Lawbreaking and Sponsored Magic

[blackstaff67]

I have a player that wants to model type of Holy Warrior with powers.  Refresh cost aside, does Sponsored Magic free you from the penalties of Lawbreaking, even if it's done pursuing the service of the Sponsor?  If this has already been discussed, drop a link by reply.  My apologies if it's already been discussed.

[Deadmanwalking]

It has been discussed five billion times or more (okay, hyperbole, but it gets discussed a lot). There is no consensus of any sort. Some people (including myself) believe you'd still get Lawbreaker, while others think you don't. No clear answer has been determined.

This thread will rapidly become another such argument, but that's the heart of things. It's really  up to you, the GM.

Though...I am a bit curious why a Holy Warrior would need an answer to that question. I mean, is he killing human beings with magic? Because that's really the only Lawbreaking I can think of that any sort of Holy Warrior should even be contemplating and even there, well, I'd just get a sword or axe and use that instead.

[GryMor]

Bah, there are tons of ways for a Holy Warrior to break laws (some of this depends on their sect):

1. Smiting
2. Miraculous Transformation, certain levels of 'Healing'
3. Inquisition!
4. Geas; Casting out the Devil (when not actually expelling possession)
5. Resurrection
6. Set right what once went wrong?
7. Do I even need to explain this?

But in general, so long as the spell is done at the mortal casters choice, even if imbued with immortal power, the mortal is still on the hook. When it's not their choice, well, things get quagmirey real quick and I decline to participate in that argument, again.

[blackstaff67]

Basically she wanted to use magic to smite her foes, human and otherwise.  She thought that a Sponsored Power would "run interference" (her words) since such activity was in pursuit of her goals (Protect all women from harm).  Nothing about the other six Laws (though the 2nd, Thou may not Transform another, runs close to the 1st Law). 
She's a Mercedes Lackey fan, so I smiled and remembered my favorite quote from the rules, "Actions have consequences."

Again, my apologies to one and all.

[Sanctaphrax]

Because you asked for links, here's what I found with a quick forum search:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29919.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30067.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19574.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24028.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26767.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23885.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30762.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18296.0.html

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html

And here's what I found with a quick Google search:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?591109-Dresden-Files-RPG-Questions-about-Sponsored-Magic

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/15442/are-changelings-with-sponsored-magic-subject-to-the-laws-of-magic

I didn't put much effort in, and Google doesn't work on this forum. Plus the forum's search function is lousy. So you can safely assume that this is just a small fraction of the discussions that have been had on this topic.

PS: If you see me in those threads, bear in mind that past me is pretty dumb compared to present me. At least, present me thinks so.

[Deadmanwalking]

Basically she wanted to use magic to smite her foes, human and otherwise.  She thought that a Sponsored Power would "run interference" (her words) since such activity was in pursuit of her goals (Protect all women from harm).  Nothing about the other six Laws (though the 2nd, Thou may not Transform another, runs close to the 1st Law). 

Up to you whether it works. Personally, even if I let it keep her from getting the Stunt (which I wouldn't), I'd have the Wardens come down on her like a ton of bricks. It's what they'd do, after all.

She's a Mercedes Lackey fan, so I smiled and remembered my favorite quote from the rules, "Actions have consequences."

Honestly, that makes it weirder. Killing people with magic isn't very approved of in any Mercedes Lackey I've ever read (though it's not nearly as bad as in the Dresden Files, admittedly).

Again, my apologies to one and all.

No need to apologize, this comes up now and then.

[PapaD]

You may also want to consider the agenda of the sponsored magic (if soulfire, or similar - for the holy warrior style, then i'd argue that the rules of magic are pretty lightweight compared to the rules you would have to adhere to, as an agent of the almighty - you should possibly be considering a good long look at the behaviour and attitudes of the knights of the cross)

Also, If you are not an emissary of power, even if you decide that the lawbreaker rules don't apply - the white council may still consider you a mortal wizard, and react accordingly (if you are an emissary of power to a signatory of the accords, then the white council don't get a say in any punishments you may incur)

[Taran]

If you're using the White God, even if the sponsor could run interference with the Laws, I think (s)he's pretty much all about free choice and if your holy warrior starts walking the wrong path, the White God isn't going to stop them.  Sure, They might lose their access to the sponsored magic, but they'll still get the Lawbreaker stuff.  Which would suck because I'm not even sure if Lawbreaker is compatible with that sponsor...

[JDK002]

I would say look to narrative rather than the mechanical for that answer.  If the sponsor is a signatory of the accords, then lawbreaker probably doesn't apply and they are out of the White Councils jurisdiction.  If not then lawbreaker power or no, they will come down hard.

Myself, it would depend on if I felt my players were using it as an excuse to abuse a rules loophole.  If they are playing to their character and it's making the game more interesting, no lawbreaker power.  Not to say they wouldn't have to deal with the fallout from breaking said law.  If I feel they are just using it as a means to kill off npc's free and clear, lawbreaker. 

Much how it isin the narrative, let the players intent determine if lawbreaker is needed. 

[Arcane]

I would say that at least some Sponsors would have the ability to prevent their Emmisarys from being spiritually affected by Lawbreaking.  After all, if an artifact like the Blackstaff could do it why not a sufficiently powerful Sponsor?

Of course, such a benefit might not come for free.  I could see a character racking up Debt everytime their Sponsor intervened to prevent their Lawbreaking from touching them.

[blackstaff67]

I would say that at least some Sponsors would have the ability to prevent their Emmisary's from being spiritually affected by Lawbreaking.  After all, if an artifact like the Blackstaff could do it why not sufficiently powerful Sponsor?

Of course, such a benefit might not come for free.  I could see a character racking up Debt everytime their Sponsor intervened to prevent their Lawbreaking from touching them.

Quite possibly the best solution I've seen; dopeslap to myself for not thinking of it first.

[Deadmanwalking]

Quite possibly the best solution I've seen; dopeslap to myself for not thinking of it first.

If you do this, I recommend permanent sponsor debt of some sort (like one or two points every session that gets her nothing) to reflect the appropriate level of owing going on there. It's saving her one or two permanent Refresh, the price should be commensurate.

[Tedronai]

If you do this, I recommend permanent sponsor debt of some sort (like one or two points every session that gets her nothing) to reflect the appropriate level of owing going on there. It's saving her one or two permanent Refresh, the price should be commensurate.

Only if they're actually gaining the Lawbreaker power.  If they're taking debt to AVOID the Lawbreaker power, then that sort of 'Refresh Debt' would not, imo, be appropriate.

[Deadmanwalking]

Only if they're actually gaining the Lawbreaker power.  If they're taking debt to AVOID the Lawbreaker power, then that sort of 'Refresh Debt' would not, imo, be appropriate.

Huh? How would a permanent penalty like that be appropriate if they also get Lawbreaker? Charging people twice for one action seems unfair.

[UmbraLux]

I suspect he meant gaining the positive side of Lawbreaker; gaining a +1 or +2 to spellcasting when breaking the law again. 

It makes sense from a story point of view - you've paid for the ability through permanent debt.  However, I'd be wary of  using this as a way to bypass refresh limits.