Let's say you are a monster (red or white court vamp for example) that can use magic. Are the laws of magic any different for you?The Laws aren't different in a metaphysical sense, but the individual is different.
How about sponsored magic? Like, the winter knight killing someone with winter ice?
That's pretty debated here. Personally I feel that it's the sponsor's will/power and that the sponsor covers the mortal (I.E. no lawbreaking), but other people will tell you differently.
The rules hint that the principle you might want to use is "does it have positive refresh?" If so, it can get lawbreaker.
Frankly, I'd probably go at this from a purely mechanic standpoint. Trying to figure out "what makes sense" is not really going to get you anywhere. It'll lead to a metaphysical black hole. "Free Will" as most people understand it is a nearly impossible to define term, so trying to figure out what creatures it applies to via rational argument is just not going to work. However, going with the idea of positive refresh seems congruent with the spirit of the system -- it also means all PCs are going to have to deal with Lawbreaker if they start killing things with magic.
And I think it is a pretty slam-dunk argument that killing someone with sponsored magic gets you a Lawbreaker. You use conviction, lore, and discipline for sponsored magic, just like any other magic. It is your WILL in charge of the important aspects; as the rules say the sponsor just sometimes handles some of the details (and that's ONLY with thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation). Beyond that they've given you a mystical credit card and you use that to purchase magical power to fuel your spells; but they are YOUR spells. You decide the targets, you decided the area, you decide the lethality, you have to WILL all of that into being. You still have to believe yourself capable of killing or breaking any other law in order to do it -- the sponsor doesn't cover you on belief*...typically.
This seems to be pretty thoroughly backed up via lore as well, though it isn't precisely covered.(click to show/hide)
This could lead to some weird circular problems. Consider a warlock breaks a law. He gets lawbreaker. Now he breaks enough laws that he has many different lawbreaker powers. He goes into negative refresh land. Does he then lose all of his ranks in lawbreaker?
It's pretty well established that lawbreaker only applies to mortals.
The thing I look at (that has some basis in the books as people describe how the laws work) is that the lawbreaker power is acquired when you take the innermost living part of you (your magic) and use it to pervert the life around you. That's why I think that when you're using someone else's magic it's not something that changes you nearly as much. Just my thoughts, though.
is a pretty poor example of "Guy who only doesn't break the laws only because it would twist him." He pretty much follows the laws because he believes strongly in them and is unlikely to break them even if the opportunity presented itself.(click to show/hide)
Your conviction represents your belief in the sponsor. You have to believe that you can ask for the power, that you have a right to it, before you can use it. Your discipline is because you still have to direct and control it once you call up the power. Your lore is because you have to know what to ask for. Ultimately, if you need more than you can handle, the sponsor is willing to step in and help, but you'll owe them.
While in game you have control over the sponsored magic, that's just so you don't become an NPC. It would suck to take a power and then have the GM control your every action, hence why there is the debt mechanic. I still play it like I'm beholden to the sponsor (possibly begrudgingly or whatever).
Ultimately, the rules are not clear. The text isn't clear either (like sponsored magic hexing). I think it depends on the type of sponsored magic you have. Once you establish that, talk to your GM. Work it out.
On the issue of monster lawbreakers: I really don't like the idea of "if it has positive refresh, Lawbreaker." Humans and other mortals (such as were-creatures). Lawbreaking only applies to mortal magic. That bit is clear in the text.
There's nothing in the rules that backs up that interpretation, or in lore, frankly. Of course you can play it that way at your table if you want, just like you can play anything any way you want at your table.
And guys with Sponsored Magic in the lore have control over it (except perhaps if a Sponsor is forcing a particular action). It isn't like there is any lore character with sponsored magic that doesn't have control over what their magic does. There's not one example in the books of a being with sponsored magic that is totally in the control of their sponsor. Not Harry, not the Former White Knight, not the current Summer Knight, not anyone. The Sponsor can force the issue on some things, but not remotely everything.
The rules actually ARE pretty clear. They say "magic used to do this, that, or the other thing is breaking a law of magic." Sponsored Magic is a type of magic, and there's no exemption given to that. Of course, if you aren't human then you won't have Wardens on your tail, but the rules are clear that the Lawbreaker consequence isn't about Wardens at all (heck, you can break the Laws of Magic as a human without getting Wardens on you if you are careful). It seems like some people like to pretend these things aren't really magic, but they totally are. That's why they are in the section going over magic.
