The letter not the spirit of the Law

[toturi]

- SPOILER:

(click to show/hide)

At the end of Grave Peril, Harry only releases the spirit of the dead trapped in Bianca's mansion. He didn't guide them or control them, he simply let them loose. That would not be a Lawbreaker as he simply open their jail cell and let their own free will run wild.

- SPOILER:

(click to show/hide)

In Dead Beat, the Necromancers not only summoned human ghosts and controlled them, but then subsequently used them to kill. *Definitely* breaking the 5th law, and arguably the 1st as well. Mind you, Harry also zombified a T-Rex (proud member of the I Love Sue fan club!). First off, he brought forth an undead dinosaur, not a sentient and free willed being, so no Lawbreaker on the 5th there (although for dabbling, I'd possibly give it to him if it became a repeat occurrence), and he only threw Sue at other zombies, so no 1st there either.

(click to show/hide)

But he gave Bob permission.

[bitterpill]

Tecnically acording to the book ghosts aren't the souls of the dead there mearly after images which is why ectomancy isn't breaking the fifth law, summoning them is a bit of grey area but Mort can talk to them as long as he dose not summon them or try to bind them to his will. Arguement Im using is not a moral arguement at the very least a character using ghosts or anyones anger as a weapon to kill is still a murder. The reason that I think it gets of the Lawbreaker charge is because it is done through powers rather than Magic, the same way that using adicitive saliva is not a magic offense neither is ghost speaker or Incite Emotions. This character basicly persuaded the ghost he was there best bet at revenge and when the word went out they came to him, (the world is full of vicitims). The only thing he did with magic was the empowering thing, which I don't think in its own right counts as crime as he was not forcing the power on the ghosts. This is basicly the same case as knocking someone out with the power then stabbing him, the knocking out is not a crime. So the basic question is does the magic count as a first law violation when it dose not directly lead to death. The question is as  Totouri said whether it is intentions or result that count as lawbreaker, if it is intentions then this example counts but if it is results then it dosen't because of the buffer of ghosts own will.

[Tallyrand]

Tecnically acording to the book ghosts aren't the souls of the dead there mearly after images which is why ectomancy isn't breaking the fifth law, summoning them is a bit of grey area but Mort can talk to them as long as he dose not summon them or try to bind them to his will. Arguement Im using is not a moral arguement at the very least a character using ghosts or anyones anger as a weapon to kill is still a murder. The reason that I think it gets of the Lawbreaker charge is because it is done through powers rather than Magic, the same way that using adicitive saliva is not a magic offense neither is ghost speaker or Incite Emotions. This character basicly persuaded the ghost he was there best bet at revenge and when the word went out they came to him, (the world is full of vicitims). The only thing he did with magic was the empowering thing, which I don't think in its own right counts as crime as he was not forcing the power on the ghosts. This is basicly the same case as knocking someone out with the power then stabbing him, the knocking out is not a crime. So the basic question is does the magic count as a first law violation when it dose not directly lead to death. The question is as  Totouri said whether it is intentions or result that count as lawbreaker, if it is intentions then this example counts but if it is results then it dosen't because of the buffer of ghosts own will.

For me that totally depends on how your define your powers.  Yes if you have Addictive Saliva and Spirit Talker with rationalization other than magic then that's not breaking the 1st Law, if on the other hand you say "My character has Addictive Saliva because he's a talented biomancer and it's just a really reliable spell" then it would be.

[BumblingBear]

This I agree with, because you're not killing with your soul, you're killing with a knife, and that is the key difference when it comes to law breaker.

Agreed

I think that it is worth noting though that my stance on Lawbreaking applies only to the Lawbreaker Power, all of the lawyering and roundabout means very well may protect you from the Wardens, but at least if I were running they wouldn't protect you from losing a refresh.

Are you including knocking someone out and killing with a knife?  I don't think so based on your agreement with me.

[BumblingBear]

So... what about sponsored magic?

The community is pretty much in agreement that sponsored magic is not affected by the laws of magic, so couldn't you kill a mortal with say... Summer magic and not lose a point of refresh?

[infusco]

Please note that Lawbreaker only applies to using *magic* to break those laws. Addictive Saliva when inherent, is a supernatural ability that is, well, natural to that particular creature. It kills simply because it's in its nature to kill. Now if Red Court Vampire Sorcerer then turned around a threw a fireball at another mortal, that *would* be a Lawbreaker. Mind you, in that instant, the point is moot as they are already creatures of impulse and desire and don't have a concept of Free Will like mortals do (they are already at negative refresh rates).

[bitterpill]

So if you use Incite Emotion Fear to persuade a NPC the only way out is death then hand them a gun it does not count as Law Breaker, because incite emotion is Natural to WCV and not 'magic', even though the acts kind of share the same will to death which Law breaker seems to be about.  

[infusco]

So... what about sponsored magic?

The community is pretty much in agreement that sponsored magic is not affected by the laws of magic, so couldn't you kill a mortal with say... Summer magic and not lose a point of refresh?

Yes ... but ...

I'd say you wouldn't if the Sponsored Magic is the *only* thing you used. If you use Sponsored Magic to supplement your existing Evocation, and then use your Fire focus and Fire specialization to fry a mortal, you'll get hit with Lawbreaker, regardless how cozy you and the Unseelie Court is. Now if you turned around and used only the Seelie Magic, minus any focuses, rotes, or specializations from Evocation, then you might get away with it.

