The Dresden Files > DFRPG
The First Law Question.
Victim:
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Or the alternative is that some people are more strict with the laws than intended.
I mean, we haven't seen Gatekeeper use any powers obviously derived from Outsiders. There's probably some distinction between seeking knowledge about how to defend/preserve the Outer Gate and stuff from beyond it that he can use. It may be a fine line, but it's there. Kind of like how you can modify your own mind or body legally.
Moriden:
--- Quote ---There's probably some distinction between seeking knowledge about how to defend/preserve the Outer Gate and stuff from beyond it that he can use.
--- End quote ---
Both the books and rpg are pretty clear that even doing research into the outer gates is a violation of the law. it even says that its the only law you can break without using magic. It also says that the gatekeepers job is to know about the outer gates, and to maintain the wards on them so not only must he have don e research into them and there natures. [ remember these being are innately resistant to magic so to use magic that actually keeps them out he needs to know a goodly bit about them] he also uses magic on the outer gates themselves to warn of incursions and to keep them out. ill buy that he night not have the chronomancy lawbreaker albeit just barely. but thers just no internally consistent way he hasn't broken the seventh law.
...Honestly the fact that im arguing for strict and universal interpretations of the laws astounds me. i don't even think they make any sense.
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Uh, no. The reason that killing with magic taints you is that you need to believe absolutely in the magical effect you create. Believing absolutely that this sword exists isn't nearly as tainting as believing that guy should die. The end result is similar, but the devotion to the goal required is alot less.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
This is NOT what I mean by intent. As I've said several times already, actually. I'm not talking about WHY you might've broken a Law, I'm talking about meaning to do it at all. If you intend to kill or use mind control, your reasons don't matter and you acquire Lawbreaker. If something you do kills someone in a way you never intended to happen? Not so much.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---Not gonna argue that, obviously it depends on the gaming group.
--- End quote ---
True, but my point was that in a game where that kind of character was okay, why would having Lawbreaker not be perfectly reasonable and cool?
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Uh, Lawbreaker isn't intended to necessarily put characters out of play, just reflect their inevitable Dark Side tendencies. It's only flawed for what you seem to want it to be, not what it is.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 09:18:54 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Very debatable. I've even argued with you on this one before. The Gatekeeper might easily just do mundane research and use his magic to bulwark the Outer Gates from this side, never directly touching anything on the other side.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 23, 2010, 10:33:28 PM ---...Honestly the fact that im arguing for strict and universal interpretations of the laws astounds me. i don't even think they make any sense.
--- End quote ---
And that's the problem, really. You've decided they don't make sense and are completely arbitrary, so that's how you run them and rule on them, with a strict mechanical approach and a tendency to ignore the why's and spirit of the Laws.
Not everyone shares that particular point of view, and if you look there are several underlying logical principles that can make the laws make sense.
Moriden:
--- Quote ---Uh, Lawbreaker isn't intended to necessarily put characters out of play, just reflect their inevitable Dark Side tendencies. It's only flawed for what you seem to want it to be, not what it is.
--- End quote ---
My interpretation of what the lawbreaker stunt is intended to do and yours are different. Since the non beneficial affects of the stunt will happen regardless of weather you have it or not, i view being given it in play as no more then an attempt to give a reason to forcibly retire a "problem character". This is simply my interpretation though and unless lc or iago wants to chime in and let us know what there intent is theres not much point into continuing that line of contention.
--- Quote ---Uh, no. The reason that killing with magic taints you is that you need to believe absolutely in the magical effect you create. Believing absolutely that this sword exists isn't nearly as tainting as believing that guy should die. The end result is similar, but the devotion to the goal required is alot less.
--- End quote ---
Good logic here. The question though is if i use magic to light a house on fire, is my intent to murder the inhabitants or to create fire? if there are human children in the house and they die do i get the stunt? do i only get the stunt if i'm latter told that people died in that fire? these are all metaphysical grey areas that theirs no easy answer to, that is why i don't believe the laws make sense.
If they are a metaphysical reaction to actions, much like the laws of physics [which is how they are most frequently portrayed] then
If you break the law=you get tainted
it has nothing to do with morality, justification, or what you meant to do at the time, weather or not those thing -should- make a difference.
