Law Talk

[blackstaff67]

That would beg the question of whether or not it's within the White Council's Charter to execute people that, while not necessarily Lawbreakers, are still rather unsavory blemishes 'pon the face of the world and worth removing.  If technical details prevented Morgan from taking down Dresden, they'd protest these people as well.

[Vairelome]

That would beg the question of whether or not it's within the White Council's Charter to execute people that, while not necessarily Lawbreakers, are still rather unsavory blemishes 'pon the face of the world and worth removing.  If technical details prevented Morgan from taking down Dresden, they'd protest these people as well.

It seems pretty clear that Warden enforcement varies based on the politics of the moment.  Harry gets away with decent legal arguments because of Morgan's own integrity--which another Warden might well not have--and the fact that Morgan knows that Eb is Harry's mentor/patron.

[Tedronai]

No, it rests solely on the concept that human interpretation can differ from universal fact.
If the White Council, through its Wardens, interpret's an individual's actions to be Lawbreaking, then it would clearly be within it's Charter to take the appropriate steps.
If you accept that the White Council is made of individuals, who can be wrong, then it follows logically that they may in some instances lop the head off an individual who has broken no Laws.

[vultur]

I honestly don't understand the criteria for the Fourth Law. Some emotion effects (love potion in SmF) don't count, but some (Molly's phobia spell in PG) do. Elaine's mind fog spell is treated as at least semi-lawbreaking in SK, yet she doesn't seem to have been twisted by it. And Elaine has those memory-implanting-spark rings.

I guess the difference is supposed to be that the love potion intensifies a pre-existing emotion whereas the phobia spell creates one from whole cloth. But Elaine's memory-spark ring inserts something totally new...

I mean, I get that Molly's phobia spell is waaay more destructive. But what I don't see is why one is a violation of free will ("enthralling") and one isn't. Either emotions are "data" that the will can act based on, and modifying them doesn't affect free will; or they're more integral, and it does. But I don't see how you can have it both ways, at least if you're trying for a broadly applicable rule.

[Mrmdubois]

The love potion was basically really strong liquor, she even got the hangover!  In all seriousness though, what it's described as doing is lowering inhibitions.  Which means that anything she did to Harry were things she wanted to do anyway, the potion just made her more likely to act on them.  The effects were temporary and incapable of doing long term mental damage.  At most it probably would have left the imbiber with the idea that, "Man, I did something really stupid there.  What made me so desperate?"  There might be some need for recovery involved but it's not nearly as intense.  Also, keep in mind, Harry never intended to use it, so ideally there would have been no one under its influence, and since potions go stale in a day or so there would have also been no evidence.

The Fear spell Molly used on the other hand was designed with long term effects in mind, indeed as part of her standards for success.  As for the damage done, even just days after casting it Molly's bf developed paranoia and basically started going crazy.  He got the soft serve version of Black Court Renfield Creation.

There's also the question of whether or not what you do with an enchanted item counts as Lawbreaking.  Could be that because the enchanted item is one step removed from the caster doing it himself directly that serves to keep it from being a Law violation.  Though that excuse seems flimsy to me.  Especially considering that's basically what Peabody did to the entire White Council.  Actually, if what Peabody did was Lawbreaking then obviously the love potion Harry made was Lawbreaking too since both of them made the recipient of the material more likely to act on their impulses.  The difference is that Harry didn't get caught.  Also remember that mind mojo is really hard to catch without using the Sight, and even then it can apparently be done subtly enough to make it very difficult to detect.  So it's likely that most wizards with the facility for it really push the edges on this particular field of magic.

Suggestions are apparently a grey area or okay as mentioned in Turn Coat, since Harry uses suggestion laced wards to protect his little storage unit hideout. 

Ok, I'm betting Peabody didn't actually break any Laws with his ink.  He broke Laws in regards to mind controlling Wardens much more completely, and he was going to die anyway because he was a mole who betrayed the White Council.  The inks would have come up for consideration in their role of influencing the White Council and the Senior Council in particular, but any charges that they were a Law violation would have been dropped.  Any use of them as evidence of undermining the council would have stuck though.

So, love potion, basically a short term suggestion.  Fear spell, long term compulsion.  Short term suggestion is okay, long term compulsion violates the Law.  Which makes sense, enthrallment implies long term servitude.

[vultur]

The love potion was basically really strong liquor, she even got the hangover!  In all seriousness though, what it's described as doing is lowering inhibitions.  Which means that anything she did to Harry were things she wanted to do anyway, the potion just made her more likely to act on them.  The effects were temporary and incapable of doing long term mental damage.

Eh, depends on the situation and the person affected, IMO. I think that sort of thing could do serious damage to certain personalities.  Depending  on how strong the effect is, of course ... but is Fourth Law violation really a matter of degree/intensity like that?

Also, keep in mind, Harry never intended to use it, so ideally there would have been no one under its influence, and since potions go stale in a day or so there would have also been no evidence.

Yeah, but the RPG book explicitly claims it's not a Fourth Law violation.

The Fear spell Molly used on the other hand was designed with long term effects in mind, indeed as part of her standards for success.

Sure, but why does the timescale determine whether it violates free will or not?

