The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[darkfire14]

I've recently got the Dresden Files RPG and like the development but see certain problems with one aspect of the rule set. The Laws of Magic are sensible and well defined but the game design makes it so that someone who breaks the law once can end up losing their character. This can easily happen because plenty of characters can buy down to 1 refresh, especially for magic-using characters which their magical powers have a high refresh cost to achieve. Plus with the wacky things wizards face it may be inevitable they end up breaking one or more of the laws sooner or later.  Plus if you break the same law 3 times you lose TWO refresh! By this reckoning, there would be a hell of a lot of 0 refresh spell casters out there (Way more than any White Council Wizards) especially the ignorant ones who may not have learned the Laws of Magic.

I myself oppose such a notion that breaking the laws of magic should cause Refresh loss. Remember that the laws of magic are a construct of an order of mages, not a metaphysical law of the entire Dresdenverse. So I am thinking in my games that breaking the laws of magic won't cause any refresh loss. Not that there won't be consequences however, such as being found out by the warden's, or suffering some bad side-effect from using forbidden magic, but it should not alone make your character unplayable (Unless of course his actions get him killed). If they want to be an evil bastard and flaunt the laws of magic, I say let them do it but have them tie their own noose around their neck by their actions, rather than grab their sheet away and remove them from play. Now as for the Changeling losing refresh, that I agree with, considering its a conscious choice to abandon one's humanity to become a creature of pure wild nature, that does make sense. So what's your opinions on this, should I stick with the rules or apply my own house rulings?

[wyvern]

Actually, the books (both rpg and novel) make it quite clear that the Laws of Magic *are* a metaphysical law of the entire Dresdenverse.  That said, it doesn't need to be such a metaphysical Law in your game; if you're more comfortable removing the "forced" nature of the laws of magic, you're certainly entitled to do so.

It's really up to what sort of game you want to run.  The lawbreaker powers are built the way they are to represent just how easy it is for an unwary caster to slide from human to monster; if you want to make that path harder to walk, you can certainly remove them (or make them optional rather than required).

From my point of view, the Laws are one of the main limiting effects on mortal wizards; the game system is built so that magic is powerful - often more powerful than other options.  Someone using mortal magic has the Laws as counterbalance; someone using sponsored magic has their sponsor as counterbalance; and if you remove either of those counterbalances you have to start asking yourself why wizards don't run the world...

[darkfire14]

I just find it more "Thematic", for a character to role-play the consequences of breaking the laws of magic rather than grabbing their sheet and ripping it up cause their "Refresh" hit Zero. The trouble from breaking the laws of magic should be more roleplay than mechanical. Believe me, it looks to be extremely easy to get to 0 refresh by breaking the laws of magic. Its not like everyone is educated in what they are either, the White Court dosen't know every spell caster in the world, in fact its a pretty small organization as far as I've heard. Anyway, my point is, its better for characters to roleplay the consequences of their actions, rather than have a game mechanic destroy their character. That's my 0.02 cents.

[Stormraven]

Also, to my reading, there's nothing specifically stating that the player has to take the Lawbreaker powers, thus losing Refresh.  I see them more as a mechanic to indicate that the character is facing temptation from doing so.

Of course, I could be wrong, or mis-reading them, but that's the way I see it.

[Ala Alba]

darkfire14, have you read the books? It doesn't seem like it, but I figured I would ask.

It seems like you are looking for somebody to agree with you on this, but it's hardly necessary. If you don't like a rule, you are more than welcome to change it.

With that said, it is actually rather unlikely that you would ever be forced to break a Law. It's hardly inevitable. Even the Law against killing is trivially easy to avoid breaking, at least from a rules standpoint.

[Ophidimancer]

Plus with the wacky things wizards face it may be inevitable they end up breaking one or more of the laws sooner or later.

This isn't something that should just happen, though.  Remember how important narrative is in this game.  If it's going to happen, the storyteller should be fully prepared to deal with the consequences and fallout, and should similarly have prepared the player for it as well.  Something like this should probably only happen with player cooperation, and thus either happen at a milestone moment, with a concurrent Refresh increase, or perhaps it should lose the character the use of another Power or Stunt, with appropriate story reasons.

Also, to my reading, there's nothing specifically stating that the player has to take the Lawbreaker powers, thus losing Refresh.  I see them more as a mechanic to indicate that the character is facing temptation from doing so.

