What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice

[riplikash]

Martial Arts Apprentice of a French Warden who never seems to be around, head this warning. You SHALL NOT READ!!!

Now that that is out of the way...This is a one part fluff/mechanic question and one part advice request.
Background
My players were fighting some...Well they figured they were either Renfields or Zombies. It turned out there were more traditional Voodoo style zombies, i.e. people drugged up to follow orders. Mindless, but still people.

To defend his friends our wizards apprentice crushed the last one into a gooey paste. I checked and double checked with him, and he was adamant he was not only going to take them out, but kill them if he could. He didn't think they were humans, but if they were he decided his character didn't think so and would act accordingly. I applaud his commitment to his character.

So now he is a lawbreaker, at 7 refresh (6 at the time). Long story short, he is currently working through a trial for the council to avoid his imminent demise. It was self defense after all.
Question
Lawbreaker is a pretty horrible thing to have over your head at 7 refresh, and I'm not sure if it is deserved, though I think being tried as a warlock is. In regards to belief, he certainly believed he was killing zombies, or some sort of monster. However, he did choose to use deadly force without fully considering the situation, or the possible repercussions of his actions.

Any suggestions on how to handle this? Should I just let him take his medicine, or has he not broken the law in spirit, even if he did in action?

[EdgeOfDreams]

I think the lawbreaker power is appropriate.  Run the trial as a social combat with help from anyone sympathetic to him, and if he survives, throw on a "Doom of Damocles" aspect.  Then, offer the chance to redeem himself - if he can go for one full adventure showing substantial restraint and caution with his powers, let him take off the lawbreaker power and get back that fate point.  However, don't ditch the Doom of Damocles aspect and complication until he jumps through the appropriate social hoops to convince the council he's alright.

[Tsunami]

Lawbreaker can be done here, but there are other ways to deal with it too.

Ok, so usually a lawbreaker gets less cautious with his powers, being stained and driven to violence, tempted by power etc.

Why not go the other way around in your case, skip the lawbreaker stunt and adjust an aspect of the character to represent the fact that he doesn't trust himself with his magic anymore.
Basically he's so shocked that he actually killed a human that he now is scared of his own magic and has trouble using it.
This can then be compelled later to complicate his life.

All this is of course in addition to whatever the council my do to him.

This way you don't have to add a lawbreaker but the act still has real consequences for the character.


Of course all this only works if the character is someone who might actually be disturbed by killing someone :-P

[MacShidhe]

He's broken the law in action.  However, he was working with the information he had not the information he needed, it was in defense of another, and he is still an apprentice so he should be able to swing the Doom of Damocles to be put on him and his old master may not want him anymore.  There are enough literalists on the Council that you could probably give him a good scare, though.  

[Tedronai]

If he LOSES (is taken out or concedes) the social combat, throw on an Extreme Consequence that changes one of his aspects to Doom of Damocles (just don't let on to the player that that's what you're aiming for rather than his head).
In the unlikely event that he wins (because, let's face it, with who he's likely to be going up against in a trial like that, his victory really is quite unlikely), they conclude that all information available at the time indicated that the victims were not (or at least no longer) human (or he might even convince them that that information was TRUE), that their deaths were indisputably a matter of self-defense, etc., and he walks away with the Lawbreaker stunt and maybe a few enemies for down the road.

[riplikash]

Hmm, perhaps I needed to be a bit clearer.

The trial is more of a trial by fire, as the gatekeeper decided to act in a similar fashion as he did in Summer Knight: lets see how he handles this situation. He is pretty much guarenteed the Doom of Damocles if he succeeds.

I'm just wondering if it is appropriate to let him squirm out of the lawbreaker stunt.

[sinker]

I think this is the best question to ask. Do you and he feel like this should be a theme throughout. I definitely think that he should likely change an aspect to reflect the consequences of his actions (and the best aspect would be one that reflects the myriad consequences I.E. more than just "Doom of Damacles"), however the Lawbreaker power is only really necessary if you can see this coming up again.

