First law and were creatures.

[Moriden]

For the purposes of the RPG, it would be pretty crappy if PC defended themselves from a White Court Vampire (notice the "vampire" in the name) and lost a point of refresh from it, effectively making them lose their character for most wizards. Sad

Theirs a very simple solution to that. *don't use lawbreaker stunts*. now bear with me for a moment. what do the stunts do? they give a fairly good bonus to a specific type of magic and force you to change an aspect after you've used that magic a sufficient amount of times. The kicker though is that if your using that kind of magic you should be changing your aspects to reflect it  as a responsible spell caster irregardless of the stunt or not. which means that lawbreaker serves two legitimate purposes as a rules wise to force a character into retirement, and as a alternate refinement option for characters who its appropriate for. using the negative refresh = npc rule is fine for play balance purposes but rapidly falls apart in any other light.

[Bruce Coulson]

It's more a question of what type of game your group wants to play.

Is your group comfortable with a world where spell-casters are never quite certain if it's okay to use lethal force?  A grey world where it's easy to slip over the edge and become a Lawbreaker while trying to do the right thing?

Or would your group prefer (at least in the case of the First Law), that the boundaries are clearly laid out; when fighting creature 'X' you can use your big guns without fear of becoming a Lawbreaker, whereas when confronting warlock 'Y' a different approach is needed?

Neither world is 'right'; it's a question of what your group thinks would be dramatic and fun.

[sinker]

I tend to agree with Bruce on the interpretation of "What is human" with the singular exception that I believe that all Whampires at least have the potentiality for a soul (Thomas' soulgaze would imply as much), and therefore the law may apply.

As for lawbreaker bear, you really shouldn't be worried about it. There should be no situation that should give you the lawbreaker power without your say so. Either you will find a situation that you deem justified to twist your character, or you'll describe whatever other outcome to take someone out. Any GM that is holding that over someone or who surprises anyone with it is just being vindictive and needs to rethink their priorities as a GM.

[BumblingBear]

I tend to agree with Bruce on the interpretation of "What is human" with the singular exception that I believe that all Whampires at least have the potentiality for a soul (Thomas' soulgaze would imply as much), and therefore the law may apply.

As for lawbreaker bear, you really shouldn't be worried about it. There should be no situation that should give you the lawbreaker power without your say so. Either you will find a situation that you deem justified to twist your character, or you'll describe whatever other outcome to take someone out. Any GM that is holding that over someone or who surprises anyone with it is just being vindictive and needs to rethink their priorities as a GM.

I suppose you're right - and my GM would not try to "whoops" me.

It's just an interesting thing to discuss I suppose - notably because it's not defined in the books, the RPG books, or even by Jim himself.

In fact, the next time I see Jim at a convention or something I will probably ask him about this if the matter hasn't been officially resolved yet.

In fact, we actually HAVE seen Harry fight whampires in the books... but Thomas has a soul.  Perhaps we should start calling Thomas, "Angel".

Sorry - bad joke.

[Bruce Coulson]

Jokes aside, I see Thomas as an exceptionally rare WCV.

Most of them, after their first kill, would not qualify as 'human' for purposes of breaking the First Law.  (Although there would be other consequences...), at least in my opinion.  Lara, for instance, appears to be a typical (albeit highly intelligent) WCV and monster.  Now, White Court virgins, who have not killed, do qualify as 'human' by almost any standard.

But other players and groups may well see this differently.

[sinker]

And from a gaming stand point the "souled" whampires are considerably less likely to leap out of the shadows at you for no reason.

[Drachasor]

Loup Garou seems to be OK.  White Night indicates that probably using magic on White Court Vampires is ok.  Killing with magic against Denarians is ok.

Using it against Wizards, who have supernatural powers, is not.  It's unclear about changelings and people like Billy.

My tentative conclusion, is that if the person isn't time-sharing with some other entity or force that takes control (e.g. WCV and their demon, Fallen Angels, or whatever calls the shots for a Loup Garou), and they are human, then they count as least as far as killing goes.  If there IS time-sharing going on, then killing them with magic is ok while the entity is present (e.g. not ok for the Loup Garou when they are just a normal human, but with WCV and Nickelheads, they always have another entity there).  So Changelings and most other Scions are off-limits, arguably Red Court Infected are ok to kill (they have a demon in them), and people like Billy are also protected.  I think it gets murkier with some of the other laws, but perhaps I just feel that way in my gut because they book doesn't do much there (

(click to show/hide)

Molly

never looks around in a faerie's head for instance).

That seems to be how the books lean, anyhow.

[bitterpill]

Loup Garou in terms of law breakers should be the same as a were creature, if you think about it they have both humans who have been turned into a 'animal' by spell only the Loup Garou never had a choice, this is why I think that were-beasts are fair game as long as they are not in human form (i don't think the first lore counts for animals) and tecnically in  beast form they are not human.

[Bruce Coulson]

ehhh...I would have real issues with that interpretation.  What about a wizard who has shape-changed?  Are they suddenly 'not human'?  The governing intelligence is still human, still has a soul.  The point made that people with a 'demonic co-pilot' may no longer qualify as being human under the Laws I can see; they've agreed to let an inhuman monster take over the operation of their body.  (Voluntary possession.)  But a wizard blasting away weres in their animal forms?  If they know that they're killing weres, I'd be inclined to slap Lawbreaker on them for that.