As for the damage done, even just days after casting it Molly's bf developed paranoia and basically started going crazy.

Well, sure, I agree it's way more damaging - as I said in the original post.

He got the soft serve version of Black Court Renfield Creation.

Hmm, I really disagree there. Renfield-ization seems to make you a slave to the commands of the Black Court vampire, in addition to shattering the mind totally so you're non-functional even when the Blampire isn't ordering you around.
What Molly did seems to me to be a straightforward intense phobia (that happens to be non-naturally induced) - really nasty, but not the same sort of thing at all.

(Come to think of it, I'm honestly not sure why it was so destructive - one would think that once the fear had driven him to avoid drugs, it wouldn't get "triggered" much anymore.)

So, love potion, basically a short term suggestion.  Fear spell, long term compulsion.  Short term suggestion is okay, long term compulsion violates the Law.  Which makes sense, enthrallment implies long term servitude.

But what about short term compulsions or long term suggestions? Both are totally imaginable ("shoot that guy" vs. long-term induced love or fear. Honestly, I'm not sure how what Molly did qualifies as a compulsion rather than a suggestion, it's entirely emotional and not a "DO this right now", that's my entire question about it.)

[blackstaff67]

My only Law question is really 7th Law territory, given that it's not even predicated on casting a spell (though the bullet summary merely says "You've reached for/accepted power from the Outsiders").  Apparently even researching data about the Outsiders (and maybe their weaknesses?) qualifies as a Law Violation severe enough to warrant Warden intervention.  Heck, it can be argued that merely possessing the data can warrant a violation.

My question would be at what point you would award/inflict a Lawbreaker stunt?  My personal opinion is when you actually use a ritual or magic to gain control or contact them, while mere mundane research (while justifying warden intervention) would NOT call for a Lawbreaker stunt.

[Tedronai]

The 7th Law forbids 'seeking beyond', not 'seeking of beyond'.

[Mrmdubois]

For the 4th Law I think degree and intensity absolutely matter.  It determines if, how much and how long to recover from any mental damage done.  A short compulsion/suggestion effect is going to be a lot easier for a mortal to do there thing and rationalize it away.

I agree though that even short lived effects could do some serious damage to the right sorts of people.  One of the reasons that even just avoidance suggestions like Harry built fall into a grey enough area for Morgan to bristle.

I think time scale also matters because its the difference between mugging a person at gun point and selling them into slavery.  Both are punishable offenses, one is worse than the other though. 

The reason I compared the fear spell to a minor version of becoming a Renfield is because of the long term effects.  Jason started losing his sanity and could potentially have become a gibbering wreck like a Renfield.  Also remember that more than just a fear of drugs had been implanted because Molly was pissed at him, which is why it kept getting set off even after he got out of the drug scene.  Plus he was still addicted to drugs, he was also afraid of drugs.  This paradox is what broke the minds of Molly's friends, what caused the dissonance in their subconscious, if it could have been rationalized it might have been less damaging.  If the effect was less intense, or shorter in duration then it also would have done less damage, and might just fall under the compulsion/suggestion umbrella.  Of course to get the results Molly wanted it would have required reapplication, an enough of that could have done the same damage eventually.  Who is exactly what Peabody was doing, so maybe on top of intensity, and duration a third factor of frequency should be added.

[blackstaff67]

Keep in mind that Harry's "suggestion" spell could be more accurately modeled as a briefly successful Social attack aimed at keeping people away/persuading them not to look closer.  Little to do with messing with Free Will.

What Molly did was actually remove long-term Free Will AND make her victims (Cos that's what they were) vulnerable to Phobophages.

[Lavecki121]

The 7th Law forbids 'seeking beyond', not 'seeking of beyond'.

Characters can also stumble across the
Seventh Law, thanks to the particulars of its
wording: namely, the prohibition against even
researching the Outside. A GM looking to put a
particularly nasty choice in front of her players
could easily “hide” a piece of knowledge within a
forbidden tome of Outsider lore. And if a life is
on the line, isn’t it worth the risk? (The Outsiders
of your game would certainly hope so.

[Tedronai]

I reject any premise that labels (cosmic truth) Lawbreaker any who so much as types 'What is an Outsider?' into a google search.
The Wardens may enforce as they will, but that interpretation on the cosmic truth of the 7th Law leads only to absurdity.

[blackstaff67]

I reject any premise that labels (cosmic truth) Lawbreaker any who so much as types 'What is an Outsider?' into a google search.
The Wardens may enforce as they will, but that interpretation on the cosmic truth of the 7th Law leads only to absurdity.

Seconded.  I'd have to rule that trying to establish contact with them would justify a Cosmic lawbreaker while merely researching them would 'merely' draw Warden interest (were they to find out).

[Theonlyspiral]

Here's a second law question: We have a character in our game who is an alchemist. Now, normally the transforming of another comes with lawbreaker...but if they asked you to transform them, would you still stick the character with the stunt?

Hypothetical: Our intrepid alchemist is kidnapped by a ghoul who wants to be immortal. The Alchemist creates a drought with enough shifts to take him out...fluffed in game as transmuting him to Gold. Would this break the second law?

[Tedronai]

I don't recall that law's stance on non-humans, but the fact that the target is willing does not get you a pass.