The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[infusco]

Might want to read the section on Lawbreaker again, mostlyawake.

Your Lawbreaker (per individual law) refresh only goes to -2. The real danger in breaking the laws repeatedly is that your Aspects start to change to reflect your twisted nature. Which the GM can start compelling to encourage you to break that law again and again. Fun, eh?

[lankyogre]

I'm gonna have to say that this is a topic that confuses me. I think one of the accepted realities of Dresdenfiles is the way in which the laws of magic work. For your game you are more than welcome to change whatever you want. You can remove hexing, change the speed of thaumaturgy, make the Red Court all sunshine and puppies. Each one is a move away from the theme of the setting that Jim Butcher set. Not that any of them are wrong, and not that there aren't a lot of people in the Dresdenverse that break the rules all the time.

On the topic of specifically towards PCs, as long as there is open communication, it should be fine. If the character has the intent to break the law (not I know the speed limit is 45, but I'm going to go 60 anyway; but I am going to go as fast as I want). Molly didn't intend to break the law, but she did intend to mess with someones mind. It has also been shown that she still wants to mess with people's minds and finds it an expedient answer. That means it has changed who she is.

[KOFFEYKID]

For those arguing whether the laws are a fundamental law of the universe or a mortal law, here is a quote directly from the rulebook:

In this way, the Laws aren’t a legal entity at all; they’re a set of magical principles that, 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 that’s in addition to this fundamental change. You could say that the Laws exist as two separate concepts with 99% overlap—the Wardens of the White Council enforce one concept (law), while reality metaphysically enforces the other (nature).

So Merlin wrote them down, they are his observations on the laws of the universe, like Newton and Einstein.

As for my thoughts on the laws, I think they are mechanically clunky in that they cost refresh but dont necessarily increase your "power". The wizard with a lawbreaker is always weaker than he should be unless he embraces the darkness. This is not good.

This makes it so that you dont ever want to break them which is the point but it also makes it so that playing the guy who messed up once is mechanically inferior to the goody two shoes. Limiting the scope of playable character concepts sharply. My proposed fix was to ditch the lawbreakers and enforce aspect changes.

[ironchicken]

You can always use the "going off the deep end" on YS92. This is a simple solution that puts them in piles of trouble without retiring the character.

[cetra02]

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.

When and where was this said?

[Richard_Chilton]

The way I see it, if breaking a law of magic takes you to 0 or below then you become one of those out of control warlocks.  For example, that kid executed in Proven Guilty lost his freewill and had to break the law over and over again while Molly's player had a couple of refreshes in reserve so Molly stayed above 0 when she broke the law.

(click to show/hide)

Then there's the bit in Turncoat where Molly is tempted to look into other people's minds and poke around because she had broken that law of magic.

That said, I think there needs to be a bit of leeway over the intent.  When Dresden burnt down that house to kill the vampire the poisoned humans were probably already dead (and if not they were dying).  If any had been alive, well, Dresden didn't mean to kill them and metaphysically he didn't break the laws of magic, but if a certain Warden had been around then I could see Dresden getting his second trial - this one ending in death.

Another thing to remember is that while the game maps well to the books, the books weren't written with the game in mind.  Jim Butcher writes stories to entertain us and while he more or less keeps things at consistent he uses plot devices were needed.

Richard

[finnmckool]

We don't know how the Blackstaff does it actually. The book suggests that the actual staff itself is doing *something* but since we've just now seen it and we've never actually talked about it in the books at all there's no way for us to know how. And no one knows exactly what the Gatekeeper does, so you don't know if he's breaking the law all the time, or if he is does he possess something that enables this like the Blackstaff MAY (again, that's a presumption).

Not to mention, your character probably SHOULDN'T be going around breaking those laws a lot as it would really stretch credulity to keep getting away with something like that and not getting your head cut off, which seems to be something that happens pretty easily. And has been said, what laws are so easy to break that you think anyone would most likely break them at some point? I mean the First Law only applies to mortals and only applies to magic. Don't wanna break the first Law? Shoot the guy in the face with a bullet. Done. No law broken. As for the rest I can't see a deep necessity in breaking those.

[Wyrdrune]

and what we have seen of the blackstaff in

(click to show/hide)

changes

show us that it might not be an item easy to handle.

as i see it: all the rules as written in the rulebook are the dresdenverse - you and your group of players are allowed to deviate as much as they like from that set of rules, but then it's not the dresdenverse in the sense jim intended it. not that this is a bad thing. when i read about mostlyawake's game where the necromancers summon hordes of zombies before breakfast I thought, "sounds lik a hell of fun", but I would not imagine the dresdenverse that way.

as with each rpg, every rule is optional and people are invited to make up their own, no need to argue about that, but with each step they put more and more distance between their game and the way it was conceived. every group has the right to play their style. it's the same like "hey, I heard you are playing a last airbender game with the DFRPG? stop doing that, it's not the dresdenverse!"

last but no least: my take is on the laws is: most laws (like killing) apply only to mortals, if you kill vampires there's no lawbreaker. there are lots of ways to circumvent breaking the laws (like doing holographic illusions insteand influencing the mind of people to see things, using weapons). if laws are broken the powers must taken immediately and apply to the refresh rating. be honest, if there would be any problem, we GMs have enough power to find a way to make things possible. (I intend to give a player the living dead power for a while, as he dies and will be resurrected, at that milestone all players get 1 refresh (end of a story arc), but he gets 2. end of that story arc when he gets back to real living others get 1 refresh, and he loses living dead and this refresh is free for other stuff. in the end everything is fair for all.)

and I like have my players a bit uncertain about that free will/nature thing. for some it's the attraction of the game, of playing a changeling, who loses himself more and more the more he uses his powers. i know a lot of players who like to think around the corners to avoid losing humanity, gaining lawbreakers whatever.

it's part of the thrill, knowing you could end the whole problem here, by blasting the bad guy to hell with a lightning bolt, but you know you shouldn't.

