The Dresden Files > DFRPG
"Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
knnn:
--- Quote from: iago on March 15, 2011, 08:49:54 PM ---Usual disclaimers apply. Just my opinion, my table, etc.
Most don't. I think of Thomas -- someone who's actively fighting off his demon, not giving in to it -- as more an exception than a rule.
Human.
Case by case.
Distinctly human. It's the point of the mortal knights that they are mortals.
Human. But RCIs aren't the same as RCVs.
Human.
Human, but maybe not when in full on demon-dog mode.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for coming back with an "official" answer so quickly. My reasons for asking come of course from the various times that Harry seemingly uses magic with deadly force against various monsters without apparently considering the consequences of breaking the Law.
Examples include:
1) Blowing the tires off the truck in Fool Moon (Lycanthropes - though maybe the chance of killing there was rather low?)
2) Loup-Garou (he was in demon-mode - so like you said, maybe that doesn't count).
3) Denarians at the Shed (including the two that Luccio took down). Also later on - on the island.
4) [Changes] (click to show/hide)Literal TONS of RCI - though maybe it doesn't count because the spell wasn't actually his, and also he didn't really kill them as much as kill their attached demon?
Thanks again for responding so quickly
Tallyrand:
--- Quote from: chadu on March 15, 2011, 08:30:31 PM ---FWIW, the only thing we have in book-canon that's even close to an accidental breaking of the Laws is Harry blowing up Bianca's party, and scorched human remains were found later. It's possible they were already dead, and it's possible they weren't. We don't know.
But since Harry didn't seem to pick up Lawbreaker there, that's my rationalization why I tend to be more lenient on accidents.
So:
* I forzare you into the path of an oncoming car I didn't know was coming? Universe grants a pass.
* I forzare you off the roof of a tall building and you become street pizza? Lawbreaker, baby.
--- End quote ---
I'm curious Chad, where do you put a limit of foreseeable consequences? I mean, throwing someone into the road whether you knew a car was coming or not, it seems reasonable to expect a car to hit them. On the other hand I could see that binding someone and then the building burns down might go beyond the pale of reasonable.
iago:
--- Quote from: Tallyrand on March 15, 2011, 09:33:50 PM ---I'm curious Chad, where do you put a limit of foreseeable consequences? I mean, throwing someone into the road whether you knew a car was coming or not, it seems reasonable to expect a car to hit them. On the other hand I could see that binding someone and then the building burns down might go beyond the pale of reasonable.
--- End quote ---
To an extent, we can "meta" this. I think part of the job of defining "foreseeable" is on the GM's shoulders -- or the table in general. The GM says, "Hey, that's a busy road, and you might knock him out into it" and you go ahead and do it, I think technically the intent's there. The GM doesn't give you that warning -- and it's not brought up in any other way at the table -- then maybe it'd be dirty pool to assert intent. Not that the GM has to warn all the time, but doing so in advance of accepting the declaration of action should keep the air clear. Not letting a player correct his declaration of action once the player's given a fuller picture would be, after all, a bit of a dick move.
LCDarkwood:
My thoughts on the topic required their own thread:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24800.0.html
Ophidimancer:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, Fred.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version