Again, anyone can play it anyway they want in the game as long as the group agrees.
Actually, that bit is NOT clear in the text. If anything the rule is "if you are a PC with magic, then you can break the laws". Nothing they talk about says it only applies to humans EXCEPT whether you'll get Wardens chasing after you.
In fact, the text really only talks about wiggle room here regarding acceptable targets and such things as intent and so forth with regards to breaking a law. It never even hints the laws don't apply to all PCs (who, incidentally, must all have positive refresh, which is why I consider it a good guideline).
Technically, the Laws of Magic only apply to mortal spellcasters. I haven’t seen either of the Sidhe Knights at the meetings or ice cream socials.
But I think this could be a fertile ground for stories in someone’s game. like one of the Knights whacks a council-allied mortal, and there’s a movement inside the council to apply the laws to the situation, but the Accords get in the way...Sort of the reverse of what happened in the deAtH mASKS case.
At the point he becomes an NPC, the GM determine how he wants the guy built. If the GM decided to stat up a Fae with Lawbreaker because that would provide the mechanics he desired, then he should do that. If he wants to keep the lawbreaker status on a Warlock that is now at negative refresh, then that's his call.
I was only saying a GM doesn't have to give lawbreaker powers to the above Warlock if he breaks a new law after reaching negative refresh, imho. Might want to though. Then again, he might want Chronovores, a time monster he just made up, to have Lawbreaker: Sixth Law, to give him the mechanics/flavor he likes.
Is it? Doesn't quite seem clear to me that Angels can't get Lawbreaker. Of course, we don't really see them fighting (but that's a good way to resist any lawbreaker issues). Beyond that, I don't think we see any non-humans that are said to have free will. The game associates "free will" with positive refresh.
Lawbreaker is fundamentally about Belief. To kill someone with magic, you have to BELIEVE they deserve to die and you have a right to kill them because otherwise the magic won't work. There's nothing in the game remotely indicating that belief isn't necessary for Sponsored Magic. If you have Summer Magic, and you want to burn someone with fire, you still have to fundamentally believe that is your right. That's represented in the game by the magic working off YOUR Discipline and YOUR Conviction and YOUR Lore. You aren't buying the spell effect with your Sponsored Credit Card, you are just buying the magical juice to power it and granted you get access to some know-how as well -- your will, however, is still what shapes it.
To me, magic granted by old gods (like the Olympians or Norse) wouldn't cause Lawbreaker. Neither would fey magic. From demonic powers? Sure, unless otherwise negotiated. Soulfire? Definitely. Kemmeler? Totally. That's basically just a representation of extra power not coming from refinement.
Dude, chill. There's nothing in the rules that backs up either interpretation. Fate is a pretty freeform system, incase you're not familiar with it and its design mechanics. And, like anything, flavor and mechanics are somewhat mutable.
We see very few guys with sponsored magic in the lore who don't have mortal magic (by the way, I refer to text as the novels and rules as the game books, which I think caused some...misinterpretation on your part). A good example is that we don't see the former Winter Knight with Lawbreakers in OW. The only ones we see with Lawbreakers also have mortal magic. Oh, and Mavra's entry doesn't say anything about Lawbreaker despite her having some pretty dark magic (so dark Harry comments upon it). And there's a whole paragraph talking about the ambiguity of the "positive refresh rule" and how its only "one way" to interpret things.
I'm not pretending anything, so stop being so offensive. The rules talk about "true black magic." Oh, and the series of stickies on YS236:
Not arguing about mechanics. The GM can use whatever they want to represent their vision however they feel it should be. That's not really a great argument for how it should be always, and isn't really applicable to the OP.
See InFerrum's sticky. GM Fiat can do whatever, but the rules say mortal spellcasters.
Belief is part of the equation, however if you read some of what Jim has said about the laws you realize that these are actual physical laws. Laws of the universe if you will. When you use your magic to change the universe in these ways it changes you. Physically (or metaphysically). If you accidentally kill someone with magic it doesn't matter if you believed you had the right to do it or not. Someone's dead and you used your innermost being to do it. Lawbreaker.
The weapon definitely matters too. This doesn't happen with a gun or a knife, even if you believe you have the right to take a life, no lawbreaker. This only happens with magic. The way I see it sponsored magic isn't that sacred part of you, thus it doesn't work the same.