[sinker]

Killing with magic against Denarians is ok.

Not arguing with this (cause the novels seem fairly clear) but it just seems really weird to me. Technically you aren't harming the possessing entity at any point. Even if the host dies the Denarian will be fine. So it seems to that you're totally killing the mortal part of the equation...

[bitterpill]

There clearly is no unitary value of a soul in the Dresden verse which means that doing some things is wrong and others is not. I suppose killing the Denarians could count as saving them and from the silly metaphysical thing about the use of magic to kill being corrupting you could argue the wizard in his mind’s eye is targeting the monster not the man.   

[Drachasor]

Not arguing with this (cause the novels seem fairly clear) but it just seems really weird to me. Technically you aren't harming the possessing entity at any point. Even if the host dies the Denarian will be fine. So it seems to that you're totally killing the mortal part of the equation...

Struck me as weird in the novels as well.

Two possible interpretations:
1.  If you kill a person fully or partially possessed by an evil entity, then the soul-staining backlash of doing that gets attracted to and joins with the evil entity rather than going back and staining your soul.

2.  Things like they are enough "not human" that believing that killing them is ok doesn't stain your soul.

Personally, I think 1 is a bit more consistent with Law Breaking in general as it implies accidental Law Breaking still stains the soul (if you kill someone without knowing they were there, you didn't have to think killing them was ok).  It also adds an element that explains why killing someone like Toot Toot wouldn't get you Law Breaker even though it would be a vile act.

[toturi]

If the character/player is concerned about getting Lawbreaker, I'd allow him to assess with Lore (most probably) to find out. Kind of like the "Search Your Feelings" ability in Star Wars - searching your feelings, you know this to be true/false.

Maybe with Guide my hand, you will get a Compel to stop yourself from doing something that would get you Lawbreaker.

[vultur]

The Denarian thing is *very* weird.

Two ways I can see to look at it:

1) in borderline cases it depends on the wizard's belief. Killing with magic is tainting at least partially because it makes you, deeply, the kind of person who *would* kill another person. So if you're thinking of the Denarian, loup-garou, White Court vampire as a monster, there's some insulation. But wizards aren't going to think of other wizards as less human, so they are just as tainting to kill as ordinary mortals. In this view, if the wizard knew the were-creature was a human practitioner, it would count as human, but if they just killed a werewolf that jumped them in wolf-form, it might well not.

2) Wizards & other practitioners are 'more human' than White Court vampires, Denarians, other humans-with-magic. Unlike the others, there's no sharp line between wizard and mundane -- it seems that magic is a pretty common human ability in the DV, so weak it's irrelevant in most people, quite a few people have a touch of talent that can be more if trained, a few have serious sorcerer talents, and one in a million are Council-level. But even the strongest wizards are just an exceptional form of a trait already inherent in humanity at some level; wizards aren't a 'supernatural race'. In this case, the human-practitioner kind of werewolf that the Alphas are would count as human. [Hexenwolves might theoretically be like Denarians, at least while in beast form... not sure about them.]

The second seems closer to the feel I get from the books, personally...

[BumblingBear]

The Denarian thing is *very* weird.

Two ways I can see to look at it:

1) in borderline cases it depends on the wizard's belief. Killing with magic is tainting at least partially because it makes you, deeply, the kind of person who *would* kill another person. So if you're thinking of the Denarian, loup-garou, White Court vampire as a monster, there's some insulation. But wizards aren't going to think of other wizards as less human, so they are just as tainting to kill as ordinary mortals. In this view, if the wizard knew the were-creature was a human practitioner, it would count as human, but if they just killed a werewolf that jumped them in wolf-form, it might well not.

See... that doesn't make any sense because the Laws have nothing to do with morality.

A wizard could easily hold someone down with magic, rape them, then snuff the life out of them with a pillow and that would be 100% OK as far as the laws of magic are concerned.

I agree with you that option #1 is definitely not it.

2) Wizards & other practitioners are 'more human' than White Court vampires, Denarians, other humans-with-magic. Unlike the others, there's no sharp line between wizard and mundane -- it seems that magic is a pretty common human ability in the DV, so weak it's irrelevant in most people, quite a few people have a touch of talent that can be more if trained, a few have serious sorcerer talents, and one in a million are Council-level. But even the strongest wizards are just an exceptional form of a trait already inherent in humanity at some level; wizards aren't a 'supernatural race'. In this case, the human-practitioner kind of werewolf that the Alphas are would count as human. [Hexenwolves might theoretically be like Denarians, at least while in beast form... not sure about them.

The second seems closer to the feel I get from the books, personally...

This seems to be closer to the books, but we have to keep in mind that:

A. Everything we know about the magical world is told to us through Harry's narrative and

B.  Harry is not a completely trustworthy narrator.

Plus, belief is an extremely relative thing from person to person.  Perhaps the reason Harry does not do some of the things he does is due to personal beliefs rather than an immutable and unmoving magical rule.

I cannot help but think that if there /were/ a solid line in the sand drawn between things that are killable and things that aren't, all wizards including Harry would know of it.

I am more of the opinion that whether a person is twisted by killing has to do with how they feel about it internally than anything else.

As for whether the council comes after you, I think that has to do more with whether a wizard killed "one of us" or not.  It seems like the Council is pretty xenophobic.  Anything not human is not a person and a-ok to kill.

::shrug::