Damnation by Association?

[computerking]

A couple of related questions involving Rituals:

First, If someone assists with the casting of a Lawbreaking spell (Example: Victor Sells' Heart-Exploder) does that person also get Lawbreaker? Is it possible to mask the purpose of a spell to trick someone into contributing power to it, and if so, does that trick the contributor into Lawbreaking?

Secondly, In the case of a spell that would be Lawbreaking if targeting another(Such as a Transformation), Would a Contributor be considered a Lawbreaker for assisting if that spell targeted only the Main caster(Like helping someone change themselves into a bear)?

[wyvern]

(Warning: this post contains opinions stated as if they were facts, because it's easier to write that way.  Please respond as if everything had a "This is how I'd run it, but your table may find some other answer appropriate" disclaimer.)

First: Yes, that's lawbreaker - if and only if the assistant actually helps cast the ritual; someone merely contributing consequences or mundane setup (maneuvers for taggable aspects) would not get lawbreaker.  As the book says, results, in the end, matter more than intent; you'd also get lawbreaker if you helped cast a ritual intended just to break a drought, and it caused casualties due to flash-flooding.  However, I as a GM, would not put a PC in the position of getting lawbreaker accidentally or through trickery; that's just meta-game rude.

Second: Grey area.  I wouldn't grant a lawbreaker power for this - but I would allow any appropriate existing lawbreaker powers to provide their bonuses, and I'd have the Wardens get very... concerned... if they ever found out about it.

[AstronaughtAndy]

While I wouldnt tell Morgan about the second one, I dont think so. But the first one, yeah.

But here's a question: what if the assistant isnt a practitioner themselves? I get the sense that the laws are really to prevent people from becoming moustache twirling puppy stomping warlocks (amongst other things) so if the assistants dont have any magical talents, I'm not sure Lawbreaker is relevant. And looking at OW, neither of the Beckitts have a Lawbreaker.

[sinker]

But here's a question: what if the assistant isnt a practitioner themselves? I get the sense that the laws are really to prevent people from becoming moustache twirling puppy stomping warlocks (amongst other things) so if the assistants dont have any magical talents, I'm not sure Lawbreaker is relevant. And looking at OW, neither of the Beckitts have a Lawbreaker.

The word from Fred on this one is that you could do it, but it's a real jerk move because there is literally no way that that used point of refresh will ever be redeemed. So possible, but neither necessary nor good for the game.

As for the first question, if we're talking about a practitioner and the practitioner actually contributes some of their energy to the spell then yes. Just drawing a circle for the guy or whatever, not so much.

For the second, I'd say that the guy driving is the one who is actually transforming someone, and he's doing it to himself. It's all legit. Though if you really wanted to, you could rule that with such a complex working, some of the helper's style or thoughts might get in and muck some things up. Then you're transforming someone against their will.

[DFJunkie]

In mechanical terms, I think you can add shifts of power without being aware of the nature of the spell, in which case you’re (mechanically) blameless for the spells effects.  Actually rolling Discipline to cast the spell would, IMO, require you to know what you’re trying to accomplish so you can visualize it. 

The reason I think you can add power without being held responsible for the effects is that Helen Becket still has a head.  There’s no way Morgan didn’t know what she was doing at the Victor Sells’ lake house.

[sinker]

The reason I think you can add power without being held responsible for the effects is that Helen Becket still has a head.  There’s no way Morgan didn’t know what she was doing at the Victor Sells’ lake house.

At the time she wasn't a practitioner though. She wasn't adding her magic to the spell, she was assisting in meeting the complexity requirement.

[DFJunkie]

At the time she wasn't a practitioner though. She wasn't adding her magic to the spell, she was assisting in meeting the complexity requirement.

The op said “to trick someone into contributing power to it” (emphasis mine) so it’s important to differentiate between adding shifts of power and making casting rolls.  IMO a person who just contributes to a spell, even if they’re well aware of its effects, is not tarred with Lawbreaker for the same reason that a caster who kills someone by mistake is: intention isn’t the issue, results are.  By contributing power you’re loading a gun and handing it to someone, the final decision to pull the trigger isn’t yours. 

[sinker]

She wasn't adding power though. She was meeting the complexity requirement. She helped craft the spell, helped make it possible, but in the end she was just a ritual component, all of the magic was Victor's.

Edit: But then again, maybe you're right. Maybe the game's mechanics are creating a distinction that doesn't exist (or at least isn't true to the fiction in that book). I don't know.

[DFJunkie]

I thought that her part of the spell was to bang her husband in order to raise power?  If that counts as thaumaturgy Harry is doing it wrong.  Also I feel like Bob would have mentioned "screwing like bunnies" as an alternative to all those boring circles and robes.

[Mr. Death]

The books and the RPG use slightly different terms here--gathering power, in the books, is meeting complexity in the RPG.

[DFJunkie]

Yeah, I was worried that I was just being a pedantic ass, and perhaps an ignorant one.

I think my point stands though.  The entire point of Thaumaturgy is to build a mental construct, a perfect imagining of the effect to be created.  If the person in question isn’t privy to the effect they shouldn’t be lawbreaking.

[Mr. Death]

I would say that if they don't have magical power themselves, they shouldn't be eligible for the stunt. Maybe they would take the aspect, and get some bad attention from the Wardens, but given that they can't cast on their own, there's little reason to chop off their heads besides being purely punitive.

[DFJunkie]

I would say that if they don't have magical power themselves, they shouldn't be eligible for the stunt. Maybe they would take the aspect, and get some bad attention from the Wardens, but given that they can't cast on their own, there's little reason to chop off their heads besides being purely punitive.

I agree almost entirely, but the aspect change would be non-negotiable at my table.

[AstronaughtAndy]

I think the aspect change and possible Warden attention would be reasonable for a non-practitioner engaging in black magic, becaue there should definately be consequences for engaging in such behavior and associating with such company.