Lawbreaker Questions

[Deadmanwalking]

So, I have a question about Lawbreaker: Can it be used to enhance actions that should break the Law but don't, due to one technicality or another?

For example, could a reformed Necromancer use his Lawbreaker stunt to give a bonus to raising a once-frozen Wooly Mammoth as a zombie in an emergency situation? Clearly, he wouldn't gain an additional Lawbreaker stunt (Harry didn't), but would the bonus apply? Logically, it probably should, but that might cause certain mechanical issues.

The most obvious use of this is Lawbreaker (1st), and killing non-human things. I mean, if you're the kind of man who can extinguish a human life, shouldn't it be easier to kill a ghoul who's pissed you off? It's also potentially the most powerful and unbalancing. A +1 or 2 on killing things is likely to tempt a few powergamers out there.


In my game, I'd be inclined to say "Yes." And even to apply the bonus to predicting the actions of other Lawbreakers in the same area (after all, you understand how they think), just to give players whose PCs start with Lawbreaker (like Harry did) something actually useful for their Refresh, but I'd like to hear other's opinions and/or an official answer.



Another question: Do you gain Lawbreaker for doing something that you think breaks a Law but really doesn't? Like frying what you think is a human but was really a disguised Red Court Vampire with a fireball?

I'd say yes, since the intent was there, but again, I'm interested in hearing other's opinions and/or an official explanation.

[iago]

In my game, I wouldn't give a Lawbreaker bonus unless someone was breaking the Law in question. Use the bonus, eat the consequences that follow on.  But really, the Lawbreaker stunt-set is an opportunity for a GM to establish his particular cosmology's spin on how the Laws inform play.  How you want to do it is fine, but it doesn't fit my own view of the Dresdenverse.

I like your thinking about intent on the second question.

[Moriden]

My problem with intent is say you nuke a... oh say small house that as far as you know has nothing but red court in it. so you had no intention to kill a human but there happened to be one in there.

The question really comes down to either the laws are supernatural reactions to events just like action/reaction in physics or there all in your mind. but if there all in your mind then anyone who dose not know the laws couldn't violate them and that's clearly not the case.


Brian Blacknight

[Deadmanwalking]

I actually see them as a combination of the two:

You must completely believe in anything you do with magic. You must feel it to be right, on some very deep level.

Therefore, whether you know the Laws or not, killing a man with magic makes you a killer in a way no gun or knife ever could, violating their mind makes you a manipulator and a monster of another kind. And so on and so forth with all the laws. You become the kind of person who can do the same sort of thing more easily.

They are the laws at least partly because intentionally using your magic to do those things changes you on a profound level.

[Moriden]

Honestly i see zero reason why killing a monster with magic is different then killing a human monster with magic, but the setting is the setting. The important thing is to make sure things are consistent. Such as the gatekeeper should have lawbreaker -2 researched outsiders. if not also having broken the chronomancy law. theirs a different between social sanction[which hes exempt from] and metaphysical consequence.



Brian Blacknight

[KnightFerrous]

Honestly i see zero reason why killing a monster with magic is different then killing a human monster with magic

It all comes back to the main crux of the setting, Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice. By using magic to kill a human you are ending their choice, denying them any chance to choose to redeem themselves.

[anarco_rata]

Honestly i see zero reason why killing a monster with magic is different then killing a human monster with magic

It's about the nature of mortal magic. It's supposed to come  from mortal life itself, so using magic to kill a mortal goes against its purpose and nature, it perverts it, forces the natural energy to do something that's completely against what it represents.

Magic is not composed by the energy of non-mortals, so using magic against them doesn't corrupt it, and it's ok from a... theological? point of view.

I'm guessing using seelie magic against summer fae might also be considered as a sin by the summer court, for the same reasons.

[KOFFEYKID]

Magic seems to be a nebulous term in the Dresden Files, bear with me:

When Harry refers to magic, he is talking about the kind that comes from life, and using it to snuff life then would be wrong.

Kemmlerian Necromancy uses the magic that comes from death,

(click to show/hide)

remember what Evil Bob says in Dead Beat, something along the lines of "Dead exists side by side with life inside a human", he goes on to talk about the cellular cycle, death and rebirth.

