The Laws of Magic and non-mortal casters

[Deadmanwalking]

ahunting: First, I'm with luminos, I really can't read that example at all. From context, I think I understand what you're getting at, though:


You're radically misinterpretting what I meant by Intent and I never used the word Decision.

Intent, as I'm using it here, is meaning to break the Law. Not meaning to break what you think the Law is, but meaning to Take A Life, or Swim Against The Currents Of Time, or whatever. You have to mean to do it, and take magical actions to do so...but your success or failure is irrelevant.

So, if you kill a guy, intentionally, your motives are meaningless, you get Lawbreaker. If you kill a Ghoul thinking it's a human being, you get Lawbreaker. If you burn down a building your best friend told you was empty (or filled with only Red Court), and later find out it had three people in it? That's when you don't get it, because you legitimately never meant to kill anybody. If you try to kill a guy with magic, but he gets lucky and survives you still get Lawbreaker.

If you give a guy AIDS with Ritual Magic and he gets killed by a truck before it can kill him you get Lawbreaker because you meant to kill with magic, and carried out that intent. But on the other hand if you give him a cold and he happens to sneeze and fall into traffic, you do't get Lawbreaker, because your spell was never meant to be anything more than an inconvenience.


See what I mean by Intent now? I can see other valid options for how the Laws work, but this one seems to best fit the books and what acts should actually damage or change one's very soul.


wyvern: Noted.

Let's address the mechanical aspect of this again: Why should Steve, with Fire Channeling and Biomancy get Lawbreaker for doing things Mickey, with Seelie Magic doesn't? Mechanically, I mean. Ignoring Lawbreaker is pretty sweet as powers go, why does Mickey get it for free?

[wyvern]

Mechanically?  Because a sponsored magic is dramatically more limited than mortal magic.
Even if we disregard the wide-open power offered by full evocation or thaumaturgy (and the fact that a user of mortal magic can upgrade to those quite cheaply), even if we say that, for example, channeling and ritual for air magic covers roughly the same breadth of effect as seelie magic... Even then, the user of pure sponsored magic has to deal with their sponsor.  They've got an attached agenda to every spell they cast, whether they like it or not.  They've got the threat hanging over them that if their sponsor decides it doesn't like what they're doing with that power, they might lose the power, or die, or worse.  While this shouldn't come up that often with PCs, it's still there, and has potential repercussions at least as vicious as taking on lawbreaker stunts you didn't want.

I'd also note that ignoring lawbreaker stunts if you're using pure sponsored magic isn't something you'd get to pick and choose about.  One could easily reverse that question and ask, why should Steve get easy access to the extra power offered by lawbreaker stunts, when, mechanically, Mickey can't?  I mean, Lawbreaker is pretty sweet as powers go; it's like getting a stacking refinement bonus; why should Mickey never have access to it?  Mechanically, the answer is just that they're different kinds of powers, with different sets of restrictions on them.


Oh, and an important footnote: I don't think your position is inherently wrong.  It's different than mine, certainly, but it's a perfectly valid interpretation of the rules, and I wouldn't complain about playing in a game where that was the deciding mechanism behind whether to inflict lawbreaker stunts or not.
(Though I might complain if someone decided to make an idiot savant character and say "Well, I don't get lawbreaker stunts, because I never meant to kill that guy; sure, I threw a fireball at him, but the notion that it might be lethal just never crossed my mind..." or even "Yeah, I threw a max strength fireball at him, but that's because I thought he had a powerful shield in place and anything less wouldn't even slow him down..." - but if people are *trying* to be cheeseweasels, well, that's a social issue, not something you can fix with a change in interpretation of rules.)

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmmm. I think applying Lawbreaker is, on balance, more bad than good, but I do see your point.

It just seems to me that that's more a matter of being an Emissary in general, not Sponsored Magic in particular, and better handled through Aspects and roleplaying than anything else. I know that in my game (despite Ariax being really nice and useful thus far) the player who is the Dragon Ariax's Emissary (and occasional boy-toy) is scared to death of her and lives in fear of my random rolls for her current mood. He has no Sponsored Magic, just physical enhancement stuff. But it's not a function of the magic, it's a function of being someone's bitch. I have another player, an originally Winter-spawned Changeling, who recieved Seelie Magic for services rendered to the Summer Court, no inherent strings attached. He hasn't accrued Sponsor Debt yet in play, and his magic has all been Summer-themed so he hasn't had any issues with that sort of thing as of yet.

