So the first law can't be broken unless you WANT to break it, right?

[Drachasor]

The rules for taking someone out indicate that you decide how they get taken out.  If you do 8 stress of damage to a zone or two of people, some of them civilians, you could decide no one dies.  Heck, seems like you decide on an individual basis.  Perhaps the civvies all have some burns and are in shock (can't do anything), and the majority of the heat was focused on the bad guys who get incinerated.  Assuming that strikes everyone as possible/reasonable, then that is how the attack would go down, right?

I suppose someone could die because of fallout and it would be up to the group to decide whether that qualifies as breaking the first law.

[Saedar]

Well, it still needs to be within the realm of reason. A Weapon:4 attack is bombs and things. If you call down a firestorm and then say that everyone survives with burns/shock, depending on circumstances, the GM and group might be within their rights to call shenanigans on your decision.

[MijRai]

That is my issue with the Take Outs. You could hit someone with a weapon 10 battleship cannon, and say they survive it without any lasting harm. When it is my decision, I house-rule common sense. so if you use a Weapon 5 or higher (cannons, magic, etc.), don't expect them to survive.

[UmbraLux]

Assuming that strikes everyone as possible/reasonable,...

This is key.  If you hit a human with enough shifts (from an attack capable of killing) to overflow their last consequence, it's probably hard to argue the reasonableness of surviving the attack.  A careful mage might choose to toss around concussive / stunning blows, taser-like electrical attacks, or even disabling gas instead of balls of fire.  More chances an unintended target would survive... 

[Richard_Chilton]

It might be better to say that if they survive they do so with an extreme consequence, especially if there's 10 or more stress in a single attack.

You brought down a fire storm when there were innocent bystanders? That model now has burns (and later scar tissue) over much of her body, changing her high concept from "Fun Loving Model" to "Scarred Former Model".

Or in other words, if you're using the big guns then there should be consequences so if there aren't deaths then there should be lasting damage.  Hopefully something that adds to plot, like a scarred former model who summons a demon in an effort to regain her beauty, only to lose control of it.  Or there's a donation jar in the PC's favorite coffee shop, trying to raise money for that poor little kid's medical bills.  Or someone is crippled and later decides that he doesn't want to live in a wheelchair so his grief stricken brother tracks down the thing that caused his brother's injuries, looking to even the score.

Just something to think about.

Richard

[Drachasor]

This is key.  If you hit a human with enough shifts (from an attack capable of killing) to overflow their last consequence, it's probably hard to argue the reasonableness of surviving the attack.  A careful mage might choose to toss around concussive / stunning blows, taser-like electrical attacks, or even disabling gas instead of balls of fire.  More chances an unintended target would survive...  

Yes, obviously some things are easier to justify than others.  Fire is fun, but harder to justify people surviving.  Same with the dissolving attacks of water.  Lightning is probably the easiest since it can just shock the system.

Now, it seems like you SHOULD be able to have shift 5+ magic attacks to disable people though.  The question in my mind is, how important is declaring it a non-lethal attack when you make it?  One could argue a heatwave could cause people to pass out...is it ok to say you cause some areas to have columns of fire and others to just make people pass out in a zone?  Or do we think that's too complicated?  Is there a big difference between a spell that tasers people or one that zaps them with lightning?  And in particular if you make an enchanted item, does it have to specify which it does or can it be decided on use how lethal you want the attack to be?

Seems to me like there should generally be a lot of leeway here, though perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that everyone (or almost everyone) should be treated about the same way in terms of the hit.

It might be better to say that if they survive they do so with an extreme consequence, especially if there's 10 or more stress in a single attack.

Well, a Severe and Mild are the same as an extreme, for what it is worth.  Now if you are tossing around 20-shift, zone-wide attacks, people surviving should be a lot less likely.

That is my issue with the Take Outs. You could hit someone with a weapon 10 battleship cannon, and say they survive it without any lasting harm. When it is my decision, I house-rule common sense. so if you use a Weapon 5 or higher (cannons, magic, etc.), don't expect them to survive.

To be fair, a Battleship Cannon might not have made a direct hit.  Heck, if you have a character hit by such a cannon, you can decide how direct the hit it.  Make it a severe or extreme consequence for a more direct hit, or soak it up with a mild and moderate for something you were just on the edge of.  It's possible to get "taken out" by a battleship cannon and not killed, and precluding fallout a mage has a lot more control over his attacks than a battleship does, for what it is worth.