Anyways, Sponsored Magic has it's own grave perils (tee hee) in the form of those wonderfully addictive free shifts you get in exchange for the IOUs. In other words, when you run out of Fate points and still have a ton of debt points to the Unseelie sponsor , then you'll certainly enjoy the irony in not having succumbed to Lawbreaking when you've effectively become Mab's bitch.

[infusco]

So if you use Incite Emotion Fear to persuade a NPC the only way out is death then hand them a gun it does not count as Law Breaker, because incite emotion is Natural to WCV and not 'magic', even though the acts kind of share the same will to death which Law breaker seems to be about.  

Yup. Pretty much. And now all those players who cried fowl at how overpowered Wizards were are starting to understand the drawbacks.

[BumblingBear]

Yes ... but ...

I'd say you wouldn't if the Sponsored Magic is the *only* thing you used. If you use Sponsored Magic to supplement your existing Evocation, and then use your Fire focus and Fire specialization to fry a mortal, you'll get hit with Lawbreaker, regardless how cozy you and the Unseelie Court is. Now if you turned around and used only the Seelie Magic, minus any focuses, rotes, or specializations from Evocation, then you might get away with it.

Anyways, Sponsored Magic has it's own grave perils (tee hee) in the form of those wonderfully addictive free shifts you get in exchange for the IOUs. In other words, when you run out of Fate points and still have a ton of debt points to the Unseelie sponsor , then you'll certainly enjoy the irony in not having succumbed to Lawbreaking when you've effectively become Mab's bitch.

Trust me... I know.  My character can easily rack up a few debt points in a big battle.  Due to the debt, I was just compelled last weekend to destroy evidence by burning a house to the ground.

It's interesting to know though that I could conceivably use my sponsored magic (and only my sponsored magic) to kill a mortal and not get the lawbreaker stunt.

[jybil178]

Yes bitterpill...  It has to be actual magic in order to be lawbreaking... Basically, any ability under the Spellcraft section, in the Supernatural Powers chapter, has to abide by the 7 laws... One could technically argue about sponsored magic... Hell, one could even argue that if its true sponsored magic, IE you have evocation, channeling, thaum, or ritual, that the magic that killed someone is yours, just with someone else's juice power it up, while full blown Unseelie, or Seelie Magic might not break the laws... Honestly, I don't know what to think of it... I could fall either way, mostly falling towards it still being lawbreaking...

But we do have precedent that Sponsored Magic, like full blown Unseelie or Seelie Magic, can interact perfectly fine with technology without harming it... IE one of the knights of the courts may not have any issue with technology...  The precedent was set in Last Call, the last short story taking place between Small Favor and Turn Coat...  ((book 10.4, Last Call)) 

(click to show/hide)

The baddie in the story had placed a very potent, and complex spell on Mac's beer.  But later in the story, it was found she left a paper trail with a credit card at some bull Black Magic store.  Harry said that since she was obviously very good with magic, and could still manage to maintain the magnetic strip on the card, that she wasn't using normal mortal magic.  That she had to be some sort of supernatural creature, with access to a different kind of magic.

Now that COULD be a big leap in logic, but I think that its followable...  Anyway, the whole reason for that, is that potentially, sponsored magic that comes fully from the sponsor, and isn't just a plug in battery, may be following a different set of rules...

[bitterpill]

Well if its Seelie Magic you could heal a wound and 'forget' to clean the wound thus with your magic you would be reproducing what ever was in the wound a hundred thousand time and possibly killing the person your healing if the wound had any nice bateria, fungus or viral cells, as these types of cells reproduce quicker than most normal cells. This all with the intention of healing so not breaking the Law and on Net Causing more Life than death.  But then Fairy Perspective completly differs from human to begin with moving a life away from a pinnacle concept to a stock concept. Death is for Fae part of life it is only the chain of death that allow life, so using Fae magic to kill would only matter if you believed it mattered. 

[Tbora]

Yup. Pretty much. And now all those players who cried fowl at how overpowered Wizards were are starting to understand the drawbacks.

My solution would be to play a non human Wizard, maybe a full fae Gruff.

Lawbreakers only apply to mortals so you can do whatever you want and no Lawbreaker.

Of coarse this does have some limitations, as for example only mortals can touch the Outer Gates so Mr.Gruff couldn't, and I would be willing to say the same regarding Necromancy, though I could be wrong.

[BumblingBear]

My solution would be to play a non human Wizard, maybe a full fae Gruff.

Lawbreakers only apply to mortals so you can do whatever you want and no Lawbreaker.

Of coarse this does have some limitations, as for example only mortals can touch the Outer Gates so Mr.Gruff couldn't, and I would be willing to say the same regarding Necromancy, though I could be wrong.

How are you doing to do that?  Your gruff would need an extra point of refresh to have free will.

I guess it'd be up to the GM.

[jybil178]

It'd be completely up to the GM, because technically, even if he has enough refresh to pull it off, it falls off into a completely alien creature that has no human soul, nor has ever had one.  While it may have enough free will to not be utterly controlled by its nature, its still different enough that it would require full ST approval to pull off.  Kinda similar to playing a Red Court Vampire... While you may have enough refresh to keep your 'free will', your now a monster.. But you also technically still have a soul, since ((book 1, Storm Front... I KNOW, this is silly, but I HATE spoilers, and I would much prefer to do my best to not spoil anything, or break the no spoilers rule >.< ))

(click to show/hide)

Harry DID soulgaze Bianca in the first book

...  One would think most monsters wouldn't have anything of a soul, but maybe not...