In short, I think that sort of thing is part of having a patron, not having Sponsored Magic. Harry, for example, doesn't have to deal with that shit with Uriel despite having Soulfire. Why? Because he just has the Sponsored Magic not the full master/servant relationship.


And, while I obviously think I'm correct (and more accurate to the books) I should note that I wouldn't have any issues playing in a game using your ruling either. It's the GM's world, the players just play in it.

And (barring the much more likely disallowing of the character) I'd have anyone with that poor at Cause/Effect relationships die as follows: A gunshot goes off, and clearly it doesn't occur to him to dodge, since Guns going off and people dying have nothing to do with each other, right? But then, I take a dim view of that particular kind of rules abuse.

[wyvern]

Hm.  That can be debated either way, I think.  There's definitely some stuff on YS287&289 that implies that you would need to deal with the sponsor, at least a bit, even for "sponsorless" or no-strings-attached sponsored magic, and even if you avoid the debt mechanic entirely.  There's even a brief mention of some possible agendas for soulfire.

And, yes, most of the time these restrictions are going to come up through aspects and roleplaying - but the same goes with lawbreaker stunts; unless you've got a deliberately evil game running, the stunts themselves are unlikely to come into play, and most practitioners of mortal magic are going to treat the laws of magic as things they just can't do - kinda like how someone wielding seelie magic just can't use it to freeze or decay something.  The mortal practitioner can break those laws at a price; the practitioner of pure sponsored magic can't - at least, not without finding a whole new sponsor.

As for the idiot-savant - yes, disallowing the character is, imo, the right way to go.  Still, it's an interesting thought-experiment for investigating the extremes of what is or isn't lawbreaking.

[Crion]

Just tossing in my two cents in the matter. Most of the argument has been pretty valid, and I'm finding it an enjoyable read, but I thought I might as well add something, even though parts of it have already been said.


First off, I think a human using any form of magic in violation of the laws should get a lawbreaker stunt. Yes, there are PLENTY of gray areas that can be used to argue it (and some of them may make an interesting game session or three while dealing with the Warden fallout), but I do believe that it is the intent of the magic that causes it. Remember how it is explained multiple times that emotion and will fuel and control magic. Human beings have to believe in what they are doing, believe it is "correct" ; if they don't, it doesn't work. Personally, I view the Lawbreaker stunts as something to penalize you for purposely using magic in violation of these laws, and reality (or the magic itself) takes it's toll out on you (madness/paranoia for mind magic, bloodlust and anger for murder, etc).

Note how I say a "human." Humans have a different take on magic than the "monsters." Creatures of magic/from the Nevernever don't have free will or choice; they have the very nature of what they are. Magic is who and what they are, and by not using magic as deemed by their natures is akin to a mortal breaking the laws of magic. Therefore, I can't really see a Sidhe Lord being given a lawbreaker stunt because he truly is doing what his nature, the very thing that fuels his magic (and some would argue is his magic) demands of him.

Take a thought on hexing again. When a human practices magic, the energy causes technology to go haywire. This is rooted in human doubts and concerns, their own lines of thought, emotions, etc. Human minds/psyches/spirits are just too chaotic, for lack of a better term, to be able to full control every aspect of their magic. Monsters don't have that issue at all, because they embodiments of the magic they use.

With that thought, I'm seeing this whole thing as "If a mortal uses magic in violation of the laws, it's a Lawbreaker stunt (but it can be argued), but if a 'monster' does it in accordance to their own natures, it isn't."

Hopefully I'm being coherent. It's been a long week ^^;

[JosephKell]

1) A wizard killing a human gets Lawbreaker. A wizard killing a nonhuman does not. Why? Do they believe any less in killing with magic? Would they destroy any less of a person if they burned Thomas to ashes or ripped Lily's heart out of her chest?

Things without free will are in many ways animals (or forces of nature) that can talk.  You can't rehabilitation something without free will.  If something presents itself as sufficiently dangerous, you kill it, or failing that try to banish or contain it.

Free will represents possibilities and potential.  And killing that leaves a scar.  And the more scarred you become, the more monstrous.

Killing a mortal (free-willed individual) in self defense still gets you a lawbreaker (1st).  It just doesn't result in a beheading.

But kill a red court or black court vampire and who cares?  All it was going to do is kill, drink blood, and maybe create more vampires.

