Author Topic: Law Talk  (Read 127659 times)

Offline Melendwyr

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #150 on: July 10, 2014, 11:55:32 PM »
You're not supposed to seek out information or power from beyond the Outer Gates.  No one ever said anything about seeking out information about topic.

You'd have to learn something about the Outer Gates, and what's beyond them, simply to know whether or not you're breaking the Seventh Law.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #151 on: July 11, 2014, 11:13:42 PM »
Knowing that the Seventh Law of Magic forbids seeking knowledge from beyond the Outer Gates is itself knowledge of the Outer Gates and knowledge that something exists beyond them.  That is knowledge 'of beyond the Outer Gates'.

If that's all it took to break the Law, then the entire Council, and every lesser Practitioner they ever cautioned against breaking the Laws, would be Lawbreakers.

Thankfully, that's not knowledge 'sought beyond the Outer Gates', so the Wardens don't have to go around decapitating each other until the last one gets the dubious honour of decapitating themself.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline bobjob

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1433
  • Bier, ja? Und mit Dusen-Dusen? Ja!
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #152 on: July 24, 2014, 08:55:26 PM »
The Last Warden.

The entire Red Court was taken down by the new Winter Knight? From the lowliest pawn all the way up to the King? *puts on sunglasses* Knight to G7. Check mate.

Playing:
Shale Buckby

Offline JGray

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #153 on: August 02, 2014, 10:56:56 PM »
I find myself wondering if the laws, when it comes down to it, aren't basically all about free will. Every law boils down to that. Harry didn't seem concerned with killing Lord Raith's thrall bodyguards, for example. Nor Marva's renfields (beyond the shame that it had to be done in the first place). In both those cases, they were humans who were so torn apart psychically they no longer had free will. Nor did they have any hope of recovery.

So... if the first law about killing someone? Or about using magic to end someone's ability to use free will?
Ray of Sunshine , a Dresden Files RPG Campaign.

Occult Orlando, setting for Ray of Sunshine.

Offline solbergb

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #154 on: August 03, 2014, 03:27:23 AM »
I lean toward the idea that the First, Second and Fourth are about free will, and probably necromancy too...it's the part that enslaves souls that seems problematic.   The time travel, outer gates are more likely about not destroying the universe even when it's tempting to solve problems that way.   Invading thoughts might be a free will thing, or might be more of the "wizards really like privacy" along the lines of "It's bad luck to kill wizards, and we invented a death curse technique we teach even apprentices just to drive that home".

Of course I also have a theory that the lawbreaking powers in DFRPG are enforced by various factions in the universe, with the divine/diabolic covering the free-will side of the equation, the enemies of outsiders (for spoiler reasons I won't be more specific) enforcing that law and maybe the white council itself running massive rituals to enforce the third law, plus time travel.   But I could be completely wrong :)  It's an idea I'd be likely to play with if I was running a DFRPG game, until JB's future books illuminate more of the cosmos.

It's ok to deprive mortals of free will with stuff entirely made by mortals.  Shoot a mortal with a gun made by mortals and all the decisions that went into ending that mortal's life were pretty much a sum of all choices made.  Things get fuzzier when a Renfield shoots a mortal or when a conjured sword slashes a throat, but I see this as a limitation of those enforcing the laws of magic more than the principle of the thing.  At some point it becomes an act of will to use magic to deprive a mortal of free will and the "enforcers" punish/reward the practitioner with a permanent change in their own ability to make choices.   You become more like the Fey, unable to act except according to your "nature" instead of having the full range of free will you had before.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 03:30:48 AM by solbergb »

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #155 on: August 03, 2014, 09:51:20 AM »
IF there were active entities involved in 'enforcing' the 'cosmic truth' portion of the Laws, it would NOT be the entities that OPPOSE those actions.
Breaking a Law once makes the individual MORE likely to do so again.  The Council wants people to NOT kill, forcibly transform, time-travel, etc.  That's why they decapitate Lawbreakers.  Making people more likely to do those things would be imbecilic.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline solbergb

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #156 on: August 03, 2014, 01:28:58 PM »
The lawbreaking feats leave a mark that can be detected via Sight and Soulgaze, which shows who can be decapitated and who can not.  The use of magic to break the laws actually turns on the person doing it, reducing their free will until eventually they're raving lunatics that are unable to do anything but behave that way.  The aspects they create are double-edged, as are all aspects.  Getting lawbreaker 1 makes you better at killing, and worse at any other option. 