Of course, I could be wrong, or mis-reading them, but that's the way I see it.

No, the book says that you must take a Lawbreaker Stunt upon breaking one of the Laws of Magic.  It's a metaphysical truth in the Dresdenverse.

[MijRai]

This isn't something that should just happen, though.  Remember how important narrative is in this game.  If it's going to happen, the storyteller should be fully prepared to deal with the consequences and fallout, and should similarly have prepared the player for it as well.  Something like this should probably only happen with player cooperation, and thus either happen at a milestone moment, with a concurrent Refresh increase, or perhaps it should lose the character the use of another Power or Stunt, with appropriate story reasons.

No, the book says that you must take a Lawbreaker Stunt upon breaking one of the Laws of Magic.  It's a metaphysical truth in the Dresdenverse.

Exactly.

[Synthesse]

I don't know. Personally, if I were running the game as GM, I would make it so that Lawbreaker stunts are only taken in cases in which a character intentionally breaks a law of magic, as opposed to unintentionally: eg if you were throwing a lightning bolt and it accidentally struck a civilian you had no way of knowing was there, that wouldn't be lawbreaker, but if you burned down a building knowing that there were civilians in the building and some of them died, that would. In the same vein, if I didn't know that a player remembered that breaking a law of magic could kill their character, I would gently remind them of this fact before they acted, and if they still chose to do so, so be it.

As for whether its a 'metaphysical law' of the Dresdenverse, I don't think that's exactly true. We have to keep in mind that both the books and the RPG are both written from Harry Dresden's very very biased viewpoint. He's gotten better about it throughout the series, but he still has a strong tendancy to try to paint the world in black and white. If the Laws of Magic were so clear and fundamental, it would leave questions such as:

(click to show/hide)

How are some powerful wizards like the Blackstaff or the Gatekeeper able to "keep their souls from darkening" if its such a great metaphysical law?
Before Merlin created the laws of magic, did they exist/still blacken your soul?

In the RPG, they discuss how some of the laws are in place not because they are evil, as opposed to maintaining the status quo. I dunno, it seems like there's a decent degree of flexibility without breaking cannon, simply because Dresden isn't omniscient.

[MijRai]

As for whether its a 'metaphysical law' of the Dresdenverse, I don't think that's exactly true. We have to keep in mind that both the books and the RPG are both written from Harry Dresden's very very biased viewpoint. He's gotten better about it throughout the series, but he still has a strong tendancy to try to paint the world in black and white. If the Laws of Magic were so clear and fundamental, it would leave questions such as:

(click to show/hide)

How are some powerful wizards like the Blackstaff or the Gatekeeper able to "keep their souls from darkening" if its such a great metaphysical law?
Before Merlin created the laws of magic, did they exist/still blacken your soul?

In the RPG, they discuss how some of the laws are in place not because they are evil, as opposed to maintaining the status quo. I dunno, it seems like there's a decent degree of flexibility without breaking cannon, simply because Dresden isn't omniscient.

Evidence points to the Laws being real. Harry, nearly succumbing to the temptation of killing Sells with magic. The Korean kid, who had forced his family to murder people, and was a raving madman. The main necromancers, with their obvious insanity and feelings of invincibility. Breaking a Law is bad, for sure.

The Blackstaff has a, you guessed it: Blackstaff. It protects him from the taint.
As far as the Gatekeeper, who says he broke a Law?
The Law that maintains the status quo is the traveling against the current of time one. All of the others harm, a lot. You kill them, destroy their minds in various ways, desecrate their bodies and spirits, or summon beings that are the anti-thesis of life. Those are bad.
Merlin created the White Council, not the Laws of Magic. The White Council may enforce them, but they didn't just arbitrarily make them.

[Synthesse]

Evidence points to the Laws being real. Harry, nearly succumbing to the temptation of killing Sells with magic. The Korean kid, who had forced his family to murder people, and was a raving madman. The main necromancers, with their obvious insanity and feelings of invincibility. Breaking a Law is bad, for sure.

