The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[Belial666]

That also explains why serial killers can be badass; they used up all their refresh for stunts.

[Korwin]

My proposed fix was to ditch the lawbreakers and enforce aspect changes.

I use that too. (And afterwards heavy compelling of the Aspects.)
But I use the Aspect Changes for non-Magic breaking of the Laws too.
(A Killer is a Killer IMHO.)

[JosephKell]

(A Killer is a Killer IMHO.)

I agree, I don't think people that walk around murdering people should get a free walk on the path to darkness just because they don't use magic.

I just think magic is sort of a "fast track" to darkness because of the necessity of belief in purpose.

So you could put a third class of refresh consumption into your game that relates to people that just do horrible things.  It would just have a slower curve.  Like start a [-0], then go up to [-2] max, and stretch out the amount of "offenses" before aspects start changing.

[Kaldra]

hear is a new question does killing with an Enchanted Item count as breaking the first law?

for example:

a player enchants a knfie to release a blast of fire power 4 3 times a seesion when striking an opponent and uses this knife to kill a mortal. the blade is a magic item that he made. he killed a mortal with the blade. did he break the first law?

keep in mind wardens kill mortals with magic swords on a regular basis but dont seem to break the first law, however the older wardens are not all that happy and well in spirit ( remember morgan's soul was pretty dark and sad near the end ).

[luminos]

Does he use the magic on the knife to kill?  That is to say, did he use the fire blast while slicing the guy with the blade?  If yes, its a violation.  If no, its not a violation.  It seems clear to me, but I've seen this question or variation a lot, so there must be some point that there is tension over.  Is magic being used to kill a human with? is the basic question that needs to be answered in first law questions.

Components:
1.)  Is a human going to die from the action you are taking?
2.)  Is the action that causes their death magic, in any way or form?

The only part that would require interpretation is a 3rd point, intent, which can be handled differently from group to group, but it essentially come down to
3.)  Did your use of magic have deadly intent?

If you say yes to those three points, its a violation.  If you say no to one of the first two, and sometimes the third, its not a violation.

[Kaldra]

1.)  Is a human going to die from the action you are taking?

in my players words "put the knife in teh back and twist twist twist" i do belive that the perferated lung would have done it but the fire certainly helps so yes

2.)  Is the action that causes their death magic, in any way or form?

partialy the action stabbing a man/woman/person with a knife is mundane, the knife bursting into flame is magic.

3.)  Did your use of magic have deadly intent?

ya... no real way around that one unless the inteded purpose was a campfire lighter that got used as an impromtue weapon.

hmmm looking at it like that it seems like it would break the first law but it still seems kinda grey.

what about the guy that uses a version of the kinfe that is useable by anyone, does the pure mortal who wields and kills with the knife breaking the first law? if he is then this opens up a whole new can o worms. other wise if it doesnt break the first law for a pure mortal who used the knife to kill a man why then is it a violation of the first law for the magical person that made the knife or say another magical person using the kinfe?

[Bruce Coulson]

If using enchanted weapons as weapons violated the 1st Law, Warden's swords wouldn't exist.

There's been no wizard Newton to codify why the Laws work as they do.  The best explanation I've come up with is that Magic is what You Are; tools and skills are what You Do.  Using magic directly to cause harm changes what you are at a fundamental, metaphysical level.  Whereas using a tool or skill is merely an expression of what is already present within you.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be consequences for killing someone, whatever the method.  (I've invented an antagonist group for the White Council based on exactly that.)  Just that the consquences aren't metaphysical, Lawbreaker ones.  But a police officer once observed, "There are no 'good' shootings; just justified ones."

[WillH]

The only thing that determines whether or not something violates one of the laws is what your group* wants for the story. There is no hard internal logic to the rules in the novel or the game. The needs of the story is the only thing that matters. This isn't D&D where forum posters debate ad nauseam whether or not something was an evil act and should Tim's paladin loose his powers.

*The use of the word group and not GM was intentional.

[Bruce Coulson]

You are correct; whatever works for your gaming group is what's right.

But a certain internal consistency within your group definitely helps.  If you feel that using any type of magic to kill someone is a violation, and your group is okay with that, then that is correct; but then your group has now set the parameters for the 1st Law and should stick with that from now on.  Otherwise you have the situation where your players don't know from session to session what is acceptable behavior.  Which IS very realistic; but not much fun, imho.

I was merely giving the best viewpoint based on my readings of the books and rpg and the available information we have.  Wardens have swords; they use them to execute people; wardens aren't violating the 1st Law (as far as we know); the swords are enchanted; so enchanted swords, in my opinion and for my group, do not violate the 1st Law.

[WillH]

Bruce, that wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular. It was just a general comment on all the "Laws Threads" out there. What I was getting at is people should stop looking for a "Right" answer here, because there isn't one. You're right about consistency within one's own group though.

[JosephKell]

Committing cold murder could trigger a mental attack similar to what Demonic Co-Pilot does.

If you get a consequence, you need to justify recovery before you can start the countdown to removing it.  That probably means therapy.  I think therapists are required by law to report people that confess to murder.  I think the confessional (Catholic tradition of shedding sin) is protected, priests can encourage the penitent to surrender to the authorities, but they can't testify at a trial.

If you don't seek help, you won't recover, so the next time you might have to fill your extreme consequence and permanently alter an aspect.

[Bruce Coulson]

This could easily fit a serious campaign that wants to emphasize the seriousness of taking a human life; by any means, and for any reason.  (Most police departments require counseling after a fatal shooting, even if the shooting was justified under law and by departmental policy.)

[Kaldra]

started up a new thread for the idea of a mortal version of the Lawbreaker power.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,20729.0.html

[Wyrdrune]

and in the end, it only matters what your friendly neighbourhood the warden saw.

"there was this wizard, who was killing a man, with a knife that blasted fire." even if it was the knife that was killing the man and not the magic fire blasts, how did it look to the wardens?

as i see them, they won't ask "oh, you stabbed him three times with fire blasts to soften him up, and killed him with a non-magic stab?", no i think it's off-with-his-head-time.

[Korwin]

and in the end, it only matters what your friendly neighbourhood the warden saw.

Disagree, thats totally another question.
Entirely separate from the Lawbreaker stunt power.
You get the Lawbreaker stunt power if a Warden is watching or not (if your group didnt delete those stunts powers).