In my opinion, if you're working to circumvent the law (first law anyway) and you get someone killed, you've broken the law. The laws of magic aren't rules applied to people, they are more like laws of nature enumerated as best as the wizards could. Killing with magic doesn't give you the Law Breaker trait because it was against the rules, it gives you it because the Law Breaker trait means that deep in your soul you believe killing people is right.
I don't agree with this.
I think the lawbreaker stunt is taken if someone directly kills with magic - like blowing them off a roof or ripping their heart out with thaumatergy. The direct link to the victim according to Harry feels really good and makes one feel like a god.
Indirectly killing with magic is not the same thing. That said, a Warden may not take the time to ask you about the fine details and just kill you anyway if rumors of hocus pocus are flying around.
Actually, my favorite method to kill without killing is simply to use a spirit evocation to knock a mortal out and then slit their throat.
The wardens more than likely do this sort of thing all the time. Those swords are not for show.
Wizards can kill all they want. They just can't use magic to kill without taking the lawbreaker stunt, and killing mortals does not mean the mundane law won't start looking for you.
On killing with magic by a roundabout means. See: YS285. Summoning (or presumably empowering) a demon (or presumably anything else) with the intent that it will kill for you is a first law violation - you cast magic with the intent that doing so would result in a death.
This is not to say that your game can't have a different interpretation, of course - but I'd say that, by the book, it's pretty clear that you really can't lawyer your way around the laws the way that was described in the original post.
- SPOILER:(click to show/hide)
- SPOILER:(click to show/hide)
Tecnically acording to the book ghosts aren't the souls of the dead there mearly after images which is why ectomancy isn't breaking the fifth law, summoning them is a bit of grey area but Mort can talk to them as long as he dose not summon them or try to bind them to his will. Arguement Im using is not a moral arguement at the very least a character using ghosts or anyones anger as a weapon to kill is still a murder. The reason that I think it gets of the Lawbreaker charge is because it is done through powers rather than Magic, the same way that using adicitive saliva is not a magic offense neither is ghost speaker or Incite Emotions. This character basicly persuaded the ghost he was there best bet at revenge and when the word went out they came to him, (the world is full of vicitims). The only thing he did with magic was the empowering thing, which I don't think in its own right counts as crime as he was not forcing the power on the ghosts. This is basicly the same case as knocking someone out with the power then stabbing him, the knocking out is not a crime. So the basic question is does the magic count as a first law violation when it dose not directly lead to death. The question is as Totouri said whether it is intentions or result that count as lawbreaker, if it is intentions then this example counts but if it is results then it dosen't because of the buffer of ghosts own will.
This I agree with, because you're not killing with your soul, you're killing with a knife, and that is the key difference when it comes to law breaker.
I think that it is worth noting though that my stance on Lawbreaking applies only to the Lawbreaker Power, all of the lawyering and roundabout means very well may protect you from the Wardens, but at least if I were running they wouldn't protect you from losing a refresh.
So... what about sponsored magic?
The community is pretty much in agreement that sponsored magic is not affected by the laws of magic, so couldn't you kill a mortal with say... Summer magic and not lose a point of refresh?
So if you use Incite Emotion Fear to persuade a NPC the only way out is death then hand them a gun it does not count as Law Breaker, because incite emotion is Natural to WCV and not 'magic', even though the acts kind of share the same will to death which Law breaker seems to be about.
Yes ... but ...
I'd say you wouldn't if the Sponsored Magic is the *only* thing you used. If you use Sponsored Magic to supplement your existing Evocation, and then use your Fire focus and Fire specialization to fry a mortal, you'll get hit with Lawbreaker, regardless how cozy you and the Unseelie Court is. Now if you turned around and used only the Seelie Magic, minus any focuses, rotes, or specializations from Evocation, then you might get away with it.
Anyways, Sponsored Magic has it's own grave perils (tee hee) in the form of those wonderfully addictive free shifts you get in exchange for the IOUs. In other words, when you run out of Fate points and still have a ton of debt points to the Unseelie sponsor , then you'll certainly enjoy the irony in not having succumbed to Lawbreaking when you've effectively become Mab's bitch.
Yup. Pretty much. And now all those players who cried fowl at how overpowered Wizards were are starting to understand the drawbacks.
My solution would be to play a non human Wizard, maybe a full fae Gruff.