The Blackstaff has a, you guessed it: Blackstaff. It protects him from the taint.
As far as the Gatekeeper, who says he broke a Law?
The Law that maintains the status quo is the traveling against the current of time one. All of the others harm, a lot. You kill them, destroy their minds in various ways, desecrate their bodies and spirits, or summon beings that are the anti-thesis of life. Those are bad.
Merlin created the White Council, not the Laws of Magic. The White Council may enforce them, but they didn't just arbitrarily make them.

Actually, chapter 6 in Changes said that the Merlin did write the Laws of Magic, and I thought it was heavily implied that the Gatekeeper breaks the Time Travel law all the time? Or the seventh law for that matter? Its kinda his job

 I think the existence of "exceptions" or "status quo" rules like the Blackstaff or the 6th law (or heck even the laws against Necromancy and contacting the Outer Gates are less 'evil' and more 'we don't want people to be tempted') kinda suggest that the laws aren't some kind of divine sacrament or universal truth. Molly comments recently in the books about how the more she sees of the world, the more she sees grays rather than blacks and whites, and I think that's a theme of character development that seems to be progressing through the series.

As for the temptations of power or people becoming evil/mad overtime, I think that's less of a compulsion from the universe as consequence of breaking a law of magic, and more that these people's personalities change overtime, because power corrupts, be it magical or non-magical.

Regardless, its possible that the original Merlin created some kind of enchantment on the world so powerful that people who do break the laws of Magic suffer consequences or something, which would not only explain the Lawbreaker things being automatically required, but also the fact that Wizards who are powerful enough or have powerful artifacts like the Blackstaff are immune.

[MijRai]

Actually, chapter 6 in Changes said that the Merlin did write the Laws of Magic, and I thought it was heavily implied that the Gatekeeper breaks the Time Travel law all the time? Or the seventh law for that matter? Its kinda his job

 I think the existence of "exceptions" or "status quo" rules like the Blackstaff or the 6th law (or heck even the laws against Necromancy and contacting the Outer Gates are less 'evil' and more 'we don't want people to be tempted') kinda suggest that the laws aren't some kind of divine sacrament or universal truth. Molly comments recently in the books about how the more she sees of the world, the more she sees grays rather than blacks and whites, and I think that's a theme of character development that seems to be progressing through the series.

As for the temptations of power or people becoming evil/mad overtime, I think that's less of a compulsion from the universe as consequence of breaking a law of magic, and more than these people's personalities change overtime, because power corrupts, be it magical or non-magical.

Regardless, its possible that the original Merlin created some kind of enchantment on the world so powerful that people who do break the laws of Magic suffer consequences or something, which would not only explain the Lawbreaker things being automatically required, but also the fact that Wizards who are powerful enough or have powerful artifacts like the Blackstaff are immune.

If Merlin wrote them, then I see it as Einstein writing about nuclear physics. It was already there, he just documented it.

The Blackstaff isn't really an exception. It is an item that takes the taint instead of the user. The orignal owner of it still wants it back too, according to Jim.

How is Necromancy and the summoning of beings anti-thetical to life not evil? Those are some of the worst. Time travel manitains the status quo, sure, but that is because a paradox may destroy reality. They don't want to risk it happening, that is for sure. How has Rashid broken the 6th Law? As for the Seventh, he doesn't have to summon them in order to keep them locked up. He just needs to check the locks, throw a couple bars over the door, and banish the few that get in.

That's what breaking a Law does. It corrupts you. It is a stain anyone (with power) can see, and it changes you.

I doubt a wizard of any caliber could do that last bit. And who is immune to them, beside the Blackstaff (who has his filtering tool)?

[Synthesse]

If Merlin wrote them, then I see it as Einstein writing about nuclear physics. It was already there, he just documented it.

The Blackstaff isn't really an exception. It is an item that takes the taint instead of the user. The orignal owner of it still wants it back too, according to Jim.

How is Necromancy and the summoning of beings anti-thetical to life not evil? Those are some of the worst. Time travel manitains the status quo, sure, but that is because a paradox may destroy reality. They don't want to risk it happening, that is for sure. How has Rashid broken the 6th Law? As for the Seventh, he doesn't have to summon them in order to keep them locked up. He just needs to check the locks, throw a couple bars over the door, and banish the few that get in.

That's what breaking a Law does. It corrupts you. It is a stain anyone (with power) can see, and it changes you.

I doubt a wizard of any caliber could do that last bit. And who is immune to them, beside the Blackstaff (who has his filtering tool)?

