Lawbreaker Power

[Taran]

After reading the Sponsored magic thread, I was thinking how many people don't like the Lawbreaker Power.   That wizards shouldn't be forced to lose refresh for something that is, essentially, an RP thing.

I'm wondering if there's a good way to use the "sponsored debt" mechanic as a way to represent Law-breaking and the desire to break the law over and over.

I figure, you just keep the debt until you take the Lawbreaker Power or you pay off a compel with a FP.  I'm not sure, though.

Does anyone have thoughts or ideas?

[Haru]

I think that's sort of the idea behind the lawbreaker powers anyway, only a more forceful in their case. The more you break the law, the more you are drawn to do it again, therefore you have less free will, represented by less refresh. If you are forced into lawbreaker compels via debt, it would effectively be the same thing, without forcing the character into NPC territory by lowering his refresh.

Though I wouldn't attach any actual power to this. Or maybe a [-0] power, just to have it written down somewhere. It would basically be a debt on the characters lawbreaker aspect (which should be there in any case, I think).

I like it.

[umdshaman]

I get why people don't like the idea of it, but in practice I feel like saying you're "forced" to might be overstating the case. There's nothing in DFRPG's mechanics that force you to kill someone when you take them out. And any GM who decides you've killed someone (or otherwise broken a law) without warning you its at least a potential consequences is kind of being a donkey. So, don't use magic to kill mortals (or remove their free will) and it shouldn't come up. On the other hand, if the GM keeps warning you you're going to kill someone and you keep doing it; you probably deserve that Lawbreaker power.

[Haru]

Sure, actually killing someone should be a player choice, not forced by the GM, I've always said so. Though this is dangerously close to Law talk, so that's all I'll say about that here.

But having to take a power that costs you refresh, especially with a build that will usually have very little refresh left to spend, forced on your character makes the choice a mechanical one, not a moral one. Sometimes, it might just be right for the character to kill someone (or do something else lawbreakery). If you feel like you have to not do this, because your character would become an NPC for it, you will probably still kill the person, but you will look for a way to avoid the mechanical downside of it. If you allow for it to happen without the forced power, you can deal with the aftermath in the story and maybe the character develops to be a psychopath, so the power might fit at that point, or he redeems himself, so the power would have never been needed.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not a bad idea.

I like the enforced Aspect changes. But making people spend Refresh seems pointless.

I mean, Refresh is just a number. And it's not even an in-character one. Harry can't tell whether he's got 1 Refresh or 2. So charging Refresh doesn't really create an interesting story.

Plus, it sucks to randomly subtract Refresh from people who pick the wrong backstory.

So maybe forcing people to take the Sponsor Power would be a better idea. It's free, after all. And narratively more interesting than Lawbreaker. The "sponsor" would be one's own mental degradation.

[Cadd]

I like the idea, I've come to think it a bit wierd that someone who has broken a law but is trying to hold to the "straight and narrow" practically has to be weaker than a similar character that hasn't broken a law (the Lawbreaker-less character has one more refresh to put to Refinement, for example).
I'm also for requiring an aspect related to the broken law right from the first time it's broken - RAW suggests that, but doesn't require a change until the "3 strikes" point.

One thing: How would you handle "urges" to relapse when Debt is at zero? Just a regular compel on the aspect, granting a FP if accepted? Or would this be a good place to use that suggested "bottomless pit of debt" (from the sidebar about oaths at YS274) so it can never reach zero? I guess it depends a lot on how big of an impact you want the lawbreaking to be, but how do you think you people would do it?

[Taran]

I think, if the character wants to go that way, they would still take Lawbreaker at a major Milestone.  It gives permanent bonuses and has the aspect.  You just use the power to pay off the debt.

The sponsor mechanic seems like a nice way to handle it in the short term.

The sticking point, I find is this:

You are -1 debt.  You accept a compel to kill someone (which pays off your debt) but then you kill another NPC, so you drop back to -1 debt.  So accepting compels doesn't get you out of debt...but it doesn't increase it either.

[Cadd]

That's right... It's sort of a permanent debt anyway... I somehow mixed things up and thought for a bit that paying out of a debt compel with your own FP still reduced the debt, but since it doesn't, the only way to actually reduce the debt is by going along with compels that will rack up more debt (by breaking the same law again)...

Hm... I might pitch this to my players and see what they say... It is definitely an interesting option... I'm thinking even in the long term - the character can get a bonus by taking more debt...

