Accords are not the same as the Laws of Magic.But members of the Accords when acting under them must abide by them. Which the White Council are members.
Like a magic staff or something. You could even make it black... :P
Probably a bit less powerful and more limited (it likely only applies in duels, and only to the First Law, for example), but yeah, something like that. Smiley
If it exists pc's will find a way to get it, and use it.
If it exists pc's will find a way to get it, and use it.Then they will have the converse problem. They won't have the lawbreaker stunt but WILL have wardens on their ass.
Have any of your wizards figured out how to animate golems yet?
What does that have to do with anything?
Everything.
Killing someone with a mundane artifact that's had magic applied to it doesn't count as a violation of the First Law if there's no magic being applied at kill time.
Heck, the principle applies to entropy curses, too. If you can figure out how to power one without Outsider backing, there's nothing in the Laws to stop you.
Firstly, that's debatable, since creating Golems almost always involves summoning a spirit to possess them, and using summoned entities to kill does break the Laws.
And secondly, and not debatably, we're talking about a formal duel using energy as a weapon, where golems are certainly not going to be allowed.
And this is just flat-out wrong. The Laws are about intent, if you intend to kill someone it doesn't matter how indirectly you do it, you get Lawbreaker, and the Wardens will kill you if they catch you. Re-read the section on the Laws in YS, ditto the section on Thaumaturgy.
Then figure out how to change that 'almost'. Advance your magic tech. :)
And if non-spirit golems are built then formal duels are obsolete, so you see the point of debate, I'm sure.
If the Laws are about intent, then why was Molly ever brought to trial? :)
So all I need to do is mindream a magical critter like Arianna and then use /her/ magic against your dueling wizard and there's nothing the Laws can do about it.
That's a reasonable way to create golems, sure, thanks.
If the Laws work the way you say they work, then there is a huge logical flaw in the concept of Blackstaff.
Witness:
Time A: I use Blackstaff to zorch a section of railroad over a bridge, leaving it looking ok but fundamentally weak, intending to kill someone on train.
Time A+30minutes: I lose Blackstaff to someone else.
Time A+2hrs: Train hits bridge, peeps die.
Do the Laws apply or do they not?
Yes, because it's not like you need to absolutely believe in whatever you do with magic...oh, wait, you do.
We have no idea how the Blackstaff works (beyond it somehow helping to shield it's bearer from the internal price of breaking the Laws).
Using it as an example is thus silly.
mindream can install complete belief /easy/. And the originating practitioner completely believes in mindreaming nonhuman monsters.
The possibilty of existence of an item that can mask intent from consequence negates the following:
Meh is right, all you have to do is Mindrape some supernat critter, and make it utterly devoted to you, and your protection. Then just have it guard you. No 4th lawbreaker since its not a human, and you can give it commands verbally (without magic) to kill and avoid a 1st lawbreaker.
I think you misunderstand, I'm talking about the one using mind-control, not the victim. To program someone (even a monster) to commit murder requires the same commitment to murder as directly killing someone with magic...and thus gives you Lawbreaker (First). Though not Lawbreaker (Fourth) since you're doing it to a monster.
For all we know the Blackstaff can't be switched from one owner to another.
We have JB stating in interviews that the WC stole it from the original owner.
What? How is using an item we know nothing about as an example NOT useless and silly?
Nope, no lawbreaker as long as there is no Magic involved in the killing. Thats how it works, period, you cant just suddenly switch and say that you'll get a 1st lawbreaker if a flunky kills something for you. Whats the difference between just hiring a hitman? Almost none at all. Thats why Wardens dont get lawbreakers for beheading warlocks with a sword.
So everyone with intent to kill but not applying magic to the victim at the time of victim death is guilty of First law breaking?
We have JB stating in interviews that the WC stole it from the original owner.
Because asserting that we know nothing about it is false. We Do know things about it:
With it consequences happen - undeniable
With it there is intent to make consequences happen - yes?
With it there is no Law-based prosecution based on intent - undeniable
So, if the Laws of Magic are only supposed to apply to humans, why not run around and peer into the minds of all the nonhuman problems you’re facing? Well, aside from the risk you’ll run afoul of a Warden troubled by your “grey area” activities, there’s not much stopping you—just give us a moment to call the pleasant brawny men with the white vans and straitjackets before you give it a try.