[Bruce Coulson]

The Laws (as far as we have seen in the source material) appear to be metaphysical/supernatural laws on par with physical laws in mundane reality.  That is, you don't get to 'break' them without penalties.  Any more than you can jump off a building without falling.  Now, that isn't to say there aren't ways around the Laws.  Just as you CAN jump off a building and not fall if you're wearing a jet pack, you can avoid the consequences of the Laws.  But you're not really 'breaking' them so much as finding a way around them.

I generally go with the idea that the Laws are the White Council's best guess at to what para-reality's laws are.  There haven't been any wizard theoreticians (that we know of) ala Newton to codify these Laws; they are 'rules of thumb' for mortal practicioners

[Stormraven]

On re-reading, yes, I was wrong.  Missed the bit about 'must'.

[BigMrE]

And I have a situation where the player used magic and killed a baddie, but was using player vs. character knowledge, and didn't stop to think that it might be a mortal that had been infected by a vamp (a thrall, if you will...).  As it was our first session, I have an NPC that is going to "lay down the law" to him (as on page 235 of the 1st law, it says that the wardens have become a bit more "lenient" on breaking the 1st law, only because they are too busy).

I'm also going to make it perfectly clear that this is a 1 time only deal.

[JosephKell]

If the person was a Renfield, then he wasn't "mortal" anymore.  If someone has had their mind twisted to the point he can't recover, then he is little more than a breathing doll.

And even the more "mortal" supernaturals (like Changelings and White Court Vampires) only qualify as mortal if they are positive refresh AND not acting monstrous at the time.  Notice in the books that Mouse only growls at Thomas when he goes into "feeding mode," but not when he goes "silver hero."

[BigMrE]

In the novels, Dresden is informed by Bob that they are still mortal, just really, really messed up.

They may not have control of their faculties, but they still have a soul, which is what the 1st Law boils down to RAW.

(click to show/hide)

What We Know: A Renfield is a victim of mind control magic, specifically the sort practiced by Black Court vampires. The victim is crushed into total thralldom by brute psychic force; this destroys the victim’s mind, leaving him no good for anything but gibbering violence. In many ways, Renfields aren’t people anymore.

Unlike most thralls created via mind control magic, being turned into a Renfield may be irreversible.  (Even the original Merlin was unable to undo the damage.) Renfields get more and more deranged and violent over the course of a year or two, and eventually self-destruct.

Powers: Fanatic strength and pain ignorance.  These are normal folks, built along the lines of rough thralls (see page 82). Add Inhuman  Strength and Inhuman Recovery, and you’ve got the package.

They are just enhanced humans that are "mindless".

[MijRai]

In the novels, Dresden is informed by Bob that they are still mortal, just really, really messed up.

They may not have control of their faculties, but they still have a soul, which is what the 1st Law boils down to RAW.

(click to show/hide)

What We Know: A Renfield is a victim of mind control magic, specifically the sort practiced by Black Court vampires. The victim is crushed into total thralldom by brute psychic force; this destroys the victim’s mind, leaving him no good for anything but gibbering violence. In many ways, Renfields aren’t people anymore.

Unlike most thralls created via mind control magic, being turned into a Renfield may be irreversible.  (Even the original Merlin was unable to undo the damage.) Renfields get more and more deranged and violent over the course of a year or two, and eventually self-destruct.

Powers: Fanatic strength and pain ignorance.  These are normal folks, built along the lines of rough thralls (see page 82). Add Inhuman  Strength and Inhuman Recovery, and you’ve got the package.

They are just enhanced humans that are "mindless".

But what if having a mind is what gives them a soul? Taking it away may be the same as killing them, but with a handy body that you can use how you want.

[JosephKell]

Soul != Free Will/Mortal.

And I think Bob's exact words were more of it not breaking the 1st law, but killing Renfields can give a wizard a very bad habit, it isn't a big step from killing broken thralls to killing people.

Fae have souls, they just aren't mortal or free willed.  Angels are only souls, when they appear they make a vessel from ectoplasm (just like demons).

A mindless thrall doesn't have free choice or free will.  Since a major theme of DFrpg (it is like the first universe plot point of chapter 1) is "Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice."  A thing that doesn't have choice is not mortal (might not be a monster either).  In this case, I would group a thrall in the same category of rabid animals (Renfields/rough thralls) or trained animals (thralls).  Thralls (but not rough thralls) might not be beyond recovery, but Renfields are.

A practitioner that goes so dark side from Lawbreakers as to be negative refresh is no longer a mortal because their mind is so bent.  A Serial Killer would also be a "pure mortal" version of a negative refresh character.