Think about it from a player perspective. If I never really wanted to play a person who kills with magic (and still don't) then a power that gives me bonuses to such is a point of refresh wasted. I'm definitely NOT trying to say that GM's ought to give players free reign to kill all the time and never take Lawbreaker, but given the circumstances I think it's best to reflect his view and his consequences with aspects and then only give him Lawbreaker if he really wants to delve into that behavior.

[UmbraLux]

I'm just wondering if it is appropriate to let him squirm out of the lawbreaker stunt.

I'd ask him if he's willing / interested in playing the redemption / road to corruption theme.  If so, give him the Lawbreaker power and let him work through it.  If not, come up with a reason it won't apply.  One possible reason is lack of intent - if the 'damage' from breaking the law is from knowingly killing a human...  (I tend to take a more literalist view, but either is valid depending on what the group wants.)

[Richard_Chilton]

There's a post by Jim Butcher on another board that defines how 'corruption by black magic' works.

Basically - it's the results that matter.  If you were aiming to wound with magic and you killed then you killed with magic - cue the corruption.  If you meant to kill and didn't, then you lucked out.
See http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,467.msg8751.html#msg8751 for more info.

All those times that Dresden talks about how easier it would be to cut loose and kill? That's his lawbreaker stunt talking.

Richard

[deathwombat]

Off with the head!

[Blackblade]

I think it's not so much what he wanted, but what he believed.  If he was aiming at people he knew to be humans, and accidentally killed them, I think he would still be guilty.  He knew that there was a possibility that he might kill someone, and believed that it was worth the risk.  If, on the other hand, he genuinely thought he was killing zombies, then I don't think the corruption would have applied to him.  While casting the spell, he wouldn't have had to use his belief that hurting or possibly killing another mortal was acceptable.  To relate it to the above Word of Jim: While out hunting, you thought you saw a turkey moving through the bush.  You shoot at it, but it turns out to be another hunter. You would still get in trouble, but you would only be guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

[sinker]

Except as Jim said in that very post it's the end result that matters, not the intention that led to that result. So even if he thought he was killing zombies the fact is that he took a life.

"I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder," is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation.  You had the weapon.  You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion.  (Or if you DIDN'T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people's lives, something really no less excuseable.)  But you chose to employ the weapon anyway.  The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.

Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions.  You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn't like anyone *died* or anything.  He's fine (at least in the long term), you're fine, and there are fewer repercussions--regardless of your hideous intentions.

Then again I like to think it's a little of both. Perhaps when you use such a powerful tool and "accidentally" kill with it, it speaks to an attitude of carelessness or irresponsibility (or that you have the right to do it).

[Tedronai]

Except as Jim said in that very post it's the end result that matters, not the intention that led to that result. So even if he thought he was killing zombies the fact is that he took a life.

All of the official and semi-official examples of this, however, have been scenarios where the target is KNOWN to be a mortal.

The Lawbreaker stunt is gained because the character, apparently, truly believes, 'deep within their heart', that using that kind of magic against a mortal is allowable.
But it's well established that using such magic against NON-mortals IS allowable.
As such, if the character truly believes that s/he is using their magic against a NON-mortal, then their actions do not demonstrate the kind of belief that Lawbreaker represents.

[sinker]

At this point I'm only playing the devil's advocate. My real opinion can be read further above. Just stating that Jim seems pretty clear about his opinion in the post.

[Tedronai]

At this point I'm only playing the devil's advocate. My real opinion can be read further above. Just stating that Jim seems pretty clear about his opinion in the post.

Jim presents a pretty clear opinion on situations that are, frankly, pretty clear.

In less certain situations, we have less certain opinions to go on.

As I said, we've yet to have anything of the sort for situations where the practitioner was working from a reasonable conclusion that s/he was attacking non-humans not subject to the protections of the Laws.