what the author is saying, not you.. That is why if you are going to use quotes you need to sight chapter and verse that goes along with them, otherwise things can be twisted...

First: Spelling. It's "cite," not "sight."

Second: You are free to post the text surrounding my quotes if you feel it is important. I would do it, but as I've said, I can't. If you don't cite it (or provide reasons why you can't), then I will consider your argument regarding citations invalid and assume you're bringing it up to cast unfounded doubts on my argument because you can't think of anything better.

Third: Yes, please cite what we know of starborn, and what evidence you have that losing one particular starborn would be so disastrous.

The difference isn't that Nic didn't care about what the plague would do, it is he planned to do, if it worked it would do what he intended for it to do, it was part of his agenda..  Getting the artifacts is on his agenda, killing his daughter is a step towards that...

This makes no sense. It's Harry that didn't care about the consequences of his actions, not Nicodemus. The difference between Nicodemus and Harry is the difference between first degree murder and 2nd/3rd degree murder (I'll look up legal codes when I'm not in class).

Edit: I looked it up. What Harry is guilty of is the equivalent of somewhere between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter (it turns out that 3rd degree murder only exists in a few states).

Wikipedia:

Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.

Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.

I'm not sure which it is: I would consider "malice aforethought" to be Harry's "let the world burn" thing, but he was already emotionally disturbed at the time, so I'm not sure how that would play out legally.

(Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the genocide thing, not Harry's murder of Susan specifically.)

I'd really like to see any of the Senior Council cut loose, just to see what they can do.

I'd also like to see Harry finally take down Marcone.

Huge difference, the end may be the same, but there is a difference..

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference; I'm saying that the difference is not as large as people might think.

Oh and please give page and book so things can be read in context..

Sorry, can't. All my books are in storage. Also, I kinda figured that anyone who's on this forum would remember that quote--it's pretty memorable.

One of the come backs that Uriel had to your quote... Ghost Story page 458

Thanks for finding more support for my claim! The fact that an archangel steps in to help convince Harry to regret his actions really demonstrates what I'm trying to say here.

The difference between your two examples is something called pre-planning.   Nic planned all along to sacrifice his daughter to get into the vault.

This may be somewhat blurry. Harry may not have intended specifically to sacrifice Susan, but the whole "if the world burns because of what I do, then me and the kid will roast marshmallows" thing was pretty indicative that he was prepared to do something problematic.

Doubling the mechanical power of a spell often does a lot more than double its power story-wise, though.

I think it would be more flavourful if, instead of doubling power, it allowed you to select a second target. Even that is probably overstrong, especially for magic with another extra benefit, though.

I don't think that's likely to lead to good gameplay.

So, if I change the power to allowing you to select a second target, would that fix the gameplay problem, or do I need to modify it more?

I think it makes sense there is a mechanical refresh penalty.  Besides, there are benefits to the power, so it's not really a big loss.  Power at a price, right?

Well, that's the problem. If I'm roleplaying a character like Harry, I'm not breaking the Laws, so I get no bonus. Therefore, there are no mechanical benefits to spending the refresh.

I think it's still too broad.  All attack spells, on all possible targets is huge.  Evocation grants 3 elements.  Break a single law and that's essentially a +3 power for only one refresh and a few RP consequences.

Well, refinement is +2 to anything to do with the elements it's boosting. This would be +1, and even though it applies to all the elements, it only boosts attack spells, not shields or maneuvers. Also, it's explicitly +1 power, so you still need to roll to control it.

For things like necromancy or biomancy... it gets a little harder, too.  Raising a zombie via thaumaturgy technically isn't an attack spell, so what is the equivalent?

The equivalent is, it doesn't have one. If it's not an attack, it doesn't get the Lawbreaker (1st) bonus.

Also, as I was saying before, the power reads "Gain a +1 bonus to any spellcasting roll whenever using magic in a way which would break the specified Law of Magic".  This suggests it's the breaking of the Law itself that grants the bonus.  If the Law isn't broken, you don't get the power, therefore, you shouldn't get the bonus for targeting non-humans.  Unless somehow the scope of the Law itself widens if you break a law, which we now it doesn't. 

I think that what should give you the bonus is doing things that put you in the same mindset as breaking the Laws. Breaking the Laws is supposed to change the way you think, so I figure it makes sense.

But someone with Sponsored Magic (Outside) boosting every single spellcasting roll with Seventh Lawbreaker is probably still getting too good a deal, especially when you consider that they're getting to ignore the pyramid system.

True, but I'm pretty sure that if you use the RAW version of Lawbreaker (7th), you're still getting the bonus every time you use your sponsored magic, since using it is reaching beyond the Outer Gates.

With all that in mind, I think it's best to write out the details of each proposed broadened Lawbreaker before passing any judgements.

Do you have any suggestions for Lawbreaker (2nd-4th, & 6th)? I've already written up my idea for Lawbreaker (1st), and I figure Lawbreaker (5th) should just be +1 to necromancy since necromancers are supposed to be scary powerful and you'll get a lot more consequences from the White Council even if you avoid technically breaking the Laws.