The Dresden Files > DFRPG
The First Law Question.
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 01:46:43 PM ---
This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"
--- End quote ---
Ah! But if you kill a human knowing they're a human (regardless of thinking or knowing they've done monstrous things), you get Lawbreaker. You only don't get it if whatever you killed wasn't human.
Or to put it another way, seeing monsters as human can get you Lawbreaker, seeing humans as monsters can't save you from it. It's a one way street.
After all, someone who can casually kill humans because they're 'monstrous' should have Lawbreaker, shouldn't they?
--- Quote from: void on April 23, 2010, 01:49:37 PM ---I already went there. :D
--- End quote ---
Noted. :) Though I'd make it the primary criteria, not a secondary one.
void:
Well, my take on the soul-staining aspect of the Laws is kinda dependent on the victim actually HAVING free will. *shrug* Every game is a different game, yeah?
My approach would be, if the target didn't REALLY have free will but the spellcaster believed it, just an aspect shift. "Believes He's A Lawbreaker", or somesuch.
Moriden:
--- Quote ---Or to put it another way, seeing monsters as human can get you Lawbreaker, seeing humans as monsters can't save you from it. It's a one way street.
After all, someone who can casually kill humans because they're 'monstrous' should have Lawbreaker, shouldn't they?
--- End quote ---
Im not a fan of "one way street" logic. if the belief that you've broken the law can taint you then the belief that you haven't should protect you. and that clearly isn't the case.
Some one who can casually kill humans should have the exact same mechanical affects of the lawbreaker stunt, that being several of there aspects saying so, however that in no way is the same as having paid or been penalized refresh for it.
For example i make two characters. there are identical conceptually. they are some form of lychanthrope that views humans and monsters not "in his pack" as vermin. he has absolutely no trouble casually killing. the only difference between these two characters is one of them has purely physical powers and the other uses thaumaturgy and a few refresh of powers. they both are highly specialized practitioners who have used magic to alter themselves, have the exact same aspects, and think/act the exact same way.
however the purely physical one uses his paid for claws power to kill people does not get ooc penalized by having to take the lawbreaker stunt. whereas the thaumaturge uses a ritual or enchanted item to "temporarily" grow claws which he then uses to kill someone, he dose get the lawbreaker stunt. Because he used magic for the sole purpose of helping him to kill some , thus fully believeing that that act is right he then uses the magically created claws to kill someone.
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 06:18:21 PM ---however the purely physical one uses his paid for claws power to kill people does not get ooc penalized by having to take the lawbreaker stunt. whereas the thaumaturge uses a ritual or enchanted item to "temporarily" grow claws which he then uses to kill someone, he dose get the lawbreaker stunt. Because he used magic for the sole purpose of helping him to kill some , thus fully believeing that that act is right he then uses the magically created claws to kill someone.
--- End quote ---
Uh...no, actually. If that were true then Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't. Growing claws (which can do a variety of things besides kill, just BTW) won't get you Lawbreaker. Killing someone with Evocation by roasting them alive will, but that's not quite the same.
And actually, I do in fact allow intent to defend against Lawbreaking...as I argued extensively earlier in this thread. It just has to be a lack of intent to break the Law as opposed to questions of motivation and reasons. For example, assuming there were several living humans in the building Harry burned in Grave Peril, I still wouldn't give him Lawbreaker because killing humans wasn't his intent. He was too far gone to even think of it, really.
Now, a person who's gotten to the point of seeing people as objects, vermin, or monsters, should firstly probably not be a PC. They're a monster of the human (or free-willed) variety, after all. Secondly, using magic to directly indulge their nature should absolutely reinforce it (as the magic twists them even more into that kind of person), granting Lawbreaker stunts. Heck, mechanically speaking, if you intend to use it Lawbreaker isn't even that bad. -2 Refresh for a +2 to all offensive magical combat when you're trying to kill someone? That's not bad at all. And you can write all your Aspects about what a killer you are to start with, never changing a thing.
I don't think I'd allow a character like that in any game I ran, but if you're already allowing PCs who see the world that way, what's the difference?
Moriden:
--- Quote ---h...no, actually. If that were true then Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't. Growing claws (which can do a variety of things besides kill, just BTW) won't get you Lawbreaker. Killing someone with Evocation by roasting them alive will, but that's not quite the same.
--- End quote ---
Casting a spell with the intent of using the manifestation of that spell to kill someone counts. the fact that in this case your using thaumaturgy to make "claws' which are represented as one point of weapon, is in no way different from throwing fire at them. its just a little slower.
--- Quote ---And actually, I do in fact allow intent to defend against Lawbreaking...as I argued extensively earlier in this thread. It just has to be a lack of intent to break the Law as opposed to questions of motivation and reasons. For example, assuming there were several living humans in the building Harry burned in Grave Peril, I still wouldn't give him Lawbreaker because killing humans wasn't his intent. He was too far gone to even think of it, really.
--- End quote ---
If lack of intent means you don't break the law then molly would not have gotten lawbreaker. if being "to far gone to care" doesn't give lawbreaker then you could just make a charecter with rage/frenzy like tendency's and just go berserk when you need to kill. its a slippery slope, its a bad ruling, and its not supported by the books.
--- Quote ---Now, a person who's gotten to the point of seeing people as objects, vermin, or monsters, should firstly probably not be a PC.
--- End quote ---
Not gonna argue that, obviously it depends on the gaming group.
--- Quote ---Heck, mechanically speaking, if you intend to use it Lawbreaker isn't even that bad. -2 Refresh for a +2 to all offensive magical combat when you're trying to kill someone? That's not bad at all. And you can write all your Aspects about what a killer you are to start with, never changing a thing.
--- End quote ---
Also not arguing this. the reason getting the lawbreaker stunt is a penalty isn't because of what it dose. as Ive argued in other threads the "penalty" of having your aspects change will happen naturally over time regardless of weather or not you get the stunt. the penalty is that it gives you negative refresh, which then because of how the "play balance" is set up can make your character an npc. I still maintain that that is flawed game design as well. the last example i gave was a pyromancer with full lawbreaker first is a fully playable character point wise but really shouldn't be for so many other reasons.
--- Quote ---Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't.
--- End quote ---
neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version