Lawbreakers only apply to mortals so you can do whatever you want and no Lawbreaker.
Of coarse this does have some limitations, as for example only mortals can touch the Outer Gates so Mr.Gruff couldn't, and I would be willing to say the same regarding Necromancy, though I could be wrong.
It'd be completely up to the GM, because technically, even if he has enough refresh to pull it off, it falls off into a completely alien creature that has no human soul, nor has ever had one. While it may have enough free will to not be utterly controlled by its nature, its still different enough that it would require full ST approval to pull off. Kinda similar to playing a Red Court Vampire... While you may have enough refresh to keep your 'free will', your now a monster.. But you also technically still have a soul, since ((book 1, Storm Front... I KNOW, this is silly, but I HATE spoilers, and I would much prefer to do my best to not spoil anything, or break the no spoilers rule >.< ))... One would think most monsters wouldn't have anything of a soul, but maybe not...(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
So... what about sponsored magic?
The community is pretty much in agreement that sponsored magic is not affected by the laws of magic, so couldn't you kill a mortal with say... Summer magic and not lose a point of refresh?
No he doesn't. I just double-checked to make sure. You must have that confused with something else.(click to show/hide)
I just watched her, and absently tossed the handkerchief on the tabletop. Her eyes flicked to it, then up to mine.
I didn’t flinch. I met her bottomless gaze and quirked my mouth up in a little smile, as though I had something more, and worse, to pull out of my hat if she wanted to come after me again. I saw her anger, her rage, and for just a moment I got a peek inside, saw the source of it. She was furious that I had seen her true form, horrified and embarrassed that I had stripped her disguise away and seen the creature beneath. And she was afraid that I could take away even her mask, forever, with my power.
More than anything else, Bianca wanted to be beautiful. And tonight, I had destroyed her illusion. I had rattled her gilded little world. She sure as hell wasn’t going to let me forget that.
She shuddered and jerked her eyes away, furious and frightened at the same time, before I could see any deeper into her-or she into me. “If I had not given you my word, Dresden,” she whispered, “I would kill you this instant.”
You can't play a fae for the simple reason that the fae don't have Free Will. They are creatures driven by compulsion and single minded obsessiveness. If you compelled a fae into doing something in tune with it's nature, it *cannot* refuse. No fate point counter, nothing. This is why the fae are so deeply and even sadistically manipulative ... they're used to driving bargains and creating contracts that cannot be broken, and will always honor a promise ... and will never ever follow the spirit of a contract, but will always follow the it precisely as written and get a good laugh at those who get taken in assuming that spirit of the law and letter of the law are the same thing.
In other words, if you were to play an actual fae, you and the GM would have to come up with one or two Aspects who's compels could never be countered by Fate points. Ever. Ever! Even if it means your enemy finding what your weakness is and then simply exploiting it to your demise.
I'm not sure about your interpretation of the fae, Harrys Godmother genuinely seemed to care about Harry's Mother and even tried to resist a very powerful compulsion for her sake.
Wrong.
This is simply covered by compelling the High Concept and a clever bit of GMing. What most people seem to be obsessed with is that refresh = free will. But the thing is that is just a thematic justification for a metagame mechanic easily hand-waved by the player and GM.
Actually, this game's very core mechanic is precisely that refresh = free will. It's even one of the basic and inviolate Maxims of the Dresdenverse: Monsters have Nature, Mortals have choice (YS10). To quote the text: "Fae literally cannot step outside their natures or break oaths".
It's why the Lawbreaker rules work as brilliantly as they do. In fact, I find them a better 'dark side' mechanic than any of the Star Wars RPGs. If you break the law, you'll lose a refresh point. Break it a few times, you'll lose another. Afterwards, you'll get a new aspect designed specifically to compel you to break it again. And if enough of those Lawbreakers lower your refresh rate to 0, your character has effectively succumbed to the dark side
Look at Spirit of the Century of any other Fate game that also uses refresh and you won't find that in the book, their they are just treated as basic character points just like those found in DnD or GURPS. The DFRPG is exclusive with the free will thing.
In the end Refresh is just a game mechanic, and anything else is fluff to be hand waved as needed.
Don't forget you keep accruing those Lawbreaker-tinged Aspects every three times after you break the same Law beyond your second Lawbreaker.
Don't forget you keep accruing those Lawbreaker-tinged Aspects every three times after you break the same Law beyond your second Lawbreaker.
