Ah, okay, there was a bit of confusion there between "my cat can see the supernatural and tells me when he does" and "my cat can see the supernatural so I can see it too".  Initially, Neko, you seemed to be arguing that they were the same thing, which they aren't.  Mouse can sense supernatural evil thingies, but he has to tell Harry (by growling) that he senses something.  This cat lets its owner see the supernatural too, which means it is a power it confers on its owner by way of Item Of Power via the aforementioned "mystic link".

I'm reminded of the example of if the danger sensing lynx from the Amber DRPG rulebook; sure, it could sense danger, but the only way it could tell its owner what was going down was by being a cat - and yeowling and running away!  But if it had conferral of the power onto its owner, well... different story.


EDIT: arg, convergence already achieved.

The thing with aspects like that is that the obvious effect of the aspect only applies when it is relevant to the story i.e. the action.  Technically they are BLIND all the time but it only matters when someone makes it matter, by tagging or compelling the aspect.  The two main ways to use BLIND that I can see off-hand is a) tag to get an advantage - "he can't see, so he can't stop me hitting him!" - to get +2, or b) compel them so they stumble around for a bit and can't act - "your character is BLIND so he can't see: what does he do?"

This is easily the most counter-intuitive part of FATE by a long shot!

This is unfortunately as much a flaw as a strength. without a clear, understandable, and universally true way that the laws work ooc then you will have radicaly different interpretations on them, this is good in that aindividual st is not "tied down" in there implementation and bad because most st's are not in anyway skilled enough orators, debators, or writers to actually express there individual interpreation and as such you will have many players who think they ooc know how the laws work get a rather harsh surprise when they get slapped with lawbreaker and are told there charecter is now unplayable.

Transparency and consistency are good... yes freedom for individual its is good[or so i'm told]. but you can take it to far and i believe this is an example of that. 

Everyone's game is different anyway, without or without something massively open to interpretation like the Laws.  So the only thing you can do is get an idea of how the Laws will work at your table and play within that framework.  At the end of the day everyone in your game will decide what is and isn't cool, so becoming a Lawbreaker shouldn't be that much of a shock.  Ideally, at least; the first few times someone tries to step around the Laws will probably trigger some spirited discussions, which isn't much different to arguing any other rule interpretation.

One imagines the Gatekeeper does the most work regarding enforcing the Seventh Law.  He knows the most about the Gates and Outsiders (otherwise how would he do his job?) outside of those wrong'uns dedicated to opening them and so, I would think, spends much of his time watching them, keeping an eye out (ho ho) for Seventh Law breakers, and tracking/fighting/holding back any Outsiders and Outsider servants that he finds.  If he got a Lawbreaker stunt every time he had to do any of that he'd be in big trouble, and BE big trouble.  So I think he must have some way around that, even if it's just a "Incorruptible By Outsiders" aspect.  Maybe the position comes with something like we see in Changes?

IMO, IMC, YMMV, etc etc.

I think all the Laws have two components to them, and each one consists of these components in a different ratio.  There is:

(a) "does doing this corrupt you in some way, twisting your brain or making you see it as the way to solve all your problems?"

and

(b) "is doing this a really bad idea for everyone?"

It's worth noting that (a) needn't always twist you metaphysically, as long as it encourages a dependency on doing that thing again (represented by a reduction in your ability to resist compels on your aspects by reducing your Refresh).  And (b) is more of a "legal" rather than "metaphysical" issue.

I think all the Laws have (b) in them to some degree, but not all of them explicitly have (a) in every instance.

Killing, mind reading, domination, transforming and necromancy all incorporate (a) for sure, I'd say.  They are all about Doing Bad Things to other people, even if that was not the intention - although this "intention" thing is a can of squirmy worms, as we are all well aware.

We don't know enough about the time travel one as we haven't seen it used much (only the once, really) - but it could incorporate the "dependency" aspect of (a) while the potential for world-destroying paradox definitely brings in (b) much more.

As for the Outer Gates... I suspect you can have (a) AND/OR (b) here.  This is because you could be a nasty guy wanting power and reaching out to the worst possible entities for it, which is corrupting in itself but the Outsiders are probably all about corruption as well - which is (a).  But you could be a good guy, not yet tempted by the power they offer but foolishly researching them in order to fight them.  This is clearly a Bad Idea (b) and should not be encouraged to avoid the risk of researchers being influenced by the Nasties, yet the 'perpetrator' may not be a bad person at all.  In this instance I believe it is possible for someone to research the Outer Gates and Outsiders without getting the Lawbreaker stunt and yet still be tried and executed for breaking the Seventh Law.

The Gatekeeper must be a special case of some kind or surely he would be a raving, power-mad lunatic by now.  Either he resists or is perhaps immune to their corrupting influence and has special power over them by dint of knowledge or the circumstances of his birth... just like Harry....?

I believe the difference between "shoot a fireball" and "conjure a knife, then stab" is that you don't need to summon and direct any magical power to do the actual stabbing, as long as you use your own muscles (or someone else's) rather than flinging it at them with magical force.  Because you are not using the fundamental force of magic, directed by your will, to cause death directly then you are not killing with magic, in the sense that anyone could take that knife and use it and not just you.

This is different to "throw someone off a roof with magic and let the fall kill them" because your intent within that spell is to kill; the intent within the conjuration spell is just to create a knife.

This is again different to "conjure an anvil over someone's head and let it drop on them" as the intent within that spell is to create something that will crush and thus kill the target; the intent within the knife conjuration spell is still to simply create a knife.

It's worth bearing in mind that you could conjure a spade to dig a hole (because you're no good at earth magic, maybe?) and then find you have to whack someone upside the head with it.  Does it matter if you didn't create a stabbity-stab weapon in the first place but still killed someone with your conjured spade?  Or would you suddenly get "penalised" for it?  I'd say no - you still don't get a Lawbreaker stunt for killing someone with a conjured object in the context of "I picked it up and hit him with it" because you are not channelling magical force through the lens of your deepest held beliefs in order to do it.  There's no special corruption going on, just the regular corruption of the soul that murderers probably get, which isn't covered by the Laws Of Magic.

Of course, it may be different in your games  

My ideas for New York so far are:

a) The High Line park is Summer territory.

b) The Deviant Crimes Unit, formed during the Satanist scares of the 1970s, is always called in to deal with anything (apparently) involving "weird cults" or "serial killers".

c) The highest Fae "authority" in the city is the Duke and Duchess of New York, ex-changeling twins, one Summer and one Winter, who alternate control by which Court is currently dominant.  The 'position' was first established soon after the first European wizards reached the New World.

d) The Rossville Boatyard is home to a number of unfriendly beings, including one that is either a boggart or a redcap.

e) The rivers that surround Manhattan make it something of a sanctuary, as the flowing water all but cuts the island off from the rest of the world in many ways.

f) An out of the way hotel (I don't have a good name for it yet - I figure it must be something Dutch) is Manhattan's primary accorded neutral territory.  As well as having a good restaurant and bar for anyone just wanting to drop in, it is sufficiently off the beaten track that most mundane folks steer clear of it.


Just some Vancouver-y sketch work so far