The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Law Talk
Sanctaphrax:
As you all know, we spend a lot of time talking about the Laws of Magic. Especially the first one.
It'd be nice if we could keep all that discussion in one place instead of letting it spill all over the forum.
So, here's a thread for Law talk. If you feel the need to discuss what is and what is not Lawbreaking, do it here.
And now for some links to previous discussions. They're organized by the issue being discussed. Some discussions are linked under multiple issues.
1. How Does Accidentally Killing People With Magic Work?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24800.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18670.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24546.0.html
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?601817-DFRPG-Non-Lethal-Evocation
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24028.0.html
2. Does X Count As Killing With Magic?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17662.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17726.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17410.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17583.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,3544.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,36719.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24028.0.html
3. Is Sponsored Magic Subject To The Laws?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18296.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19301.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19574.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19561.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16270.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30067.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,35871.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,36015.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29919.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26767.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23885.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30762.0.html
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?591109-Dresden-Files-RPG-Questions-about-Sponsored-Magic
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/15442/are-changelings-with-sponsored-magic-subject-to-the-laws-of-magic
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24028.0.html
4. Does An X Count As Human For Law Purposes?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24796.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19301.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18124.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26767.0.html
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?526259-Dresden-Files-Help!
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24028.0.html
5. Are Enchanted Items Subject To The Laws?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18296.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17410.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19761.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,3544.0.html
6. How Much Can You Mess With Somebody's Head Without Breaking A Law?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,20153.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18788.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17627.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30067.0.html
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?508245-DFRPG-Evocation-Magic
7. How Do The Laws Work With Spells That Are Intended To Break The Law But Don't, Or That Are In A "Grey Area" Law-wise?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16618.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,3494.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,3544.0.html
8. Does Consent Matter?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17627.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18788.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,3593.0.html
9. Do The Laws Matter To Non-Spellcasting Powers?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17829.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16618.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31367.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30067.0.html
I'm sure I missed a least a few questions and discussions. If something belongs up here, post it and I'll add it.
Deadmanwalking:
Excellent idea. Basically bumping to keep it available.
My opinions (by order of discussion linked above):
1. It's using magic with intent that grants Lawbreaker. So you have to intend someone to die to break the First Law, intend to transform them to break the Second, etc. Motivation (ie: why you're doing it) on the other hand, couldn't matter less. The Wardens may not be quite this forgiving, though.
2. Depends on X. Sometimes.
3. Yes, it is. It may be from outside you, but it still requires you to will it to happen. To believe in it completely, and that's what twists you. In game terms, it still uses your Conviction and Discipline, not your sponsor's, so it still grants you Lawbreaker. The Wardens may have a hard time prosecuting, though, depending on your patron.
4. Depends on X. And, IMO, how you perceive X. Morgan could probably kill Thomas without getting Lawbreaker because he sees him as a monster. Harry couldn't. This doesn't extend to actual humans, who you get Lawbreaker for killing regardless of how monstrous you think they are.
5. Depends on how they work. Harry's force rings? Probably. A Warden's Sword? No.
6. Very little. Mostly only to repair existing damage, and even then only with consent. You can look as much as you like if you have consent, though.
7. Depends on the spell, and mostly on Intent. See my mentions of intent above.
8. On the Third Law yes (because of how it's worded), on the Fourth Law a little bit sometimes (again, based on wording) on any of the others, no, not at all.
9. No, they explicitly do not. You've paid that price as part of buying the power in question. The rest of these are just my personal opinion, but this one is straight from the creators of the game.
Magicpockets:
Here's my take on it. As always, it's my personal opinion:
1. Agree with Deadmanwalking.
2. Mostly no.
3. Depends on the kind of sponsored magic. Generally no, since the twisting, in my understanding, requires the caster to use his own internal magic for it to corrupt. Is the caster a lawbreaker in the eyes of the White Council? Likely. Does he acquire lawbreaker powers, making further attempts at breaking the laws stronger? I doubt it.
The one exception to this rule would IMO be Kemmlerian Necromancy, since it isn't so much sponsored by an external source but rather something taught to a wizard. Also, it requires Evocation+Thaumaturgy, implying that it only expands your natural abilities, not grant you actual spellcasting when you lack it.