This is why my character will just knock people out with magic and then slit their throats. Easy peezy.
Oooo, true, had forgotten that you keep swapping all your Aspects. I had assumed you only ever swapped one per Law you break.
Different games using the same basic mechanics just means they're using the same basic mechanics. The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game, being based on the Dresden Files novels, are very much based around that concept. It's not merely implied but outright stated. Just because *you* consider it irrelevant fluff to be ignored doesn't mean you're right. I apologize if I come off as insulting, but if you wish to play this as if it were SotC, Diaspora, or Starblazer Adventures, then I recommend you simply go play those games and leave the discussion and theorycrafting to those who wish to play the RPG based on Harry Dresden's universe *as is written in the novels and Your Story*
And what I am saying is that the setting is malleable and subject to each gaming groups desires. The game is awesome no doubt, as are the novels, but like anything else they are not perfect and do not cover every scenario. In this case players wanting to play non-human characters. If someone wants to play the youngest of the Gruffs, a demon from the darkest reaches of hell, a spirit of air and intellect, or even one of the Little folk, then I say let them. Nothing should impede upon the overall enjoyment of a game, including the base setting. It is for this reason a GM can either can alter or outright ignore any part of the setting or rules. While I can respect your desire to stay as close to the source material as possible, I also know that for many things its incomplete and can use some fixing up. via hand-waving, if necessary.
LOL! Actually, I'm pretty damn near certain rendering someone completely vulnerable to a death stroke using magic, even if it's not the magic that directly killed him, would get you a trip down Lawbreaker road.
Remember ... it's all about intent. Plus by knocking him unconscious, you've robbed him of free will and the ability to even remotely defend himself against that which will kill him.
Your intent when using magic to knock someone out is to knock someone out- that's it.
This is not wizard morality. It's about certain things being done with magic warping the wielder.
The WARDENS use the method I just described to kill people. You don't really think that all these warlocks just stand around waiting for their heads to be chopped off, do you?
Actually, an immobilizing evocation block would probably be even easier to do than knocking someone out.
Anyway, the point is that the law is not:
Thou shalt not kill
The law is
Thou shalt not kill with magic
If you kill in self defense, you still have to take the lawbreaker stunt but you won't get axed by the White Council.
If you kill in self defense, you still have to take the lawbreaker stunt but you won't get axed by the White Council.
Mate, I'm not contesting the point that GM's word is law. It's the Golden Rule and it exists in every game for a very good reason. What I'm saying is that when you're involving yourself in a discussion about game and setting mechanics on the game's official forums, you can't go around telling people they are wrong because you house ruled it otherwise. I mean, I could believe a Toyota is a german car, but I'm not about to go to a Toyota dealership and claim to people there that it's german just because it makes sense in my head :P
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's never been stated in the books that Wardens knock warlocks unconscious and then run them through while they are helpless and unaware of what's going on. In fact, their swords are specifically enchanted to cut through defensive enchantments so that the only that stands between a Warden and a Warlock at that moment is a Warden's very human aim with his sword, and the warlock's very human, and very likely negligible, ability to dodge the fatal strike.
By your line of reasoning, if you made a kinetic shield while people were shooting at you in order to shoot back, THAT would be breaking the laws of magic since you're shielding yourself in order to kill.
That's ridiculous.
Agreed
Are you including knocking someone out and killing with a knife? I don't think so based on your agreement with me.
No, I think the knife thing will get you passed the Council and the Laws.
That true 99% of the time but if your attacking with 10 shifts of hellfire powered fire when you take the enemy out the GM is right to go no you killed him. I would say the same goes for supernatural strength attack as well as they have the reminder 'be careful at this level its very easy to kill someone with a single blow'.Yeah; if a PC claims that they managed a nonlethal attack with, say, a .50 cal sniper rifle, or a bazooka, or a mingun, I'd call shenanigans. Past Weapon:3, you're attacking with weapons that have the end result not of "dead" but of "fine red mist" or "requiring blotters". Or, to pull a wonderful bit of imagery, it's like dropping an anvil on an egg... and expecting to have two neat halves of shell, one with the white, one with the yolk.
You're right, that would be ridiculous if that's what I meant. It's a good thing that it's not. I'm saying specifically to use magic to either directly kill someone, or to incapacitate someone beyond any ability to be aware of their very immediate doom. I'm not talking about restraining yourself to use magic in creating a scenario where you'll have the upper hand, which is precisely what a warden does.