[UmbraLux]

Now, it seems like you SHOULD be able to have shift 5+ magic attacks to disable people though.  The question in my mind is, how important is declaring it a non-lethal attack when you make it?

Very important.  Remember, you start with effect and work backwards to mechanics when designing spells. 

One could argue a heatwave could cause people to pass out...is it ok to say you cause some areas to have columns of fire and others to just make people pass out in a zone?  Or do we think that's too complicated?  

Heat stroke is relatively deadly, not something to take lightly.  That said, a spell targeted at a zone hits the zone with the same effect.  You need to split the spell's power if you want different effects on different targets. 

Is there a big difference between a spell that tasers people or one that zaps them with lightning?

Yep, amperage.    More seriously, or at least more relevant to the game, it's the 'effects first' issue again.  If I want to stun, my lightning bolt will be shaped to stun (extremely high voltage and very low amperage).  If I want to kill, I just run a few more amps through it...

 And in particular if you make an enchanted item, does it have to specify which it does or can it be decided on use how lethal you want the attack to be?

Focus items, yes...both are offensive spells of either air or earth.  Enchanted items are a bit more problematical.  They generally contain a single spell with the parameters already decided.  I'd be tempted to charge a shift for the flexibility...but might be convinced otherwise by a good argument.

Seems to me like there should generally be a lot of leeway here, though perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that everyone (or almost everyone) should be treated about the same way in terms of the hit.

Yep, though I think it's a bit stronger than a rule of thumb unless you're splitting the spell.

[toturi]

I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.

If the GM or other players do call shennanigans and decide that the death must result from being taken out, then I feel that it is only fair that they agree that the character does not get a Lawbreaker stunt at the very least.

[Drachasor]

I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.

If the GM or other players do call shennanigans and decide that the death must result from being taken out, then I feel that it is only fair that they agree that the character does not get a Lawbreaker stunt at the very least.

Well, I think there are multiple sides to it, potentially.  If there's a few vampires in a crowd of innocents, and a wizard hits the area with a 20-shift spell (we're assuming the wizard is pretty potent here), then at that point it can be a little much for everyone to be ok.  On the other hand, letting a wizard do that and only afterwards insisting that means someone is dead and that a law was broken isn't fair either.  We're assuming no fallout here, btw.

Though, I guess I do favor the narrative approach overall.  Let's say there's a big bad with minion and innocents in a zone.  Doing some Shock and Awe that does a lot of damage to the bad guys in the zone and declaring the innocents get shell-shocked and just run for their lives (that's how they are taken out) is pretty cool.  Not allowing this makes such a thing pretty hard to do which would be a real shame.  Part of the reason the game can be really light on hard mechanics like non-lethal damage and such is because it let's people get narrative control over stuff like this.

[UmbraLux]

To me, deciding on your effects also includes setting the stakes.  A non-lethal spell isn't going to turn deadly without a chance to choose otherwise (probably via compelling an appropriate aspect).  Similarly, a lethal spell is going to kill if it does enough damage.  It's not going to suddenly turn non-lethal...unless an appropriate aspect is involved again.  Just don't describe the spell in lethal terms and then be surprised when it is lethal. 

[Moriden]

I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.

The RAW definitely agrees with you, the problem is that common sense doesn't. More importently though, what should be the importent distinction for getting lawbreaker is not the effect, but the Intent, harry goes over this repeatedly in the novels. the reason that useing those types of magic taints you is not because theres some "dark side" that youve given into, its because in the moment you cast that spell you believed it was not only right, and proper that your targets, yes all of them, die but that you have the right to make that decision. Channeling magic through yourself in such a way marks you with its passing, and that is what the lawbreaker stunts are intended to represent.

The fact that the stunts as written are clunky, appear to be intended as punishing devices instead of roleplay devices and are poorly explained, just obfuscates the issue.

Doing some Shock and Awe that does a lot of damage to the bad guys in the zone and declaring the innocents get shell-shocked and just run for their lives (that's how they are taken out) is pretty cool.  Not allowing this makes such a thing pretty hard to do which would be a real shame.  Part of the reason the game can be really light on hard mechanics like non-lethal damage and such is because it let's people get narrative control over stuff like this.

Subtract 3 from the damage and add the aspect "Freaking Terrifying" to it, use the rules for targeting multiple enemies within a zone but not the whole zone, then invoke for effect for the mooks to flee. Aspects are the reason the system is so light on hard mechanics it even makes a point of saying so rather early on in Your Story.