In the book, it isn't phrased like he discovered them, its phrased like he created them. But then again its only a sentence that mentions it. Without more information we can't really know.

The Blackstaff is an exception because it has the ability to take 'taint' into it. The fact that this ability even exists means that its within the bounds of reality to resist the 'taint' of the Law of Magic, through magical means (assuming the Blackstaff was enchanted to resist the 'taint').

Well, calling back/using souls is evil, but I wouldn't say that the use of dead corpses which don't have a mind/soul within them is evil, but this is more of a philosophical issue. (I would see the other laws of Magic used to protect a being with choice, ie a mortal - I wouldn't consider a body with a vacated spirit a mortal anymore, hence its not evil to use it). As for the risk of breaking reality, any magic has inherient risks with it. The difference between the first four laws and the sixth and seventh laws are that the first four prohibit actions which will always lead to a mortal's choice being stolen (ie evil), whereas the sixth and seventh prohibit actions which might if used inappropriately lead to a mortal's choice being stolen, just with much larger consequences. In this sense, I see the sixth and seventh laws as 'evil' as using any other type of magic - they have the capacity for evil, but don't directly lead to it.

Its not directly stated in the books, but in both Turn Coat, for instance, and the RPG books, it says that Harry suspects the Gatekeeper has broken the 6th law, although we don't really see it. And the 7th law isn't just collaborating with Outsiders, its trying to learn any knowledge at all about them. And this is the Gatekeeper's job. So he is in a constant state of violating the 7th law, and Harry suspects that he violates the 6th law, and Harry has pretty good instincts.


Overall though, there are too many questions to say definitively that "The laws of magic are absolute" or "The laws of magic are fabricated", so there's no use arguing over it. I guess we'll find out in future books, but in the meantime, there is plenty of leeway to go one way or the other inside a campaign.

[MijRai]

For the first four Laws, there isn't leeway. There is your first chance. Now, the last three, there can be some. Don't mess with humans, don't go against the flow of time (which Bob said the Gatekeepr probably avoids), and actually summoning them probably breaks the Law. Knowledge might be worth your neck, but you aren't being evil, which summoning them is, for sure.

[Miso]

The Laws Of Magic are a way of balancing the gameplay imho.
Wizards are extremely powerful. The Laws are a way of restricting them.
Otherwise I would imagine that every player just plays a wizard if there is almost no downside to being a wizard.

It should be made clear to the players (meta-wise) that some actions they are about to take will make them break a law. As a GM I would say: "Hey, if you do this, it will go against the 1st law. Are you sure that you wanna do that?"
If the player is ok with that I have no problem to reduce the refresh.
On the other hand I wouldn't come up with seemingly "monster" npcs to kill just to say afterwards: "Hey this was a person with a soul, you killing it was against 1st law. Your char is now down to refresh 0, goodbye".
One's not a jerk as GM...
To put it in a nutshell: I don't think it is hard to avoid breaking the laws if you describe the situations clearly. I would use the Laws Of Magic game-wise to balance the game.

[mostlyawake]

If it helps any, I changed this rule too... the first lawbreaker is still -1, as well as each new law you break, but then it takes 5 instances to get to -2 in the same law.  One you're past that, it takes 20 instances of breaking that law -or any other law that you have -2 in- to add another -1 (because now you're paying refresh for no further benefit). Basically after you get to -2 i just start writing "further violations" and adding everything together.

I did this because my necromancers (who regularly violate a law) would end up being some insane 21 refresh character even though they are just a wizard with a +3 bonus to trying to kill you with zombies (lawbreaker for killing with magic and messing with the bounds of life and death). It takes 5 refresh just to get that +3 (technically to any attempt at necromancy or killing with magic), compared to 3 refinement to get the same +3 in two categories (say, necro control, necro complexity).  So that's actually quite fair, as the lawbreaker stunt is more useful (any magic roll trying to break a law is just as powerful or better than than say, +3 fire control, because it applies to any type of magic you use, but only in certain situations).

But, then i say "this dude has an army of zombies for you to fight".  So i send 2 dozen zombies and now I'm supposed to have added 8 more refresh to the guy, with no power enhancement.  That's lame.  But my way adds another 1-2 refresh, and that seems fine (even though there is no mechanical benefit).