Warden runs after warlock and corners him. He starts by creating a personal long lasting block that is a great deal stronger than anything the warlock can throw at him. Then he likely creates a huge zone barrier to cut off the warlock's escape. Then he draws his sword and advances on the warlock. Warlock tries to throw a fireball ... sizzles on warden's shield. Draws a gun and fires on warden ... which also sizzles on warden's shield. Warlock tries desperately to throw up a block of his own which warden counterspells himself or using the enchantments on his sword. Warden draws back with his sword with nothing but his Weapons skill to aid him, and decapitates the warlock who royally failed his Athletics roll to dodge.
Again, it's a question of free will. The warlock had no chance magically, but could still choose to surrender. He could (and likely did) choose to dodge or parry. He *did* have the ability to defend himself and was very much aware of his own actions and the actions of the warlock. He was simply outclassed by not only a master evoker, but a master swordsman as well. Wardens' swords are not merely ceremonial you know. They are very very good at actually using them.
By your definition, any wizard could simply bypass the first law by casually wandering around, putting people to sleep, and slitting their throats. Rinse and repeat. That's hubris of the very highest order, mate.
Yeah, thats kinda were the "you control what your attacks do" thing kinda falls apart... With that kinda power... But anyway, to the current subject... I honestly don't know if the whole putting someone to sleep, or incapacitating them then killing them would break first law or not.. In all honesty, its very similar to the whole, you use a gust of wind, and knock someone off a building.. In fact, they have an even better chance to survive that then you after you knock them out..
The whole point of the matter... Is they are practically the same thing.. You knock someone off the building, its not you or the magic that kills them.. Its the fall.. But it was your intent to put them in a lethal situation, where they were completely helpless to protect themselves, as they fall to their deaths..
Its just the thought of this, and their similarity that puts me into such bind on the subject... :P
Yeah, thats kinda were the "you control what your attacks do" thing kinda falls apart... With that kinda power... But anyway, to the current subject... I honestly don't know if the whole putting someone to sleep, or incapacitating them then killing them would break first law or not.. In all honesty, its very similar to the whole, you use a gust of wind, and knock someone off a building.. In fact, they have an even better chance to survive that then you after you knock them out..
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks.You sir have been sigged.
You sir have been sigged.
Epic quote. Bravo.
Don't mess with the carebears. They'll mindrape you.
Please don't assume it's about being vindicative as it's not. As a GM, I'd warn players if they were about to commit a lawbreaking act as I see it and give them the chance to reconsider. And I have nothing against players killing humans in my game. I just have an opinion about using magic to render them *completely helpless* with intent to kill. You are welcome to disagree.
Yup. They hit you with their belly beams and suddenly you turn into this perpetually happy fool. That's 4th law violation right there, lol.
You sir have been sigged.
Epic quote. Bravo.
It's just not backed up by the rules, is all.
Not quite. It's more WCV incite emotion. Plus they ain't human.
Exactly. If some people want to play that way... fine. But I would probably almost immediately quit a game that deviated that far from the RAW /and/ cannon /and/ common sense.
Yes it's a grey area, however got to the chapter in the book that talk about death curses. It specificaly says that wardens have gotten VERY good at avoiding them. Pretty much this means they take the target unaware or at least fast enough that they don't have time to spit one out or even think about it.
Imo having Morgan in the books was a very bad idea as far as example of a warden. Because except for what happened at the end of the first book he didn't bother to try to be tricky at all. Though this could easily have just been his stubborness.
Really when you get right down to it why even bother knocking them out unless you are in combat. With good use of veils you could be right up next to them, wait till they are asleep, drug them, or just about anything, and well that's that.
Personally, I feel that using magic to create a situation where death is completely inescapable and inevitable warrants it.
If you yourself disagree, you are welcome to as there are no hard rules regarding it.Agreed. Although your next statement would lead me to believe it would not be impossible.
We indeed do not have to play together.
Mind you, given how heated this topic is here, I'll certainly bring it up with my players and get their feedback as their opinion is the one that counts.