--- Quote ---True, but my point was that in a game where that kind of character was okay, why would having Lawbreaker not be perfectly reasonable and cool?
--- End quote ---
honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces" went mad and cant be played] while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be.
--- Quote ---just do mundane research
--- End quote ---
Even mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt
--- Quote ---And that's the problem, really. You've decided they don't make sense and are completely arbitrary, so that's how you run them and rule on them, with a strict mechanical approach and a tendency to ignore the why's and spirit of the Laws.
Not everyone shares that particular point of view, and if you look there are several underlying logical principles that can make the laws make sense.
--- End quote ---
There not Completely arbitrary there just illogical. theirs a difference. there portrayed as universally true. and that is how i'm arguing you should portray them. I don't actually disagree with you that intent should make a difference, i think it should. however as portrayed and as written it dose not.
Id be rather pleased to listen to how they make sense. and i'm sure it would be extremely helpful to others if you could in fact explain it in a clear and concise manner. without contradicting either how they are portrayed in the books or how there written in the rpgs, please remember to use quotes and citations for your precedents.
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 24, 2010, 03:17:43 PM ---My interpretation of what the lawbreaker stunt is intended to do and yours are different. Since the non beneficial affects of the stunt will happen regardless of weather you have it or not, i view being given it in play as no more then an attempt to give a reason to forcibly retire a "problem character". This is simply my interpretation though and unless lc or iago wants to chime in and let us know what there intent is theres not much point into continuing that line of contention.
--- End quote ---
Clearly. :)
And yeah, our interpretations are somewhat divergent.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 24, 2010, 03:17:43 PM ---Good logic here. The question though is if i use magic to light a house on fire, is my intent to murder the inhabitants or to create fire? if there are human children in the house and they die do i get the stunt? do i only get the stunt if i'm latter told that people died in that fire? these are all metaphysical grey areas that theirs no easy answer to, that is why i don't believe the laws make sense.
If they are a metaphysical reaction to actions, much like the laws of physics [which is how they are most frequently portrayed] then
If you break the law=you get tainted
it has nothing to do with morality, justification, or what you meant to do at the time, weather or not those thing -should- make a difference.
--- End quote ---
See, I don't see them portrayed that way at all. I keep coming back to Harry's description of how violating a mind twists your own psyche from Proven Guilty, and how your choice to do this particular thing will twist who and what you are. That's how I see them, the inevitable response of the human mind to working certain varieties of magic. You need to believe in something absolutely to do it with magic. Believing the things that go against the Laws of magic...twists you. Makes thinking that way and doing those things easier. This is probably true of non-Lawbreaking things as well, to a lesser degree, but all magic you work changes you just a little. So the Laws only apply if you, well, work the magic with one of those particular goals (ie: killing, mind control, contacting creatures from beyond the Outer Gates, etc.) in mind. No intent? No Lawbreaker stunt (though the Wardens may not see it that way).
So people accidentally die in a fire you started? No Lawbreaker stunt. You start a fire intending to kill people? Lawbreaker stunt.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 24, 2010, 03:17:43 PM ---honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces" went mad and cant be played] while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be.
--- End quote ---
I tend to agree, but it's a balance issue as much as anything. The abilities are, as mentioned, quite powerful, and the Refresh limit is a general rule, and IMO, usually a good one.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 24, 2010, 03:17:43 PM ---Even mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt
--- End quote ---
Uh, iago actually responded to this, and I agree with him: to get Lawbreaker you need to work magic. Mundane research is still 'illegal' and gets the Wardens on your ass (unless you're the Gatekeeper) but it doesn't net you Lawbreaker because you're not twisting your soul with magic.
--- Quote from: Moriden on April 24, 2010, 03:17:43 PM ---There not Completely arbitrary there just illogical. theirs a difference. there portrayed as universally true. and that is how i'm arguing you should portray them. I don't actually disagree with you that intent should make a difference, i think it should. however as portrayed and as written it dose not.
Id be rather please to listen to how they make sense. and im sure it would be extremely helpful to other if you could explain it in a clear and concise manner. without contradicting either how they are portrayed in the books or how there written in the rpgs, please remember to use quotes and citations for your precedents.
--- End quote ---
I think my above description (I even cite Proven Guilty) sums up my opinion on how and why the laws work the way they do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version