As to why killing White Courts doesn't violate the first law.  It probably depends on the white court vampire and the situation.  Killing them when they are hunting is fine (the demon is pretty close to the surface), but killing one when he/she is sun bathing on its rooftop is probably a no-no.  I think in this very specific case (it is an outlier) Mouse's perspective is the right one.  Mouse growls at Thomas's demon, not at Thomas.

2) A wizard using mind-magic gets Lawbreaker. Molly believed that what she was doing, using her magic to help someone else, was good. She did not know of the damage it could do to others so there is no way that factored into her beliefs. So why, exactly, is she more monstrous for believing in something when, to her knowledge, it had no drawbacks at all?

Same as above.  Mindbending, in some ways, is even more dangerous that killing.  Because if you mindbend a non-human you are exposing your mind to its mind and who knows what messed up stuff goes on in there.

3) Let's look at Kumori. Lawbreaker - Fifth. She believes that death is something one should fight against and ultimately conquer. And she is more monstrous for it. Come again? Isn't that what thousands upon thousands of doctors all around the planet are trying to do? Isn't it there in a certain book that death was not part of the plan, is a very bad thing, and it will be ultimately conquered?

Playing god always twists a person's brain.  Hence the lawbreaker.  Even if someone didn't use Kemmlerian necromancy.  Heck, even under the condition that someone made themselves a "living dead" humans (why is it "humans" and not "humen?") it is still twisted.

But I still thing that sponsor magic should suffer all the same non-political drawbacks of mortal magic.  You accrue lawbreakers (and if your sponsorship doesn't result in accord protection, you might face political consequences too).  Using sponsored magic to do horrible things means you are working for a person that approves of those horrible things (maybe even wants them) and you are enabling that behavior.  You are taking in that malevolence and aiming it at another being of possibilities.

As I said before, mortals aren't just strings on Fate's loom, as Harry witnessed when he soulgazed Molly, there were many avenues should could move down.

Just now it occurred to me that maybe the reason "monsters" can't be gazed could be that they don't have the choices mortals have (therefore there is nothing to gaze).  They follow the path their nature dictates, and therefore they don't have to see what is ahead or reflect on what is behind, for them there is only now.

And yes, it is possible that some "pure-mortals" default to being monsters.  A reinfield pop into mind.  But it could also be a person that has just stopped viewing others as people and just gone dark.  Like Cowl and Kumori.  Going refresh negative is supposed to represent loss of humanity (and free will, YS66 "This is the dividing a mortal's free will from a monster's unnatural compulsions").  I don't think killing those character represents a law being broken nor would turning them into fluffy bunnies (unless turning a cat into a mouse was a lawbreaker).

So:
1.  The first time a particular law is broken, you get Lawbreaker (xth) [-1].  Bringing you closer to negative refresh.
2.  The second time a particular law is broken, you get Lawbreaker (xth) [-2].  And you change a permanent aspect.
3.  The 5th (and ever 3rd time after that) you break the same law, you change another permanent aspect.
Sum: Max of -14 refresh and at least all 7 aspects changed.  Easier to be compelled to be bad (fate points) and easier to tag to be bad.
Result: MONSTER.

This is why the political consequence of lawbreaking is summary execution.  A guy with only a single Lawbreaker (xth) [-1] is easier to kill that same guy a few years later that has broken the same law 25 times (refresh -2, and all 7 aspects changed).

[wyvern]

Hm.  And that brings us right around to a question on hexing - does a mortal (or any free-willed being), using purely sponsored magic, run the risk of accidentally hexing things?  I'd tend to say no, and point at Fix as my premiere example.  But, like the application of the laws of magic, this is something that people have demonstrably different opinions on.

Let's look at Kumori again.  As she's statted in OW, she doesn't have a lawbreaker stunt.  But is clearly a necromancer, guilty of violating the fifth law of magic.  Yup.  No, I don't have an explanation for that.

As for what sorts of targets you get lawbreaker for turning into newts - there's a discussion of the grey areas on YS233, with a conclusion that this should vary from game to game depending on the judgment of the gaming group involved.

[Deadmanwalking]

On Hexing:

Unlike Lawbreaking, I actually do let people with only Sponsored Magic to get away without Hexing. That is explicitly a Mortal M<agic thing, not a general magic one. But I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as the Laws.