[umdshaman]

Sometimes, it might just be right for the character to kill someone (or do something else lawbreakery). If you feel like you have to not do this, because your character would become an NPC for it, you will probably still kill the person, but you will look for a way to avoid the mechanical downside of it.

I feel like that's kind of the point though. It's like being a changeling and reaching the point in the story where you're like "I need more power to succeed." Knowing your going to become an NPC you're going to look for another way to do it, but in the end you might just decide that becoming an NPC to, say, preserve the natural order of the universe just might be the better option.
Likewise, with Lawbreaker, there are usually ways to avoid it. Killing them with not-magic, for instance. But maybe, instead, you decide to permanently change that character's mind; effectively neutering them or even making them one of the good guys. Maybe that's the sort of thing you think is worth becoming an NPC for. Of course, if you don't drop yourself to 1 refresh when designing your character this isn't immediately an issue. And the first time you break a law is a pretty major milestone so maybe the GM will poll the players at the end of the session/adventure and decide to raise the Refresh a point, just like maybe your GM doesn't feel like being a faerie doesn't have to make you a NPC. Of course, YMMV and maybe for your game its better not to have it, but personally I think it makes it a lot of sense and adds some mechanical "oomph" to consequences of breaking universal laws.

[Haru]

Killing them with not-magic, for instance. [...] if you don't drop yourself to 1 refresh when designing your character this isn't immediately an issue.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Imagine the end of a campaign, the young wizard was betrayed by his mentor and is now out for vengeance. They stand there, ready to kill each other, and...
...the young wizard is rational enough to not kill his mentor, just wound him, so he can kill him with a knife. That's rather anticlimactic, and he doesn't do it because it's what he would do, he does it because of a mechanical reason, and I'd rather avoid that.

It's like being a changeling and reaching the point in the story where you're like "I need more power to succeed."

I have to disagree. Killing someone isn't an upgrade. Suddenly being able to do glamors IS an upgrade. Killing is only an upgrade if you take the lawbreaker stunt, but that's, to me, something additional to the killing part, not something that's inseparable from it.

[Taran]

I'm not saying that this should replace the Lawbreaker Power.

There is also a time when a player could say,  "You know what?  It's time for this character to go over the edge."

I think that this could be used when a player and GM think it'd be interesting and the situation calls for Lawbreaker but there isn't the refresh to do it.

It's also a nice way to warn a player who's idea of fun is to kill everything.  You give them sponsored debt and say, "you need to clear that debt or you'll have to take Lawbreaker at your next milestone."   (if you want to do it that way.)

[umdshaman]

...the young wizard is rational enough to not kill his mentor, just wound him, so he can kill him with a knife. That's rather anticlimactic, and he doesn't do it because it's what he would do, he does it because of a mechanical reason, and I'd rather avoid that.

I wouldn't call that anticlimactic, personally. In fact, incapacitating him, then walking over and killing the helpless enemy with a knife is a MUCH more personal and thus gripping narrative. It's also not JUST mechanical. Killing his mentor with magic is the sort of thing that would bring the White Council down on his head, so there's a narrative reason too. Since lawbreaking essentially requires a conscious choice (intent arguments aside), I happen to think the power represents it very well.

In some ways, I think this is only an issue in the first place because a lot of people come from the hack-and-slash adventuring mentality of D&D. Magic or no magic, murder is not something characters in a modern society should be taking lightly regardless.

[Sanctaphrax]

In some ways, I think this is only an issue in the first place because a lot of people come from the hack-and-slash adventuring mentality of D&D.

Definitely not.

Lawbreaker doesn't do anything to prevent people from hacking and slashing and adventuring. It's an obstacle for interesting character moments and backstories.

[umdshaman]

Lawbreaker doesn't do anything to prevent people from hacking and slashing and adventuring. It's an obstacle for interesting character moments and backstories.

I'm not saying it prevents them. What I am saying is that for most characters this should never be an issue in the first place. If you don't like it don't use it. I just happen to think it represents the Dresdenverse consequences of lawbreaking pretty well. Break a Law? Become a little bit more of a monster.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, most characters don't care. But folks who want to play Harry Dresden or Molly Carpenter or someone like that shouldn't be playing at a lower Refresh level than everyone else. A Power that you don't use is just a waste.

And I'm not thrilled by how it represents the consequences of Lawbreaking. The Aspect stuff is nice, but the loss of free will is the exact same loss of free will that you get for taking a Refinement. That doesn't feel right.