Yes this requires a much higher complexity spell. Precision is Hard. I mean really think about it for a second what kind of effect are we talking about. you want to hit say 3 Black court vampires in the same zone as a bunch of humans, you want to kill the vampires and not kill the humans. Doesn't really matter what element your using, you would need to send three incredibly focused and intense beams of energy at the enemies to not hit the humans, if its a zone affect your going to hit everyone, and anything that will kill a black court vampire [baring there catches of course] is most definitely going to kill a human.

Harry spends several paragraphs detailing how focused and intense the beams of fire

(click to show/hide)

lucio

uses in

(click to show/hide)

Dead Beat

, compared to his, are. which is a great example of someone using combat magic in the same zone as innocents. as they where protecting

(click to show/hide)

children

at the time.

[toturi]

More importently though, what should be the importent distinction for getting lawbreaker is not the effect, but the Intent, harry goes over this repeatedly in the novels.

Then I think that is precisely the distinction in allowing the player decide the taken out effect. If the intention is for the mortals to die, then the player must make that decision to kill when deciding the taken out effect. In this way, the player is clearly making the decision to accept the Lawbreaker. The taken out effect is, in essense, asking the player,"You want your character to kill the mortal with magic. Are you sure?"

[Moriden]

Then I think that is precisely the distinction in allowing the player decide the taken out effect. If the intention is for the mortals to die, then the player must make that decision to kill when deciding the taken out effect. In this way, the player is clearly making the decision to accept the Lawbreaker. The taken out effect is, in essense, asking the player,"You want your character to kill the mortal with magic. Are you sure?"

No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.

Now if you just got a bit more creative and made an aoe sunlight, or faith spell youd be on pretty solid ground for the kind of thing the op seems to be looking for.

[Drachasor]

Subtract 3 from the damage and add the aspect "Freaking Terrifying" to it, use the rules for targeting multiple enemies within a zone but not the whole zone, then invoke for effect for the mooks to flee. Aspects are the reason the system is so light on hard mechanics it even makes a point of saying so rather early on in Your Story.

Well, if we're going by the rules, you can't do that.  Evocations are one of the following: maneuvers, attacks, blocks, or counter spells.  They aren't multiple ones, by the rules.  Also, invoking to compel multiple people to run away technically can't happen either unless the GM decides to do most of the compels on his own (which he can certainly do).  Much simpler and more straightforward is just narrating an AoE so that (using your example below) 3 columns of fire burst up in loud explosions around the vampires, scaring and perhaps temporarily deafening all the humans nearby.

Of course, doing that when there's a hostage isn't a good idea.  Bad guy will have some aspect like "X is my hostage" and invoke that as a human shield.

Yes this requires a much higher complexity spell. Precision is Hard. I mean really think about it for a second what kind of effect are we talking about. you want to hit say 3 Black court vampires in the same zone as a bunch of humans, you want to kill the vampires and not kill the humans. Doesn't really matter what element your using, you would need to send three incredibly focused and intense beams of energy at the enemies to not hit the humans, if its a zone affect your going to hit everyone, and anything that will kill a black court vampire [baring there catches of course] is most definitely going to kill a human.

Not having fallout means you have controlled your spell well, honestly.  Just because Harry doesn't do this very well doesn't mean it isn't possible.  Might mean you cut the power of the spell down a bit or you invoke an aspect or two to give you extra control, but if your discipline is greater than your shifts, then you are controlling it pretty well.

Harry spends several paragraphs detailing how focused and intense the beams of fire

(click to show/hide)

lucio

uses in

(click to show/hide)

Dead Beat

, compared to his, are. which is a great example of someone using combat magic in the same zone as innocents. as they where protecting

(click to show/hide)

children

at the time.

That's a totally different issue.  No one is using AoE attacks in that scenario.  Using an AoE attack in your own zone is typically insane, since you'll get hit by it too (as well as all of your combat allies).

[Drachasor]

No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.

Now if you just got a bit more creative and made an aoe sunlight, or faith spell youd be on pretty solid ground for the kind of thing the op seems to be looking for.

If there wasn't something special about killing humans, then you'd get a law violation if you killed non-humans too.  It's not so crazy to be able to think a spell can kill vampires and not humans.  It's a ball of magical fire, after all.