Well, actually, by RAW and canon, it's very much a grey area. The only thing we know is that Wardens use their sword for the killing blow. It's never actually described how they go about it. And even in the Magic section, it is stated that there's a lot of grey area here, that Wardens can never use magic as a means to that end, and that players and GMs should discuss how to apply and interpret this rule in the game. Personally, I feel that using magic to create a situation where death is completely inescapable and inevitable warrants it. If you yourself disagree, you are welcome to as there are no hard rules regarding it. We indeed do not have to play together. Mind you, given how heated this topic is here, I'll certainly bring it up with my players and get their feedback as their opinion is the one that counts.
I'm curious as to where unintentional killings fall under your definitions. Here's a workable example: Pulling from the classics, a fire spell from a mage starts a fire in a crowded building. People are killed in the ensuing fire. Does the wizard get lawbreaker for:
1. The people who burned to death?
2. The people who passed out from smoke inhalation and suffocated?
3. The people who were trampled by the panicking crowd?
I'd say the people trampled to death are not Lawbreaker (the Wizard did not compel anyone to stampede, and the mortals of their own free will decided to panic as opposed to file out orderly or die in the fire [the latter is a jerk thing to say, but the panicked crowd still had free wil]), the others are.
Wardens are killers, theres no way around it and they use magic to aide them in their job which for the most part is killing, when they kill they don't get lawbreaker as they are acting according to the will of the council it is pretty fair to say though that most wardens are jaded and darkened by their actions to the extent that Morgan couldn't see beyond his own shadows when viewing Harry even though Harry was clearly a good guy.
Using magic to put someone to sleep / pin them down, and then killing them with a blade may not offer an instance of Lawbreaker (per GM's discretion), however it is still a morally grey act. Sure, it may prevent you from tainting your soul (black, but you would be shading it grey), but it probably wouldn't prevent a Warden going snicker snack. You are 'using magic to kill', simply not directly. Not to mention blades can more easily be traced, and local law enforcers may come knocking if you're sloppy. Using magic to get you out of that situation could go all kinds of bad.
Although from a roleplaying point of view, if you're the type of person willing to put someone to sleep with magic and kill them, it wouldn't take much to become the type of person that cuts out the latter stage; and just out-right kill them. I'd also expect any such character to have some sort of aspect that makes them that type of person, e.g. "I flirt with the darkness in my soul", which would be compelled accordingly.
I have argued before that warden has the law breaker stunt. i see little difficulty in haveing all of his aspect reflect that he has no value for life. they make a point in the end that he valued life so little that he saw no difficulty in giving up his life to save the white council some politcal trouble.
If it did, then all Wardens would have Lawbreaker, since they surely use a lot of magic to help disable Warlocks before killing them
You can have lawbreaker and not be at negative refresh, you can even have lawbreaker and face no social sanction.
Like I said, you use that as an example of something bad Law-wise, and how is it different from just overpowering someone with magic, preventing them from fleeing, running, getting a successful attack off, etc, and then killing them? If anything, that's more protracted and emotionally intense.
I don't see any way to have a consistent and sensible standard where putting an enemy to sleep and then killing them conventionally earns you Lawbreaker, and using multiple magics to stop the enemy and then killing them conventionally doesn't.
Doing something WITH MAGIC. Putting someone to sleep isn't killing them with magic, unless falling asleep causes them to crash their car and die or the like.
When you're used to seeing the worst things that humanity/wizards can do, it's hard for you to see any good in anyone. If you don't see a stain, they're just concealing it real well.
Except for your fellow Wardens, the men and women who back you up when you're sent out against a warlock. Those are the only people you can trust.
And Harry was trained by the worst sort of rogue...of course he's guilty of something.
Magic is who you are. Magic is your intent put into existence. Both of these concepts are stated in the books &/or RPG at one point or another. If you are the type of person to kill, no matter how you pretty it up or go about it, you're likely the type of person that'd cross the lines of magic. Which is best reflected as an aspect, not the lawbreaker power. Until you directly break the laws as you say.
"Magic comes from the heart, from your feelings, your deepest expressions of desire. That's why black magic is so easy—it comes from lust, from fear and anger, from things that are easy to feed and make grow. The sort I do is harder. It comes from something deeper than that, a truer and purer source—harder to tap, harder to keep, but ultimately more elegant, more powerful. My magic. That was at the heart of me. It was a manifestation of what I believed, what I lived."
