The Laws of Magic and psychic abilities

[Rechan]

I'm having a disagreement with another person who's just now reading the RPG.

They want to know if the Laws apply to psychic abilities (Specifically Domination and reading thoughts) that are not spells but, by their definition, "something a psychic could do". They are arguing that Domination isn't strictly a Magic Spell, therefore it isn't in the purview of the Council.

This person specifically said there's no proof the Council polices Minor Talents, because "Minor talents are described as those with diluted supernatural bloodlines or items of power that grant them one or two supernatural abilities. Not spellcasting."

[sinker]

I emailed Fred recently on a similar topic:

Another question that came up while we were talking about this was if a mortal takes domination (or a similar power) to represent a focused and refined spell (like the Alphas' transformation) would they take lawbreaking powers or do we go with "such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind."(YS241)

Fred: Yeah, that's a little tricky, since it's all in the "soft" details rather than firmly in the system details. The rationale. I'd consider doing the Lawbreaker stunt there because the rationale says this is mortal magic rather than a "creature power".

It's not directly applicable since we're still talking about magic, but I'd still consider the mortal as corruptible rather than the creatures who normally have these abilities.

[UmbraLux]

They want to know if the Laws apply to psychic abilities (Specifically Domination and reading thoughts) that are not spells but, by their definition, "something a psychic could do". They are arguing that Domination isn't strictly a Magic Spell, therefore it isn't in the purview of the Council.

This person specifically said there's no proof the Council polices Minor Talents, because "Minor talents are described as those with diluted supernatural bloodlines or items of power that grant them one or two supernatural abilities. Not spellcasting."

First thing to decide, are we discussing law or Law?  Capital Law, as in the metaphysical effect of an action is the more difficult of the two to discuss.  It's largely dependent on group and how they interpret things.  My interpretation is a human (non-vampire) using Domination on another human breaks the Law and earns him a Lawbreaker stunt.  Whether the power is described as psychic, magic, or something else isn't important.  The enslavement, even temporarily, of another is the issue.  But there's really no wrong answer here...the previous is just my interpretation.

Enforcement of law by Wardens is another matter.  Much will depend on the Warden in question.  We already know they see everything (or nearly) as 'magic' even if the werewolf in question states otherwise.  So the real question becomes, how does the Warden feel about the individual, the law, and killing?  Is he a Morgan who thinks chopping heads is the best solution for any crossing of the line?  Or does he have a grayer outlook on life?

In the long run, a wizard or warden will do whatever he thinks best.  If the character isn't part of a recognized faction, he'd probably better avoid being seen to break a Law...even if immune from the metaphysical effects.  If he is part of a faction, the warden might actually hesitate before chopping and courting war...unless his name is Harry.

[Sanctaphrax]

Saying that Domination incurs Lawbreaker effectively doubles the cost of the power for nothing. Unless you rule that the rolls involved in Domination are spellcasting rolls, in which case it's an overpriced mandatory upgrade.

Either way, not good. This is not a metaphysical issue, it's a mechanical one.

[RevengeofTim]

Depends who is using what on whom.

A human, albeit one with domination, using it on another mortal, seriously sounds like a 4th law violation, both cosmic and legally. It's up in the air whether as a POWER not a SPELL it would leave an aura of dark magic, or grant Lawbreaker. I'm leaning towards no to the former and yes to the latter.

[Harboe]

I'd ask the player in question when he took the power how he wanted to run it mechanics-wise.
In-game, Wardens go choppy-chop, if they see someone bashing someones mind into submission. Of course, I like my Wardens to be 40k Inquisitor-like: "Suffer not the Warlock to live," "Better a Hundred Innocents die Than One Warlock Go Free" and so on.

[InFerrumVeritas]

My group treats it as Lawbreaking. 

But, we've also removed the mandatory "Lawbreaker" power.  Instead, they're mandatory aspect changes which allow you to take the power.  I'll have to dig up the post.

Whether or not it's Lawbreaking, a warden certainly wouldn't approve.

[UmbraLux]

...it's a mechanical one.

Not at all...at least for us.  A vampire or other predator using Domination isn't an issue.  Neither is a human using it against a species viewed as monstrous.  Definitely not a mechanical issue to me.  YMMV.

[devonapple]

I'm going with the theory that most of these powers are intended for nonhuman PCs and NPCs who won't necessarily have to cope with Lawbreaker issues. For the few NPC humans with such powers, they become a part of a story. For PC humans taking such power, beware.

[Sanctaphrax]

Whether it breaks the Laws story-wise is one thing.

But ruling that the Lawbreaker-ness requires a separate power and is not included in standard Domination is another thing.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'd say that developing one's skills to the point of having Domination as a power would preclude the "Lawbreaker" power.  However, it would still be Lawbreaking in both a metaphysical sense, and something the Wardens would oppose.

[UmbraLux]

Whether it breaks the Laws story-wise is one thing.

But ruling that the Lawbreaker-ness requires a separate power and is not included in standard Domination is another thing.

Unless you're arguing against the existence of Lawbreaker powers, I'm not following. 

I agree with devonapple - the existence of a power doesn't mean it's suitable for PCs.  Greater Glamours even makes that obliquely explicit.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm arguing that whether you want to use Lawbreaker as a power is a mechanical thing.

And I'm arguing that using it as a power with Domination is a mistake, because Domination always breaks the Fourth Law. So you're effectively just adding 2 to the cost of the power.

With spellcasting, you don't necessarily break the Laws so it makes sense for Lawbreaker to exist separately from the base powers. And it provides a boost that's...not really worth the cost most of the time, but whatever. The intention is good. And it can easily be made more worthwhile by adding the bonus to power and complexity.

[UmbraLux]

I'm arguing that whether you want to use Lawbreaker as a power is a mechanical thing.

And I'm arguing that using it as a power with Domination is a mistake, because Domination always breaks the Fourth Law. So you're effectively just adding 2 to the cost of the power.

It represents a theme of Butcher's..."choices have consequences".  It's the choice in how a power is used or abused which get's you Lawbreaker status.  Call it a "meta-mechanic based on narrative choice" if you need to classify in terms of mechanics.  But it isn't something which occurs without a choice being made.

With spellcasting, you don't necessarily break the Laws so it makes sense for Lawbreaker to exist separately from the base powers. And it provides a boost that's...not really worth the cost most of the time, but whatever. The intention is good. And it can easily be made more worthwhile by adding the bonus to power and complexity.

Lawbreaker isn't just a power purchased to make a character stronger.  It's as much a consequence as an aspect change forced by an extreme consequence.  Sometimes bad stuff happens to good PCs.   

[Sanctaphrax]

It represents a theme of Butcher's..."choices have consequences".  It's the choice in how a power is used or abused which get's you Lawbreaker status.  Call it a "meta-mechanic based on narrative choice" if you need to classify in terms of mechanics.  But it isn't something which occurs without a choice being made.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Are you advocating the non-dominational use of Domination? How is that possible?

Lawbreaker isn't just a power purchased to make a character stronger.  It's as much a consequence as an aspect change forced by an extreme consequence.  Sometimes bad stuff happens to good PCs.   

But Refresh is a measure of character power. Every power should provide its value's worth. It it doesn't do anything useful, then it should just be an aspect.