New to the RPG and needs help

[JediDresden]

I have been a lurker here as a guest for quite a while, but I need some help.  A player of mine wants to make an Emissary of Death, based on the Emissary of Power Template.  My question is what would it look like?  I know Ghost Speaker, and Supernatural Senses (to see who is fated to die) are shoe ins, but what would the sponsored magic look like, and would it violate the Laws of Magic for her to kill with her sponsored magic if she is on Death's errand?  What are your thoughts?

[sinker]

Firstly the laws of magic only apply to mortal spellcasters (sort of). If you are under the jurisdiction of another signatory of the accords then the white council isn't supposed to do a thing to you. You might incur levels of lawbreaker making it easier for you to kill people but I would think that if your high concept is already "Emmisary of Death" then you're already supposed to be good at that and is what your magic is aimed at in the first place.

As far as what it could look like here is a thread where we discussed what flavor a necromancer might have.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21698.msg944342.html#msg944342

[JediDresden]

Thanks for the info. 

I think she wants to be an 'Angel of Death' type character that has sponsoered magic through an item of power.  Necromancy is an option, but she did not choose this character to bypass the laws of magic - she just likes the concept.  I think she pictured it more as a kind personage (kind of like the Angel of Death on 'Touched by an Angel') who knew who's time was up and was there to take them to the next stage of the journey.  I guess instead of Death it could be one of the Archangels who sponsors her to be THE Angel of Death.  There are lots of problems in that, because they cannot interfere with free will.

[mostlyawake]

It's entirely appropriate to stick the lawbreaker stunts on the character, to represent the tainted use of magic. This has NOTHING to do with the white council.  Using magic in a bad way affects your self concept, your soul. Even if your magic comes from an external source.
I'd slap the -2 lawbreaker on the character at creation, so that you represent a past of doing this, and so that the player never has to worry about going negative refresh and becoming an NPC. 

Now, for the white council, we can say that if you are under a different signatory, they aren't supposed to come for you. But that doesn't mean that if you are under a different SPONSOR, they WON'T come for you. Example: Necromancers.  Kemmler obviously didn't sign the accords, as the white council killed him, and attempts to kill anyone that magic sponsors.  So, basically, you need to clarify if Death popped over and signed the Accords, and if everyone else would let Death sign.

In my game, for instance, the Church is NOT a signatory, and 2 PCs work for the church. One of the PCs is an emissary for a dragon, who IS a signer. Another is an emissary of Tiamat (who is NOT a dragon, but more of an undead primal chaos chimera being), who is NOT a signer.  Both emissaries have lawbreaker, but one has to worry about the council.  Meanwhile, the holy PCS engage any evil they want, without breaking the accords, but with knowledge that the accords don't protect them in any fashion.

[JediDresden]

Thanks for the help.  I did not think about the Accords, definately food for thought.  Lawbreaker would be a good idea as well.

[Drashna]

Just to be a nit-picker: Kemmlar is an accords signatory technically. He is/was part of the white council. Therefore he has/had to play by their rules. Which he *obviously* did not.

And the Church definitely isn't a signatory, but most groups are smart enough to *not* start a witch hunt. Not to mention, the Knights of the Cross are definitely a force to be reckoned with.

And the lawbreaker "power" would definitely be a good idea for a mortal agent of death.  Just FYI: most people run the lawbreaker "powers" as adding to complexity, and control for thaumaturgy; and power and control for evocation.   The plus side here is that it means the character is *very* good at killing. Very.

[sinker]

It's entirely appropriate to stick the lawbreaker stunts on the character, to represent the tainted use of magic. This has NOTHING to do with the white council.  Using magic in a bad way affects your self concept, your soul. Even if your magic comes from an external source.
I'd slap the -2 lawbreaker on the character at creation, so that you represent a past of doing this, and so that the player never has to worry about going negative refresh and becoming an NPC. 

I think the only issue I have with this is that lawbreaker is meant to represent a character moving from a positive place to a negative place (I'm not satisfied with those words but we'll leave it for now), even requiring that one changes aspects to represent this change. However what happens when one's purpose is to kill from the start? When one's aspects already reflect the ability and expertise in killing. Do you take lawbreaker despite the fact that the character remains unchanged? what about when you need to start changing aspects? This is the issue that I can see with a killer taking lawbreaker.

Now, for the white council, we can say that if you are under a different signatory, they aren't supposed to come for you. But that doesn't mean that if you are under a different SPONSOR, they WON'T come for you. Example: Necromancers.  Kemmler obviously didn't sign the accords, as the white council killed him, and attempts to kill anyone that magic sponsors.  So, basically, you need to clarify if Death popped over and signed the Accords, and if everyone else would let Death sign.

In my game, for instance, the Church is NOT a signatory, and 2 PCs work for the church. One of the PCs is an emissary for a dragon, who IS a signer. Another is an emissary of Tiamat (who is NOT a dragon, but more of an undead primal chaos chimera being), who is NOT a signer.  Both emissaries have lawbreaker, but one has to worry about the council.  Meanwhile, the holy PCS engage any evil they want, without breaking the accords, but with knowledge that the accords don't protect them in any fashion.

The other thing you have to think of that I think Drashna touched on is the accords are one thing but another is how much trouble the white council wants to get in. Even if the white god isn't a signatory of the accords there is some major power there and the white council doesn't want that bearing down on them. I would think death might also fall into the category of "Things best not poked repeatedly with a stick."