I'm sorry, but this would lead me to believe the Book actually agrees with my statement. If you believe in killing someone, then by Harry's logic, your Magic can easily be manifested as such. Harry generally avoids killing full stop when he can. I'm not saying killing with mundane means makes you a Lawbreaker, I'm simply saying you're more likely to believe such actions justifiable; which in turn makes you more likely to become one.
As for the human's ignoring magic. Harry describes it as humans hiding from things they don't understand as its scares them. For how long was it denied the Earth was round, or that the sun was the centre of the universe? I know its a poor analogy, most are, however I'm just pointing out at least that interpretation is a tad more accurate then you gave it credit.
It's different though, doing it with magic is addictive, doing it with conventional means is not. And the counter to the belief thing is that you can have second thoughts and a lot of doubt and reservations when you kill with a conventional weapon. Magic, on the other hand, doesn't work unless you absolutely believe in what you are doing. Very different.
One of the things that often gets overlooked in these discussions...
Killing anyone, by any means whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever, should have an effect on the character. Taking a human life is a traumatic event. (If it's not, then the murderer has serious psychological issues.) Even in the heat of rage or fear...after the initial emotion wears off, and the character has time to consider what they've just done...there should be a reaction.
Morgan is a hard-ass because he's killed too many people. The fact that most of those killings may have been completely necessary and justified doesn't matter. Part of his soul is darkened. He's done too much, become too much, to become a light and cheery soul ever again. It's a common defense mechanism. Once you become capable of killing a helpless bound victim (again, no matter how justified), part of you is never quite the same. You have to harden yourself against human feelings...or go insane.
I can easily see an Aspect change for any character who kills.
I think you may be watching too many Hollywood movies.
I've seen plenty of people killed.
??? you in the army or something otherwise that sounds very ominious.
I think you may be watching too many Hollywood movies.I agree partially. There should be a reaction to killing and taking life. But that reaction need not be one of guilt and other such negative repercussions. Some people respond quite positively to such actions.
I've seen plenty of people killed. I personally know people who have killed people. Some of them have had to kill children.
Some of them handle it very well and you'd never know. On the flip side, some cops I have known who didn't do anything but traffic citations act like they have the weight of the world on their shoulders.
How people react to things like that is a deeply personal thing.
I agree partially. There should be a reaction to killing and taking life. But that reaction need not be one of guilt and other such negative repercussions. Some people respond quite positively to such actions.
??? you in the army or something otherwise that sounds very ominious.
Uhm such people are called Psychotics and thats not a good thing! ;) Well I suppose i can't talk I support the State of Israel.Actually such people could be called heroes and that's a good thing, especially when you find yourself needing one.
The article you listed I read it the man is a hero but he dosen't sound like a sadist he killed the people because he believed it was the right thing to do not for any joy he would get out of it. He made the choice to become a killer though and I have no doubt his nature has been changed by his lifestyle choice and his years in the army.
Undoubtably, but it does not necessarily make him a "bad" person. It depends on why someone is killing. If it's for a job or to protect themselves or others, that is a who other animal than someone who does it for kicks.
Regardless of why they do it, it's not a lawbreaker stunt as long as they don't use magic, though.
If Melvin the wizard likes to knock people out and then strap them down and carve them up, that is not breaking a law of magic. If Mook the wizard likes to immobilize people with magic before raping them, that is not against the laws of magic either.
If I end up running a game, I want to explore this idea - not to be cliche here, but who watches the watchmen? There may be a wizard out there who is technically not breaking the laws so the council won't get involved, but is still hurting a lot of people. The police are not equipped to deal with a person like this, it is up to the supernatural community to police its own.
I think the idea that with power comes responsibility should be explored more in the DV. It is definitely a part of the books that Harry cannot just turn away from what is going on. I know that every wizard out there isn't going to be a sheepdog, but in a world where magic exists, already dark parts of humanity can potentially do what they do a lot easier.
Undoubtably, but it does not necessarily make him a "bad" person. It depends on why someone is killing.
breaking any of the laws does not make you a bad person, doing it habitually does not make a bad person, say it with me people *The laws have nothing to do with good or evil*
Are the laws beyond good and evil?
breaking any of the laws does not make you a bad person, doing it habitually does not make a bad person, say it with me people *The laws have nothing to do with good or evil*
Well, breaking them habitually in the Dresden Universe does make you a bad person in the sense you are likely to do evil in the future. Each time you broke it could have been good, but it inherently twists your soul in a bad way (hence changing your aspects). It's possible to not do anything bad even so, but supremely difficult (better horde those fate points when you can to resist compels).Breaking them habitually twists the character's Aspects to reflect the Law that was broken. It doesn't mean that the change has to be towards evil. Furthermore, remember that you can switch out an Aspect every minor milestone.
