Law Talk

[killking72]

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.

I think this is the most correct way to look at it. The general idea of the laws is that you're using your magic to destroy the free will of another human, and that's why killing vampires, humans enthralled by people, fairies, etc, isn't really that bad because they don't have free will anymore. Traveling against the currents of time essentially destroys the decisions made by people with free will in the whole timeline you just made split off. Enthralling(4), killing(1), and destroying someones mind(3) all make it now unable for a person to make decisions.

[blackstaff67]

Will I be spoiling much by discussing Lawbreaking in the Paranet Papers?  Looking at Moira in the Las Vegas chapter, a few issues spring to mind...

[Sanctaphrax]

You should be fine. The spoiler policy applies to the events of the novels, not the RPG.

And actually, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a spoiler right now. Fred Hicks said

The general rule when determining whether or not something is a spoiler is this:

Did it come out this year?
Is it from a book that is currently only available in hardcover form?
Do I have any doubts about whether or not it's a spoiler?

and Skin Game came out in May 2014. It's available in paperback now.

[Hogeyhead]

Okay I haven't used these forums a lot and I know the first law is discussed a lot, and I know that my query has probably been dealt with in the past, but, and I haven't read the whole thread to look to see if it's in there, but it's hundreds of posts long or something, so excuse me.

So in my game I am the only one flinging around evocation at all, (well someone just took runic magic, but he won't be attacking with it, and it's not mortal magic anywho) and the ruling on how the first law is broken is pretty harsh.

How it is ruled is that if I damage any mortal with evocation (even by accident or fallout or anything equivalent) whether or not they die I gain the lawbreaker stunt. Because I intended or caused harm it is enough to count as black magic.

From what I understand on the forums from what little I've read you really need to actually kill someone to break the law, like bare minimum, but well I'm not the story teller. The books actually show wizards attacking mortals with magic very rarely, but every once in a while it happens. With harry the story teller's argument is that yes he's breaking the law, he already has the stunt after all. But Morgan attacks Harry with magic in Dead beat, and his argument is yes, Morgan just broke the first law. Personally I don't feel that's the case, I mean Morgan's character is such that he wouldn't break the law even in a rage.

I don't think anything will change this ruling, and I've sort of come to terms with it, and he allows magic weapons to not count depending on what exactly they do, so my +3 weaponry +3 damage value sword if fine, so it's not really a problem per say... It can just become a problem very fast accidentally.

Am I wrong in thinking that you need to actually kill to break the law?

[Mr. Death]

You absolutely have to kill to break the law. That's the whole point of the law. If your GM is ruling that any harm to a mortal via magic is breaking the law, he's flat out wrong about how the game world works.

[Cadd]

I agree completely with Mr Death.

Now, what might be a grey area is how the Wardens police magic, as opposed to the "natural law" aspect of the Laws of Magic.

Any mortal practitioner that routinely slings about magic harming mortals is running a very high risk of actually killing someone sooner or later, and thus showing something of a disregard for the laws. Wardens might take preemptive action if said practitioner doesn't calm down after a stern talking to.

It's easy to conflate, but the laws really have two components. One is the "human law" that the White Council, primarily through the Wardens, police. The other is the "natural law" aspect of warping the users psyche, this happens even if no one else alive knows the law was broken but only if the law was actually broken.

It's this second part that the Lawbreaker [-1] power/stunt actually represents.
Your magic has to result in a death for the First Law to be broken. It doesn't matter if it was unintended, it likewise doesn't matter if you meant for the target do die but they survived. Death = Lawbreaker, No death = Not lawbreaker.
Several of the other laws are a little bit less clear on when the metaphysical law has been broken and should result in the Lawbreaker power, but the first law is crystal clear.

[blackstaff67]

Okay I haven't used these forums a lot and I know the first law is discussed a lot, and I know that my query has probably been dealt with in the past, but, and I haven't read the whole thread to look to see if it's in there, but it's hundreds of posts long or something, so excuse me.