In the case of Killing, physical and mental transformation, and outsiders, it's pretty obvious who would provide the "you're better at it" part and who would provide the "and you become incapable of keeping it subtle, so you get caught/executed/self-destruct" part.  The time travel and invading minds part is more problematic, but both are impossible to prove without leaving some traces and for all we know there are adversaries trying to spin off alternate realities and I'd say the Oblivion wars provide enough on both sides to result in the mind-reading lawbreaking.   The unknowns are why I find it interesting as a plot point.  If you assume, say, Denarians are working to encourage more killing with magic and Knights of the Cross & their boss are trying to reduce killing with magic, and the extension works pretty well with known groups for several laws, then you get interested in the remaining laws and discovering the truth behind it is a whole campaign worth of story.

Offline jstomel

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #157 on: September 09, 2014, 05:01:45 PM »
I agree that you can seek knowledge about the outer gates so long as it doesn't come from beyond the outer gates. So using a library that has information about how to fight outsiders is fine, so long as the book isn't from outside.

As for the lawbreaking feats leaving a mark that can be detected by the sight and soulgaze, my understanding is that such things are indicators but may not be completely reliable. Otherwise the wardens would have a much easier job. The Korean warlock that they mentioned confirming guilt by soulgaze in PG was so far over the bend that it was probably fairly easy to see, especially for someone of the Merlin's skill. It is also my understanding that such things are easier to detect the more recently they have been used. In Backup,
(click to show/hide)

Offline blackstaff67

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #158 on: October 13, 2014, 12:13:05 AM »
Lawbreaker the 1st question:  Wizard A (A PC) tries to fight Outsiders by getting blood samples from the to use in a Thaumaturgic Ritual to destroy it, ignorant of the fact the blood he is using in fact belongs to a fellow wizard B (another PC).   Ritual goes off, but winds up killing Wizard B.  Lawbreaker or not?
My Purity score: 37.2.  Sad.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #159 on: October 13, 2014, 02:01:32 AM »
I'd say yes. Morally I wouldn't condemn the wizard, but the Laws don't have a whole lot to do with morals.

I hope that didn't actually happen in-game.

Offline blackstaff67

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #160 on: October 13, 2014, 09:42:01 AM »
Actually, now that you mention it... 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 02:11:24 PM by blackstaff67 »
My Purity score: 37.2.  Sad.

Offline RexQuondamRexqueFuturus

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #161 on: October 13, 2014, 06:30:45 PM »
Yeah, that did happen in game. It was so bad it made me post after lurking for a looooong time.

I'm of two minds on the lawbreaker on that mishap.  Wizard B was of unknown living status. He was phasing in and out of reality as it happened. He could have been dying or already dead. We had just "saved" a dozen people who ended up being dead and THEN turning into outsider puppets ready to eat faces.

Wizard B also isn't dead. The strange nature of the dimension of reality we were in prevented his death in ways unknown.

As a Co-GM with Blackstaff67 and another gentleman I don't think is in this discussion I am at a loss. This isn't clear cut. The whole party was at war with a massive outsider incursion. Massive enough to call in Winter Fey en masse to repel it. Act of War, casualties happen.

Wizard A had no way to know that an innocent would be harmed. Wizard A also could have been justified because everything remotely human nearby was outsider tainted.

We had a similar situation where Wizard B killed a family by accident as collateral damage when he magically caused a car crash, not by hexing. There wasn't a lawbreaker issued there either.

Harry torched a house once.  Warden Morgan's sword didn't snicker snack through Harry's neck.

Fuzzy grey areas.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 06:36:16 PM by RexQuondamRexqueFuturus »

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #162 on: October 13, 2014, 06:46:50 PM »
Fuzzy grey areas.
When you are in a fuzzy grey area, don't look for a black and white solution.

I think an interesting solution could be to not give the character a law breaker (I don't like forcing powers on a character, anyway), but make resolving the non-death of Wizard B part of the next story arc. Maybe there's a taint on Wizard A's soul for what he did, but because everything was so fuzzy, it can be washed away, if only he could find Wizard B (or what's left of him). Maybe hearing his ghost say "I forgive you" is enough to let go of the guilt.
With a premise like "prevented his death in ways unknown", there's all kinds of crazy stuff you can do.

Btw., one of my player's wizard's death was prevented by turning him into a solid marble statue that his spirit is bound to.

Fuzzy grey areas are where the story happens. ;)
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #163 on: October 13, 2014, 06:52:27 PM »
If the victim isn't dead, the Law wasn't broken.

Regardless, I don't recommend forcing a Power on the "killer".

Offline RexQuondamRexqueFuturus

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Law Talk
« Reply #164 on: October 13, 2014, 07:19:24 PM »
That's what I was leaning towards. Wizard B came back and is as alive and well as ever. A bit scarred from the debacle, but, eh. Not toast.

I did not see law breaker there. I do see Wizard B tossing a mean right hook at Wizard A though.