The rules say that it changes your Aspects - but it does not specify that it has to change in a bad way.
Considering it uses terminology like "a new version that is twisted by the violation of that Law of Magic" and "replace another different aspect until all your character's aspects have been subverted by his descent into dark magic." (emphasis mine), I don't think it's supposed to imply sunshine and happiness (unless it's the "chuck you into the sun" sunshine and "happiness in mandatory, Citizen" happiness)So subvert the twisting of your Aspects to reflect the good you do using dark magic.
So subvert the twisting of your Aspects to reflect the good you do using dark magic.
Breaking them habitually twists the character's Aspects to reflect the Law that was broken. It doesn't mean that the change has to be towards evil. Furthermore, remember that you can switch out an Aspect every minor milestone.
Let's look at what happens when you break a law of magic:
1. You gain the Lawbreaker ability, increasing your ability when breaking the law again, this also reflects a loss of free will, potentially even removing your free will completely.
2. "The effects of being a Lawbreaker go beyond the simple application of these abilities, however. Once a character has chosen to cross the line and break a Law of Magic, that decision is a part of him however you look at it. Consider replacing or rephrasing one or more of his aspects to show this. Even without such an alteration, that choice to step a little bit into the world of black magic becomes an important lens to view the character’s aspects through, and the GM and player should start pursuing story elements that bring the issue front and center."
3. If you break it thrice, you MUST change an aspect to reflect how it has twisted you.
So yes, it is pretty clearly saying that the new aspect has to be something that would encourage you to break the law again. And while yes, you can change aspects, and potentially even abilities if the GM lets it, doing that requires a justified reason to do so, so moving away from that aspect would properly require that you are fighting these inclinations...which is eventually represented as you losing that twisted aspect.
All this reflects the special nature of the Laws of Magic...they twist you into breaking the laws further and into doing them more easily (via compels on twisted aspects). They don't necessarily bind your future, but they do pose something you'd have to fight against and overcome. Quite different from say killing a person or three in self defense or the defense of others with a gun or a sword which needn't do that kind of damage.
Again, (I just like hammering this point in general) that's different than the Laws of Magic being about morality. That's just how magic, used that particular way, works. Similarly, the principles of evolution can imply that certain vile behaviors (like replacing the sperm of others with your own sperm at fertility clinics) will increase the presence of your genes in the gene pool and hence you'll have more genetic offspring than others and in so much as your genes influence you being such a bastard, you'll offspring may well prosper in a similar manner (there are less savory examples, but I wanted to avoid them). Evolution isn't an ethical theory however, and passes no moral judgments on anything...having more offspring or being more "fit" does not operate on ethical principles (even if there is some overlap); that's just how biology works.
This is an excellent post but I am warning you that it may go over some readers' heads.
I mean this without malice, but after having spent about 6 months lurking on these boards and a month posting, I can say with full assurance that some players see the first law as "killing is bad, mmmkay?" and don't pursue it any further than that.
Oh yer sorry not into south park think its mediocre prefer family guy.
Though drugs are kind of good as whole I would be dead without the wonders of asthma drugs and even most narcotic drugs have thier medical uses and if there is ever an apocalyspe then if 'mankind is to survive the ones that are left alive are going to need' Drugs. So all we need the power of drugs to bring about the world revolution and hapiness will reign transcendant. Im trying to see if I can get any more references to drug in an utterly undrugged state in a post which on the whole isn't at all about drugs .
This is an excellent post but I am warning you that it may go over some readers' heads.
I mean this without malice, but after having spent about 6 months lurking on these boards and a month posting, I can say with full assurance that some players see the first law as "killing is bad, mmmkay?" and don't pursue it any further than that.
Also, why the adamant stance that Fair Folk lack free will? Certainly, I'd argue that there's plenty of evidence - even if it's not stated explicitly - that though they're quite strongly ruled by binding agreements and the like, they ARE able to decide for themselves what they want to do, so long as it's not contrary to their very nature. Not unlike people, really.