I can agree that there's definitely evidence to support either side. This is the way I choose to view it. There's intentionally some leeway in the text so that each table can decide what kind of game they want to play. Do you want to play a game where the laws are brutal and it's all too easy to slip up and wind up in a dark place? Great, do that. Do you want to play a fast and loose action game where everything explodes and it doesn't matter at all? Have fun.
As a random side note, this is a really unpopular opinion but I've always thought that the way we see soulfire today is only because it's viewed through a wizard's bias. Why wouldn't someone be able to directly access the fires of creation themselves (I.E. not their soul, but the source of souls) and manipulate them in any number of different ways (I.E. not fire or force, like a certain someone). Then again the agenda of the sponsor with soulfire is such that I would think that it would be tough to break a lot of the laws anyway.
You are a vamp wizard using your vampire powers to kill someone. Break any laws? What about the same vamp using wizardry to kill someoneUsing Vampire powers? No. Using magic? If you are a PC, you get Lawbreaker. In the latter case, the Council will not come after you for breaking the law per se (e.g. if they come after you it isn't because they are being cops, more like an act of war or the like).
You've made a thrall with your natural powers. Now you use wizardry to do some specific tinkering. Do they have enough mind left to count for the mental law?I'd say if they still have any sense of self or mind, then screwing around with their brain gets you Lawbreaker. If you get them to the point where they are no better than an animal, then you wouldn't.
Can you use wizardry to feed? Say using magic to induce the appropriate emotion, or just to rip out psychic energy for a white court. Does using magic affect your Hunger?You could certainly use Wizardry to help yourself out and create emotions to feed on.
The former Winter Knight doesn't need to have Lawbreaker. He's an NPC. NPCs very clearly do not need to follow the rules that PCs do. An NPC only needs a given ability if it is significant enough for them to have. If they don't feel the former Winter Knight's lawbreaking is meaningful enough, then there's no need to write him up with this. There are tons of places where they talk about how NPCs can break the rules in general both in the books and out. The same is true, of course, with Mavra. It is very sensible for a GM or a game designer to decide an NPC is more interesting with refresh spent elsewhere.
The rules say mortal casters with regards to Warden enforcement, not with regards to reality sticking you with Lawbreaker. The rules also explicitly say these two things are different.
There are of course multiple ways you could go about it. In the game it seems pretty clear Soulfire uses up your own soulstuff, as opposed to you being given soulstuff from someone else. I suppose one way you could go is use whatever makes for a more interesting debt system.
Using Vampire powers? No. Using magic? If you are a PC, you get Lawbreaker. In the latter case, the Council will not come after you for breaking the law per se (e.g. if they come after you it isn't because they are being cops, more like an act of war or the like).
This is an issue I have. Saying that the GM can do whatever they want is not a good argument to prove anything. Yes, the GM can do what ever they want. They can always do whatever they want. That's how being a GM works (within reason and in the table's best interest of course). However think about it this way. Our World is there to show us how things work. Why would evilhat intentionally distort the system in their only example? Why would they show us how to do it wrong, with no other example of how to do it?
The rules say literally "Technically, the Laws of Magic only apply to mortal spellcasters." Billy goes on to talk about politics, however sometimes people infer specific meaning from something that may or may not be there and then discuss that specific point without looking any other possible meaning or understanding. Reminds me of something else...
Actually in the books it is clear. In the game however they actually make a point of telling us that they don't know the full capacity or workings of soulfire because all we've ever seen has been through one set of eyes. Read the whole description of soulfire on YS292 and tell me that you have a complete understanding of what soulfire entails from that...
And here's where we come to the real crux of my problem. The vampire gets lawbreaker. A vampire is a predator, a killer. What happens if a vampire breaks the first law? He becomes twisted into... a predator? When you are naturally a killer then what does it matter if you believe it's your right to kill or if the universe has made you a killer? That's already present.
A RCV being a player is already something highly, highly unusual. At that point you've already tossed the normal rules out the window (so to speak). Using logic that would work on a standard RCV on one that would be highly non-standard doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, I'm not saying that ANY RCV would get Lawbreaker here, I am just saying a PLAYER RCV would, since the rules seem to clearly spell out that Lawbreaker is for players.
So tempted to point out contradictory argument....
But I bow out. You have many points. Your argument has merit, but at this point you are not introducing anything that would convince me and I clearly can't convince you. I would just be arguing for the sake of arguing.