On Kumori:

All stats in OW are based on what we actually see them do, and they just generally didn't worry about Lawbreaker too much. If you look at who has Lawbreaker in the Early Bird PDF it's...highly inaccurate (and one of their few major statting issues). There was a thread here where people pointed out stuff, and Lawbreaker not being on people it should've been was one of the issues (Grevane lacked Lawbreaker (Fifth) once for example). Kumori never got mentioned there and thus, I suspect, never fixed.

Or, to put it simply: I'd bet you almost anything it's a minor error, not a message of any sort.

On Nonhumans:

Yeah, where the line between human and monster lies is definitely something that should be decided by each GM individually.

[smoore]

I've thought about this all day and I'll try to boil my thoughts down to as simple as possible. To take the lawbreaker stunt a character needs to have 2 things, a soul/free will and to be under the authority of the White Council.

The zombie has the soul/free will but isn't under the White Council's authority being a representative of another Accord Signatory. So your zombie can do acts all day which stain his soul but cant get Lawbreaker for them. This doens't mean he's not a bad guy, or that the Council won't send the Wardens after him for being an evil bastard to their wards (mortals) he just doesn't get Lawbreaker to go with it. Being a minor member of a signatory doesn't exclude the Council from destroying someone, Dresden does it all the time. It just means their might be bigger ramifications if the persons actions wern't sanctioned by the Accords. While the Accords may say Trolls can eat wayward children on bridges they probably don't give intelligent zombies license to kill mortals with magic or enthrall them at will.

[luminos]

Getting the lawbreaker stunt has nothing to do with whether or not the White Council will prosecute you for your actions.  The stunt represents an internal change in the person with it, not an external political fact.

[Deadmanwalking]

Getting the lawbreaker stunt has nothing to do with whether or not the White Council will prosecute you for your actions.  The stunt represents an internal change in the person with it, not an external political fact.

Yep. The external political fact doesn't have a system to it, it just involves the Wardens coming for you.

[wyvern]

All stats in OW are based on what we actually see them do, and they just generally didn't worry about Lawbreaker too much. If you look at who has Lawbreaker in the Early Bird PDF it's...highly inaccurate (and one of their few major statting issues). There was a thread here where people pointed out stuff, and Lawbreaker not being on people it should've been was one of the issues (Grevane lacked Lawbreaker (Fifth) once for example).

That's actually really good information to have, thanks.  Means I don't have to worry I'm doing something wrong if I decide to add lawbreaker stunts to people like Kumori or Cassius.

Other than that, I'm probably stepping out of this conversation now; I've made my opinion visible and had some good discussion (thanks, by the way) on various options of where to put the limits of lawbreaker-ness.

[Deadmanwalking]

That's actually really good information to have, thanks.  Means I don't have to worry I'm doing something wrong if I decide to add lawbreaker stunts to people like Kumori or Cassius.

Cool. I'm happy to be of help. 

Other than that, I'm probably stepping out of this conversation now; I've made my opinion visible and had some good discussion (thanks, by the way) on various options of where to put the limits of lawbreaker-ness.

Understood. Nice talking with you, and see you around.

[smoore]

Getting the lawbreaker stunt has nothing to do with whether or not the White Council will prosecute you for your actions.  The stunt represents an internal change in the person with it, not an external political fact.

From the book:

when broken, lead to a fundamental change in the nature of the person who broke them. The White Council also enforces them as laws, but thats in addition to the fundamental change. You could say the Laws exist as two separate concepts with 99% overlap - the Wardens of the White Council enforce once concept (law), while reality metaphysically enforces the other (nature).

Without the external enforcement or at least the possibility of it a character is getting a +1 (or more) bonus to lots of magic (like all killings or enthrallments), for -1 refresh. Its to cheap.  If you remove the authority of the White Council from over a character (by tying them some other Signatory of the Accords) they can not be allowed to get Lawbreaker and the bonuses that go with it. Its unfair to the other spellcasting players and is not in the spirit of game balance.

[JustinS]

1 refresh is +2 points of item focus, or refinement bonus.

Lawbreaker is a stunt equivalent. +1 combat skill in a limited but useful situation.

From the book:
Without the external enforcement or at least the possibility of it a character is getting a +1 (or more) bonus to lots of magic (like all killings or enthrallments), for -1 refresh. Its to cheap.  If you remove the authority of the White Council from over a character (by tying them some other Signatory of the Accords) they can not be allowed to get Lawbreaker and the bonuses that go with it. Its unfair to the other spellcasting players and is not in the spirit of game balance.