I mean, if you call out for a Seelie Noble, for example, without their True Name, they might decide that they're not interested, and refuse. And to quote the rulebook, "There is no guarantee the summoned entity
will behave how you want it to. You will have to bargain with the entity to achieve your desires."
Think about it. How can something lacking free will have the ability to bargain for itself?
In the Dresdenverse, breaking the Laws of Magic (if you're a mortal spellcaster) has a special significance, above and beyond that of a normal mortal breaking a Law. (1 and 7 can both be broken by a non-spellcaster.)
All I was pointing out was that breaking those Laws, even if you weren't a spellcaster, should be reflected by some change in the character. (Changing an Aspect would seem to be the way to go here.)
I think we've already seen some people possibly missing the point of that post. But Drachasor, I think you've got a really brilliant idea there. Essentially, as I see it, people are confounding two sets of laws. The legal laws that the White Council enforces; and the natural laws resulting from the pseudo physics governing magic. In the novels Dresden has repeatedly stressed that Magic is governed by physical rules such as the rule of equal and opposite reactions. So, while I can take a gun and kill someone, accept that it was necessary, and move on, that is not possible with magic. If I use magic to kill myself the very nature of magic will force a change in my mind equal to the change that my mind created in the world. The White Council, in an attempt to prevent wizards from descending into dark magic (i.e. those forms of magic which can pervert a mage's very nature and destroy their free will), was formed so as to constrain wizards' power. This is clear from. Basically, the legal laws of magic aren't moral at all, they are simply designed to prevent wizards from being corrupted by their corresponding natural laws of magic (although the rule about the outer gates might be an exception to this).(click to show/hide)
I think beyond the issue of the legal and metaphysical Laws of Magic, there is also basically 2 opposing viewpoints here. Some people think that it is not only possible to circumvent the legal Laws but also the metaphysical ones as well. Other people think that it is possible to circumvent the legalities, but not the metaphysics.Agreed. I think we need a WoJ on this if we're ever going to resolve it one way or the other. Until then... agree to disagree?
I don't see how you'd circumvent the Physical Law aspect (it isn't right to call them metaphysical, imho, since the changes are detectable as far as the game is concerned...stains your soul which is an observable quantity); you can't sidestep gravity.You cannot sidestep gravity but you can fly in spite of gravity. The law of gravity isn't broken, it is being circumvented.
You cannot sidestep gravity but you can fly in spite of gravity. The law of gravity isn't broken, it is being circumvented.
Falling from a great height gets you killed, falling from a great height with a parachute can save your life. In a similar way, doing X with magic gets you Lawbreaker, doing X with magic in Y manner might not.
"Drachasor, I think you've got a really brilliant idea there. Essentially, as I see it, people are confounding two sets of laws. The legal laws that the White Council enforces; and the natural laws resulting from the pseudo physics governing magic. In the novels Dresden has repeatedly stressed that Magic is governed by physical rules such as the rule of equal and opposite reactions. So, while I can take a gun and kill someone, accept that it was necessary, and move on, that is not possible with magic.
I disagree. I think that any act of violence will change the person who commits it (in this limited way ONLY do I very slightly buy into the slippery slope idea, which mostly I think is BS). In a magic-rich universe, there are so very many opportunities to change the slope into a cliff and jump off (sponsored magic, demons, Kremmler-stuff, etc. etc.) that the law against killing sort of assumes (my thoughts) that such a person is beginning what will probably be a 1-relatively fast change into 2-something really really dangerous and thus all those beheadings are seen as pre-emptive strikes.
If I use magic to kill myself the very nature of magic will force a change in my mind equal to the change that my mind created in the world. The White Council, in an attempt to prevent wizards from descending into dark magic (i.e. those forms of magic which can pervert a mage's very nature and destroy their free will"
I'm not getting this...
Dian
I'm siding with Drach. I think the rules of the White Council are approximations; rule of thumb of meta-physical reality. (Pre-Newtonian physics, as it were.) The White Council enforces and interprets its Laws according to political reality and meta-physical reality (which leads to problems and inconsistencies).
The White Council, however, does not get to change meta-physical reality. It can deny its effects when politically expedient (thus altering its own interpretation), but the Lawbreaker stunt would still be appropriate, even if the White Council chose to ignore the event.
As to why the universe works this way...unless Butters becomes the Newton of Magic, we're not likely to know. Wizards are more concerned with getting things done then the 'why' of things.