When Mavra uses magic, she doesn't take it from life.

Also, Im pretty sure that Faerie magic doesn't come from the same place as a human gets his magic, if all Humans were wiped out I dont think the magic of Faerie would diminish in any way.

What does this mean for the Lawbreaker abilities? I think it means that if you can get away with not being a human practitioner (say a white court vamp who picks up thaumaturgy and evocation), you probably wont get Lawbreakers for mucking about with Necromancy, or killing with Magic.

[Deadmanwalking]

What does this mean for the Lawbreaker abilities? I think it means that if you can get away with not being a human practitioner (say a white court vamp who picks up thaumaturgy and evocation), you probably wont get Lawbreakers for mucking about with Necromancy, or killing with Magic.

I actually agree with your general point (and would apply it to actual Fae or Black or Red Court magicians), but not your specific example, I think the White Court, being basically a symbiosis of a human and a possessing entity, are, not unlike the Denarians, more than human enough to get Lawbreaker stunts. Most of them just wouldn't care.

[KOFFEYKID]

Hmm, the way I see it, is White Court Vamps are already mucking with the laws of magic when they use their instill emotion ability, thats Psychometry, and the fact that you can addict humans to it means you can make thralls with it. A White Court Virgin would probably get a Lawbreaker for killing with magic, but a White Court Vamp already lost his/her humanity when they had their first Killing Feed.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmm, the way I see it, is White Court Vamps are already mucking with the laws of magic when they use their instill emotion ability, thats Psychometry, and the fact that you can addict humans to it means you can make thralls with it. A White Court Virgin would probably get a Lawbreaker for killing with magic, but a White Court Vamp already lost his/her humanity when they had their first Killing Feed.

No, that's not how it works. It's the Demon, the non-human part, doing the work. The human can will it into action but they don't have to believe the way you do with a spell. Using the demon to manipulate a mind is no more a Law violation than beating a man to death with your bare hands. You did it, and you can feel it, but you didn't truly believe in it the way you need to for magic.

It goes back to that nature of power question. The demon part isn't human, never was, and isn't bound by human rules like the Laws. But if a White Court Vampire learned human magics, they'd need to use their human will to power and shape them, the demon isn't capable.

[Korwin]

I would (er, will) divore it from the setting,

If the PC uses the Evocation or Thaumaturgic (or the lesser versions [inkluding Sponsored Magic]) Powers and they violate the Laws of Magic they get the Lawbreaker Power.
If they use other Supernatural Powers like Incite Emotion they dont get the Lawbreaker Power.

Its not an In-Game explanation, but those have to much wiggle room (for my taste).

[Deadmanwalking]

I would (er, will) divore it from the setting,

If the PC uses the Evocation or Thaumaturgic (or the lesser versions [inkluding Sponsored Magic]) Powers and they violate the Laws of Magic they get the Lawbreaker Power.
If they use other Supernatural Powers like Incite Emotion they dont get the Lawbreaker Power.

Its not an In-Game explanation, but those have to much wiggle room (for my taste).

That's actually mentioned explicitly in the Laws of Magic section, with the excuse that the Lawbreaker style costs are pre-paid for things like Domination and Incite Emotions. See p. 241 for the reasoning. It's specific to the Fourth Law, but it's mechanically sound as a general principle (though I can't think of any Powers that break any other Laws).

[Korwin]

Hmm, oh. Did'nt read that.

I suppose the first law (thats the one against killing, right?) could be brocken by many of the supernatural powers.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmm, oh. Did'nt read that.

I suppose the first law (thats the one against killing, right?) could be brocken by many of the supernatural powers.

Nah. Punching or stabbing someone to death doesn't violate it, why would clawing them with your super-strength? Breath Weapon is debatable, I guess, but even that is a natural weapon more than anything else. None of it is magic in the lawbreaking sense, from a mechanical perspective.

From a philosophical/setting perspective I'll just reiterate: Magic requires a level of belief and intent that causes the changes Lawbreaker entails. You can murder dozens or even hundreds of people without commiting yourself as fully to murder and being a murderer (or at least, killing and being a killer) as you do by killing one person with magic.