Law Talk

[Vargo Teras]

The thing is, Fate mechanics are somewhat narrative. I agree that it's unreasonable to knock someone out harmlessly with a Weapon:12 fireball, but I'd suggest that a Weapon:12 terramantic spell should be able to painfully but non-lethally pin my enemies to the ground for long enough that I can either hogtie or shoot them (with a nice non-magical revolver), either of which is a taken-out result which doesn't lead to a Lawbreaker stunt.

[Tarion]

The thing is, Fate mechanics are somewhat narrative. I agree that it's unreasonable to knock someone out harmlessly with a Weapon:12 fireball, but I'd suggest that a Weapon:12 terramantic spell should be able to painfully but non-lethally pin my enemies to the ground for long enough that I can either hogtie or shoot them (with a nice non-magical revolver), either of which is a taken-out result which doesn't lead to a Lawbreaker stunt.

And doing that occasionally would be fine for me.  But I think that if you're repeatedly hitting people with that degree of force (remember, shooting someone with a handgun is a weapon 2.  A grenade is a weapon 4.  Weapon 12 is three times that stopping power) crushing people seems like a serious risk.

And if you're leaving corpses that have been battered with magic before death, the Wardens would be knocking on your door. 

[Sanctaphrax]

(remember, shooting someone with a handgun is a weapon 2.  A grenade is a weapon 4.  Weapon 12 is three times that stopping power)

No it isn't.

[Deadmanwalking]

Sleep spells are almost violations of the Fourth Law, not the First.

And an electricity-as-tazer spell or spirit-based blood choke should be able to take someone out without killing 'em pretty well.

But at heart, no, I don't think making people worry about this is unfair, but I'd suggest you're doing it the wrong way, because you're violating the rules to achieve that effect.

Instead, I suggest Compels on their High Concept. If they accept, using magic on those poor mortals is too dangerous and they either don't do it or risk Lawbreaker, if they refuse the Compel, they find a non-lethal spell. Do this every time it comes up and everyone has to be pretty careful, but the rules remain unchanged and there's no unfairness. You can do the same thing on a cop shooting people or other such situations, too.

[Lavecki121]

No it isn't.

I agree with you, I just wanted to take a moment and admire how much you like to explain your views. Makes me giggle

[Tedronai]

I suppose my take on that would depend on what you mean by 'consistently' and 'masses of power', respectively.
I'm not really sure that there is a viable definitive line that one can cross on those measures, either, but the issue is quite definitely subject to the gaming group's assessment of plausibility and their tolerance of that being stretched.  But that is where (and by whom) the decision must be made.  There is no universal, game-and-group-spanning metric for determining which spell (or other attack) is capable of disabling an opponent non-lethally (or even which one is capable of doing so LETHALLY), and which is not.
The group as a whole must come to some sort of agreement (or at least compromise) on these issues.  This is not the place for GM fiat.

[Tarion]

No it isn't.

Could you elaborate on this?

Because I was very careful to avoid saying something like "three times that deadly", or "three times that force".  But in terms of stress, it really does have three times the stopping power (in the sense of being able to "incapacitate the target where it stands"), which implies to me that it's going to convey a decent amount of force.

Sleep spells are almost violations of the Fourth Law, not the First.

Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.

And an electricity-as-tazer spell or spirit-based blood choke should be able to take someone out without killing 'em pretty well.

I'm not sure about the blood choke, but tasers have quite a death toll.  They're not non-lethal, they're just less-lethal. 

But at heart, no, I don't think making people worry about this is unfair, but I'd suggest you're doing it the wrong way, because you're violating the rules to achieve that effect.

Which rule?  Because the rules are quite clear that it needs to be within the limits of reason.  And as the guy who's most familiar with setting and the rules, what I say is essentially going to serve as my group's limits of reason.  That's why I'm concerned about being unfair - I don't want my reading of the setting to be unnecessarily punitive, when it's essentially going to be taken as canon.

Instead, I suggest Compels on their High Concept. If they accept, using magic on those poor mortals is too dangerous and they either don't do it or risk Lawbreaker, if they refuse the Compel, they find a non-lethal spell. Do this every time it comes up and everyone has to be pretty careful, but the rules remain unchanged and there's no unfairness. You can do the same thing on a cop shooting people or other such situations, too.

I do like this take on it, and it was probably a large part of how I was going to go about it in the first place. 

[Theonlyspiral]

In terms of the specifics: I would say it all comes down to the narrative of the spell. If someone is hit head on by a 10 shift Fireball, I do have trouble seeing them taken out but alive if they are a regular person. On the other hand if they use a Gravity Hammer to force G-Forces and make them pass out? Or hit them with a wave of icy cold water? I could buy that.

In general your stance on the laws should mirror what the table wants: If they want a game where magic is dangerous and full of pitfalls, where moral quagmires are common, then a stricter reading of the laws is called for. If they just want to have a fun action game, then it hurts noone to let them cut loose.

[Sanctaphrax]

Could you elaborate on this?

Because I was very careful to avoid saying something like "three times that deadly", or "three times that force".  But in terms of stress, it really does have three times the stopping power (in the sense of being able to "incapacitate the target where it stands"), which implies to me that it's going to convey a decent amount of force.Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.

Stress is not really a direct representation of in-game reality. A raging (D&D-style) barbarian hitting you with a big axe could be anywhere from weapon 3 to weapon 7 depending on how the GM decides to stat the barbarian up. Exact same barbarian, exact same in-story situation, totally different weapon rating.

Plus, even when a stress bonus does correspond to an in-game concept it's not necessarily one that would logically make an attack more lethal. The classic example is a damage stunt representing exceptional skill. More skilled fighters are less likely, not more likely, to accidentally kill someone.

And multiplication doesn't work very well with stress. Three 4-stress hits are not equal to one 12-stress hit.

[Theonlyspiral]

So here's another question for everyone: The Formor. Now the Formor use augmented servitors, modified by magic and (likely) alchemy to become less like Human Beings, and more like the Formor themselves. In Ghost Story

(click to show/hide)

When Molly is attacked and Harry roasts some of them

neither seems very concerned. Would you slap lawbreaker on someone who hit a Formor servitor with a gout of fire? Or would they be in the clear?

[Lavecki121]

I would consider that their humanity has been taken away at that point and that they are just shells that can be controlled. But that may just be me. Its probably a good idea to not try and kill them with magic though because IC you probably wouldnt be able to know.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'd count 'em as Human. Unlike Renfields, their mentality doesn't seem to have been effected overly much, they just get cool powers, and to me that says 'still human'. They also appear to be able to ignore thresholds, which just supports the 'still human' thing.

For the scene in Ghost Story, Molly's way past caring about the Laws at that point, and Harry's dead. Which both seem like every bit as valid reasons not to care as anything else.

[Mrmdubois]

The servitors of the Fomor have had their free will completely removed.  Their only concern is how to benefit their masters regardless of how that might be done.

For instance, when Listen is dealing with Corpsetaker he mentions that he would happily die if it benefited master in some small way.

Lacking free will, they're no longer mortal.

[Deadmanwalking]

The servitors of the Fomor have had their free will completely removed.  Their only concern is how to benefit their masters regardless of how that might be done.

For instance, when Listen is dealing with Corpsetaker he mentions that he would happily die if it benefited master in some small way.

Lacking free will, they're no longer mortal.

We have zero indications this is magically enforced or created, though.

[Theonlyspiral]

Where do you think his mad fanaticism came from if not magic?