The Laws of Magic and psychic abilities

[sinker]

You might think so GryMor, but Fred himself has said otherwise. More specifically that a mortal using domination to represent a specialized and refined spell (like the Alphas transformation) should take Lawbreaker if they use it on other mortals.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26459.msg1314956.html#msg1314956

[ways and means]

That was hardly very definitive and was very explicitly related to people who flavoured their powers as mortal magic (which obviously is linked to lawbreaker), that certainly wouldn't apply to someone who claimed that there powers was an inherent ability rather than magic (due to being a psychic etc).

[sinker]

Agreed. GryMor seemed to be stating definitively that domination (or similar powers) should never impose Lawbreaker. I was showing him an instance in which Fred disagrees.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Agreed. GryMor seemed to be stating definitively that domination (or similar powers) should never impose Lawbreaker. I was showing him an instance in which Fred disagrees.

That being said, the book does say that it shouldn't.  Fred may disagree, but it's not what his staff wrote in the actual rules.  I'd say RAW trumps extrapolation by designers if a specific rule was created to adjudicate it.

Now, with that in mind, I'd still say there would be consequences in story for it.  Wardens not being familiar with the rule books and such.

[sinker]

If you want to be purely technical RAW doesn't really allow for mortals to have domination as there is no template where it's appropriate. So if you want to play with that then you have to look at the intent of the people who wrote the book. Seems to me that the intent of those people is that this is most likely a "Creature Power" and those creatures that have powers that "hold sway over the minds of others" already have other downsides to compensate.

[UmbraLux]

"Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."    I see two general approaches being made.  One considers the powers' mechanics as discrete functions while the other takes a more holistic approach and considers powers in the context of both character and world.  I don't think we'll convince each other, our approaches to the game are too different and, as the dueling quotes have shown, there's support for either argument.  All depends on what you perceive as the emphasis...and that perception is heavily influenced by our approach to the game.

In the end, I don't think either decision on Lawbreaking is "wrong"...as long as your group is in agreement.  That's the real sticking point to me.  We can argue on forums until World's End and it's just bits lost in the cloud.  But if we can't come to agreement or compromise within a given group it affects play adversely.  Putting it mildly of course.

Interestingly, the two differing approaches are apparent in many of the disagreements here...and lawbreaking isn't even the most common.   

[Orladdin]

If Harry were right, and the Alphas were using magic of the same kind that he does, would they not be warlocks?

The law on weres is "Thou shalt not transform others."  It does not include transforming yourself.

[Orladdin]

...
In the end, I don't think either decision on Lawbreaking is "wrong"...as long as your group is in agreement.  That's the real sticking point to me.  We can argue on forums until World's End and it's just bits lost in the cloud.  But if we can't come to agreement or compromise within a given group it affects play adversely.  Putting it mildly of course...

I agree.  I think there should be a serious discussion at the table when a player decides he or she might want to go this route-- maybe even before someone decides.  The group needs to be in agreement.  It is, after all, Your Story.