The real problem is this: as a human spellcaster, you only really have the faculties for understanding human thoughts. Try to tap into the mind of a faerie and you could find yourself a few minutes later rocking in the corner and laughing at how everything is made of rainbows. It only gets worse, the nastier or more powerful your target is. Try to read the thoughts of a Red Court vampire and it’s even odds that you’ll shatter your psyche before you learn anything useful—assuming you can even understand whatever strange language their internal monologue is using. Try to read the thoughts of something ancient, and you’ll probably find yourself a mind-wiped puppet in short order.
It’s kind of a disappointment, in the end, for the would-be mind-reader. All the minds he might be allowed to read, he can’t, because he doesn’t speak the language, and all the minds he isn’t allowed to read, he could—at the peril of breaking the Third Law.
If you build a magical bomb (literal or metaphorical, and a profgrammed Red Court bodyguard is a damn bomb), that you know might kill people, then yeah, you get Lawbreaker when you create the 'bomb'. You intended a human death. Or didn't care if it occurred. You made magic with death as it's goal. Have Lawbreaker.
You'd basically break your mind open trying to do something like that and become a gibbering maniac.
This would seem to ban lethal wards.
But members of the Accords when acting under them must abide by them. Which the White Council are members.
Again I still think this is probably an issue for the GM just interested what other GMs would do.
Lethal Wards on your own home are the definition of a bomb that you have a fair expectation of NEVER harming a human. It's only if you know it's probably gonna that you get Lawbreaker. Lethal Wards on someone else's home as a booby trap? Lawbreaker territory.
The other option in this whole debate is a purely consequentialist reading for First Law, with exceptions /possibly/ being granted as an executive pardon not a juristical conclusion.
I think that might actually work better for an RPG, and it allows formal duels to have structure as part of executive power and the a priori granting of pardons.
Personally, I'm arguing metaphysics, not law. I'm arguing what twists your soul and grants Lawbreaker, not what the Wardens will prosecute.
I got that.
My point here being that the other possible reading is that everyone is metaphysically contaminated, and the gray Warden cloaks stand as symbol of that.
Whats interesting is you can burn down a building, provided you think that its empty. It could be full of people, and as long as you didn't think there where people in it, you would not get a lawbreaker.
On the other hand, if you know there are people in it, and accidentally set fire to said building, lawbreakers all around.
Hmmm, if you play an Insane wizard who believes everybody is a monster of some kind or another, you could conceivably avoid almost every lawbreaker.
Whats interesting is you can burn down a building, provided you think that its empty. It could be full of people, and as long as you didn't think there where people in it, you would not get a lawbreaker.
Anyone that crazy I'd just give the Lawbreaker stunts to automatically to reflect the nature of their insanity.
this came up in another thread. Iago said and this is one of the times i agree with him, that if you a use magic, and b kill a human you get the stunt regardless of your intent.
However they are intended to be interpreted differently in each persons games so really whatever your st says.
I think if you're playing a wizard who views everyone else as monsters - then you need to get a party of player characters together to take down what is obviously a good villain. ^_^
and if the entire party is this kind of "person"? :p
i could easily see were creature varients with the lawbreaker stunt for this kind of reason. simply vieing murder as part of the cycle. how usefull it would be to them is debatable but still.
Seriously, if your theme of the party is sociopathic people who view everyone else as monsters, then you're not going to end up running into the same things that this system is built for. You're more or less going to have to make your own take of the Fate system and the world as a whole.
Yeah I dont understand why a Red Court Infected with a Refresh Level of 12, a Refresh Adjustment of 7 who becomes a full red court (refresh level 11) would be an NPC.
Aside from the fact that apparently Red Court Vamps are always NPCS.
Most games won't allow a serial pedophile/child murderer, despite that not having any Refresh cost at all, and the character likely being fully possessed of his own will.
The hunger half is now all in control.This actually comes up in regards to red court
But that applies to everyone, not just people with diagnosed disorders or issues. People with those kinds of things just have 'Aspects' that result in more societally inappropriate compels, not necessarily less Fate Points to throw around.