So in my game I am the only one flinging around evocation at all, (well someone just took runic magic, but he won't be attacking with it, and it's not mortal magic anywho) and the ruling on how the first law is broken is pretty harsh.

If you are using Runic Magic (a version of Sponsored Magic) and you use it to kill, you will absolutely take Lawbreaker unless your Sponsor is willing to take the karmic hit for you, forcing you to take probably at least one point of Debt--I admit I forget how much Debt the Sponsor charges for absorbing the Lawbreaker hit.  That's my understanding of it.  I'm hoping heads mor erudite on the topic than mine will gently correct me if I am wrong.

[dragoonbuster]

If you are using Runic Magic (a version of Sponsored Magic) and you use it to kill, you will absolutely take Lawbreaker unless your Sponsor is willing to take the karmic hit for you, forcing you to take probably at least one point of Debt--I admit I forget how much Debt the Sponsor charges for absorbing the Lawbreaker hit.

This is definitely a house-rule whatever it is. There's no RAW provision for this. And I don't think I'd allow it in my game...if you're breaking Laws, you're breaking Laws.

[blackstaff67]

This is definitely a house-rule whatever it is. There's no RAW provision for this. And I don't think I'd allow it in my game...if you're breaking Laws, you're breaking Laws.

That would certainly put forward the case that some Sponsors (like Mab) may prefer their proxies to gradually lose Free Will, so long as they still remain effective and bound to them.   The last line Michael speaks at the end of Skin Game comes to mind.

[Mr. Death]

I will add, at several points in the series, Harry says that there is a precedent for leniency on breaking the first law if A. it was in defense of your life or B. it's against practitioners of the dark arts (which, one presumes, overlaps with A).

Note this applies to the White Council's enforcement, not to the 'universal law' part.

So if, for instance, while dueling a warlock who was trying to kill you, you killed him with magic, you'd get the Lawbreaker power, but the White Council might let you keep your head.

[Hogeyhead]

You guys say that if you use runic magic to kill you would get the law breaker trait? Okay first of all I should mention that it's being ruled like the non sponsored version of seelie magic (or unseelie) which is not necessarily sponsored magic, it's just the innate magic of the fey. In this case he's the son of Odin so he learns runic magic. Fey don't gain the lawbreaker trait for killing with magic, and I don't think changelings do (with seelie magic, not say evocation) so I would think that runic magic would follow the same rules. Of course myself being recently being made a warden would probably need to object if I saw it. (Not that my character would really care much if he didn't gain the stunt)

Am I misunderstanding this? If so we were about to rule wrong.

[Cadd]

If the user of the magic is considered mortal, they would get Lawbreaker. If the user is not considered mortal, there's no Lawbreaker. What power is used is irrelevant as long as it's magic fluff-wise, what matters is who is doing it.

Of course, what constitutes a mortal in this case is somewhat fuzzy. Wizzards are mortal. Fae are not. Changelings (and other scions)? Good question. Neither the source material nor the game books specify this.

I'd probably not give Lawbreaker, but instead mandate further refresh spent gliding toward the non-mortal parentage, to represent embracing that side further. You're essentially choosing your non-mortal heritage over your mortal heritage.

[Hogeyhead]

Well we have decided that if a mortal kills a changeling/scion with magic he/she gains the lawbreaker power. I believe this is the official position. This would imply that they are mortal with regards to the law, and would also gain the power for breaking them. This assumes that it is as you say and that it doesn't matter what kind of magic is used.

[Haru]

For a changeling, I think you can go 2 ways. If you let them take a lawbreaker, they are sort of going down the mortal road with a corruptible but free will. If you let them take additional powers from their supernatural parent, they are going down the fae route. Either way, it's a good place to enforce the choice.

[Hogeyhead]

Well he has already taken inhuman toughness, recovery and strength, and he plans to upgrade some or all of these, also I know he plans to eventually go the god route, but he hasn't taken it yet. That's just it he hasn't chosen yet, so killing him with magic would still be breaking the law, shouldn't the law then apply to him? If not fully then in some way? Also if all this is the case does he hex? We decided that he wouldn't, but is that how it should be?