4. My personal take:
* True Mortals: Yes
* True Believers: Yes
* Mortal Emissary of Power: Depends. For Denarians, I'm inclined to say No
* "Mortal Freaks" (Werewolves, practitioners, minor talents): Yes
* "Halfbreeds" (Changelings, Scions): Yes, as long they don't have the Living Dead or Human Guise Powers (or similar)
* Red Court Infected/White Court Virgins: Yes
* White Court Vampires: No
* All other supernatural characters: No
5. Depends. Warden swords are created with the express purpose of not violating the first law, but an enchanted item designed to mindrape someone might be pushing it. When in doubt, I ask myself whether a mundane item of the same type could have accomplished the same. E.g. Magical Gun/Sword: Fair game; Reanimation potion: not so much.
6. As long as no stress, consequences, blocks or maneuvers are used, it would be fine.
7. I'd rule that the lawbreaker bonus only applies to actions intended to further break the law.
8. I'm inclined to say no, unless self-inflicted.
9. No, because it only applies to spellcasting powers.
narphoenix:
1. The line is: is your spell the last act of will between the kill or no? Intent doesn't matter, per:
--- Quote from: jimbutcher ---But if the substance of the consequences of the act itself does not have its own inherent quality of good or evil, then how can the /intentions/ behind it determine a similar quality? "Really, I was only trying to provide a better quality of life for my family and my employees. It wasn't my intention to destroy that particular species of flower in the rain forest that cures cancer." "I was just trying to give those Injuns some blankets. It wasn't my intention to expose them to smallpox and wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people." "I just wanted to get that book finished while working two jobs and finishing a brutal semester of grad school. It wasn't my intention to screw up the name of Bianca's personal assistant whose death had motivated her to go all power hungry to get revenge on Harry."
There's some old chestnut about good itentions serving as base level gradiant on an expressway that goes somewhere, but I can't remember the specifics right now. While I agree that the /intentions/ of the person taking action are not without significance, they carry far less weight than the /consequences/ of that action.
--- End quote ---
So, to use an example that's been used before: if you Forzare someone off of a cliff, Lawbreaker. If you Forzare someone into the oath of an oncoming car (with a driver) no Lawbreaker, but the Wardens won't be happy.
2.
WCV: No. Elaine was extremely willing to roast Pirscilla like a Thanksgiving turkey, and she's trying to avoid White Council attention.
Red Court Infected/White Court Virgins: Hm. Probably. They have enough humanity to resist The Hunger, so.
Denarians: Hell no (pardon the pun). Luccio, ie, the Warden Captain, was willing to (and did) roast those fuckers.
Fae Knights: Hm. Before I would have said yes, but in light of CD and the revelation of the archetype thing, I have become more inclined to say no.
Minor Practitioners: Yes.
Were-things: Depends on form. If shapeshifted, no. If human, yes.
Pure Mortals, Wizards, and True Believers: Yes
5. If they are magical effects, yes (Like Harry's force rings). If they are not (like the Warden Swords), no.
6. If you subvert their will, 4th Lawbreaker. If you see inside their head without permission, 3rd Lawbreaker. If they gave you permission, no Lawbreaker (otherwise, Harry would be guilty of violating the 3rd Law in WN)
7. No opinion.
8. Not on the 1st or 2nd Law. 3rd Law yes. 4th Law maybe. 5th, 6th, and 7th, no.
9. No.
Theonlyspiral:
1. I'd have to look at the situation. Sometimes it wold be appropriate (Pushed onto a freeway, and that kind of skirting) but if there is an unintended consequence then definitely not.
2. Case by case basis.
3. I'd have to say Yes. 100%.
4. The big thing I'm sure of is that for things like Denarians or other beings who are possessed it would be a huge cluster-cuss to adjudicate in play.
5. Things like the Warden Sword is a no. Force Rings, full on Love Potions? Yes.
6. I really am not sure...I'd say something like a Jedi Mind Trick would be ok, but nothing stronger.
7. The big thing for me is Intent. If you try to break a la and believe in it, then you get it. On the other side, if it's an accident then we might see mitigating factors.
8. Yes.
9. I really had never given it much thought.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version