The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
Rel Fexive:
A non-combat character starts with an appropriate Aspect for it that can be compelled for 'weakness' and bullet-shyness... and, as one of their advancements later on they could, if appropriate, swap it out for a more combat-hardened Aspect.
Khayyin:
--- Quote from: iago on June 15, 2007, 07:16:07 PM ---I'm not sure what you mean by "beasts" here, though, so I'm not sure where to go with the specifics of your game.
--- End quote ---
Thus far, we have:
-Teenage wizard, mostly a sensitive (precognition, psychometry). He's the creepy kid who wakes the party up in the middle of the night, saying "The monsters are coming".
-A Thunderbird. In my game, the Thunderbird are a race of Nevernever-types, who've been living in the physical world nearly as long as vampires. Their natural form is a huge bird, of course, but many of them use a trick similar to Tera West, and turn into a human for a period of time.
-Valkyrie. This character is the reincarnation of a powerful Valkyrie, who is just coming into her abilities. For now, she struggles with the Valkyrie alter-ego, which takes over in times of stress in a Jessica Sanders (Heroes) sort of way. She blacks out, and when she wakes up, the battle is over, and she's left with the corpse of a mugger with a spear-wound.
-In the 13th century, as the Inquisition worked it's way to an end, the Pope established an organization of hunters, all men of the cloth, who answer directly to the Pope. One of the PCs is such an undercover hunter-for-the-Lord. Sort of Father Forthill meets Supernatural (tv show).
-A wyldfae pixie, with a knack for working the rumor-mill.
-A wyldfae changeling, child of a Sidhe and a mortal.
Any of the fae or fae-like creatures would be protected by the accords as far as persecution goes. What I'm wondering is if doing something that would break one of the Laws of Magic would have a corrupting influence on the PC, resulting in a Lawbreaker stunt and loss of refresh rate (still getting used to that idea). From what you've said, that sort of thing (particularly the refresh rate reduction) represents being warped by your use of magic, by doing something against your nature.
I think what I'll implement is this: A being is either a) under the effects Laws of Magic, b) under the effects of the Unseelie Accords, or c) Non-magical, so not worried about it.
The Unseelie Accords will be a set of similar rules, based on the rules the fae must abide by (Cannot speak a false statement - if forced to make a statement 3 times, they must abide by it, etc.). Breaking the Accords will have the consequence of an Accordbreaker stunt (you see where I'm going with this). The way I see the Accords, there are a million addenda, laying out the variations on the rules that each variety of creature must abide by. This covers most anything that might come out of the woodwork; as long as you abide by the rules of what you are, you're fine.
Will need some tweaking, but what do you all think?
taralon:
--- Quote from: mikeryan on June 19, 2007, 01:00:05 AM ---This is a heat of battle scenario. I think that if they have friends on the council, they'd get off with a warning.
In game terms, I think the guy who "got the kill" would probably still get the Lawbreaker stunt. The other guy would probably get a pass from me. You can want to kill someone as much as you want. You just can't kill them. The player can still play up the emotional angle at coming that close to taking a life. The stunt isn't really needed for that.
Personally, I think that without intent, it doesn't count. It's still a good motivation to be cautious with your mighty powers.
--- End quote ---
Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass. Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another. Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt. Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself. I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences.
As far as a truly accidental effect. Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves. If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent.
mikeryan:
--- Quote from: taralon on June 21, 2007, 01:11:52 AM ---Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass. Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another. Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt. Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself. I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences.
--- End quote ---
I see your point, and I'm seeing errors in my own logic.
I'm an easy-going GM though. Ultimately, I'd probably leave it up to the player. If he had wanted the kill for character or story reasons, and felt the stunt fit with his character, I'd allow him to take it. Forcing it on him if he didn't want it might be a little mean.
Ultimately, it comes down to two (or more) story paths. In one, the character becomes tougher and darker. In the other, maybe the naive character keeps skating around the edges of danger. It could work in the right hands.
--- Quote ---As far as a truly accidental effect. Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves. If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent.
--- End quote ---
Thinking about this one more, I'm wondering how this would come about around the table.
I wouldn't come up with a complication like that on a new player just to spice things up. That would just be mean gming.
I would throw a complication like that at a seasoned player, who I had a good bond of trust with. And I would take the players ideas about his character into consideration. In that case, maybe giving out the stunt would be appropriate. For a reason, sometimes intent doesn't matter. Case in point, Molly Carpenter. (the book is in softcover, so it's not a spoiler, right?)
And there's always a chance that the player could suggest a situation like that, between sessions.
So what happens to the character really depends on why the situation was created by the various players (including the gm).
taralon:
Not springing it on a seasoned player is a good idea.
Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't jump right on throwing the "Doom" on someone. We know that the wardens (especially post the start of the War) are stretched very thin. Harry's in Chicago, the next nearest is in LA. Having one of them come in to investigate and find guilty would probably be just a little too Deus Ex. Now having it happen as a reason to have the council begin poking around in the affairs of a group, now that would be plausible. Instead of facing a trail, instead they have an interfering type like Morgan popping up every time something is going down, and complicating things as now everything has to be white washed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version