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.
4-Are Enchanted Items subject to the Laws?Even Warden Swords? If they Grant Lawbreaker then what is the point? Why don't they just use guns and be over it?
Yes.
Even Warden Swords? If they Grant Lawbreaker then what is the point? Why don't they just use guns and be over it?
So with the Weapon 3 it would be cool, but the Weapon 6 would count as lawbreaker? That seems reasonable. Personally I like the IoP version better myself.
That's my reasoning. If it's just a normal sword, it's fine. You always wouldn't get Lawbreaker if you beat someone over the head with a crystal ball. You only get Lawbreaker if using Magic in an enchanted item, not the item itself.So how do people feel about Items of Power?
So how do people feel about Items of Power?The treatment of IoPs for purposes such as this depends, imo, almost entirely on the narrative source of the particular IoP.
PS: What do you guys think we should do with this thread? Should it be stickied, put on the Resources board, or just left to sink and then linked to when Law fights start?
I'd recommend stickying it or putting it on the Resource board. Letting it sink is letting it be forgotten. And oh my god i'm going to avoid this thread and everything it discusses like the plague.I think we should sticky it here. More Exposure. Also I was excited to have a friendly and spirited debate about the laws...
I feel she would only have violated the seventh law if she contacted an actual outsider, and even then I think it would only count if the outsider was on the other side if the gates. Any information collected from this side I don't think would violate that law.Seconded. When I ask my Storyteller whether or not I have to take a Lawbreaker stunt due to invoking "I have so-snd-so's Grimoire" she said: "No. The book itself isn't magical though the data is. What you do with the data using you free will determines a Lawbreaker. Mind you, the Wardens would NOT be happy discovering you possessed such a book, they'd at least want to confiscate the book and you'd be an object of suspicion for anything bad that happened in your locale, but accessing the book in and of itself won't confer Lawbreaker."
So the Seventh Law.I find myself in the unenviable position of having to reverse myself, particularly as the RAW say that it is the only law not necessarily predicated upon casting a spell. Period.
We have a Character in our game that's hunting a specific outsider and his seven mortal servants. Last night she managed to get some information when one of his servants had a moment of lucidity and contacted her. She tried to start researching her opponents by talking to some people who might be in the know (Ghosts of her ancestors who fought, Athena, ancient library) and I warned that if she pushed any further it would be bordering on a Seventh Law violation. Go deep enough and it would be one for sure. I did tell her there was plenty of information available if she wanted, but she backed off. Now I feel justified in this warning but one of the players approached me after the game and informed me that a couple people were upset by it. Do you guys think this was out of line?
And for gaining control over others, for gathering great power to oneself, there is no better tool than black magic... Without resorting to black magic, the amount of damage an individual can inflict on mortal society is limited... the Laws of Magic are not about justice... They are about restraining power
The thing is, Fate mechanics are somewhat narrative. I agree that it's unreasonable to knock someone out harmlessly with a Weapon:12 fireball, but I'd suggest that a Weapon:12 terramantic spell should be able to painfully but non-lethally pin my enemies to the ground for long enough that I can either hogtie or shoot them (with a nice non-magical revolver), either of which is a taken-out result which doesn't lead to a Lawbreaker stunt.And doing that occasionally would be fine for me. But I think that if you're repeatedly hitting people with that degree of force (remember, shooting someone with a handgun is a weapon 2. A grenade is a weapon 4. Weapon 12 is three times that stopping power) crushing people seems like a serious risk.
(remember, shooting someone with a handgun is a weapon 2. A grenade is a weapon 4. Weapon 12 is three times that stopping power)
No it isn't.I agree with you, I just wanted to take a moment and admire how much you like to explain your views. Makes me giggle
No it isn't.Could you elaborate on this?
Sleep spells are almost violations of the Fourth Law, not the First.Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.
And an electricity-as-tazer spell or spirit-based blood choke should be able to take someone out without killing 'em pretty well.I'm not sure about the blood choke, but tasers have quite a death toll. They're not non-lethal, they're just less-lethal.
But at heart, no, I don't think making people worry about this is unfair, but I'd suggest you're doing it the wrong way, because you're violating the rules to achieve that effect.Which rule? Because the rules are quite clear that it needs to be within the limits of reason. And as the guy who's most familiar with setting and the rules, what I say is essentially going to serve as my group's limits of reason. That's why I'm concerned about being unfair - I don't want my reading of the setting to be unnecessarily punitive, when it's essentially going to be taken as canon.
Instead, I suggest Compels on their High Concept. If they accept, using magic on those poor mortals is too dangerous and they either don't do it or risk Lawbreaker, if they refuse the Compel, they find a non-lethal spell. Do this every time it comes up and everyone has to be pretty careful, but the rules remain unchanged and there's no unfairness. You can do the same thing on a cop shooting people or other such situations, too.I do like this take on it, and it was probably a large part of how I was going to go about it in the first place.
Could you elaborate on this?
Because I was very careful to avoid saying something like "three times that deadly", or "three times that force". But in terms of stress, it really does have three times the stopping power (in the sense of being able to "incapacitate the target where it stands"), which implies to me that it's going to convey a decent amount of force.Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.
The servitors of the Fomor have had their free will completely removed. Their only concern is how to benefit their masters regardless of how that might be done.
For instance, when Listen is dealing with Corpsetaker he mentions that he would happily die if it benefited master in some small way.
Lacking free will, they're no longer mortal.
Where do you think his mad fanaticism came from if not magic?
So if they had been Magically purged it would be all good, but if it was raised in the cult then it would be a lawbreaker situation?
So here's another question for everyone: The Formor. Now the Formor use augmented servitors, modified by magic and (likely) alchemy to become less like Human Beings, and more like the Formor themselves. In Ghost StoryI suggest a re-read of pages 207-8, I believe that technically speaking you may be in error, with respect. And that's why they're off the hook, because the bad guys exercised Free Will; to be honest, if a player pulled that in my game and the NPC's did that, I'd hesitate to slap Lawbreaker on the player. Free Will gives the ability to choose and sometimes, we choose to make the wrong decision or choice.neither seems very concerned. Would you slap lawbreaker on someone who hit a Formor servitor with a gout of fire? Or would they be in the clear?(click to show/hide)
That would beg the question of whether or not it's within the White Council's Charter to execute people that, while not necessarily Lawbreakers, are still rather unsavory blemishes 'pon the face of the world and worth removing. If technical details prevented Morgan from taking down Dresden, they'd protest these people as well.
The love potion was basically really strong liquor, she even got the hangover! In all seriousness though, what it's described as doing is lowering inhibitions. Which means that anything she did to Harry were things she wanted to do anyway, the potion just made her more likely to act on them. The effects were temporary and incapable of doing long term mental damage.
Also, keep in mind, Harry never intended to use it, so ideally there would have been no one under its influence, and since potions go stale in a day or so there would have also been no evidence.
The Fear spell Molly used on the other hand was designed with long term effects in mind, indeed as part of her standards for success.
As for the damage done, even just days after casting it Molly's bf developed paranoia and basically started going crazy.
He got the soft serve version of Black Court Renfield Creation.
So, love potion, basically a short term suggestion. Fear spell, long term compulsion. Short term suggestion is okay, long term compulsion violates the Law. Which makes sense, enthrallment implies long term servitude.
The 7th Law forbids 'seeking beyond', not 'seeking of beyond'.
Characters can also stumble across the
Seventh Law, thanks to the particulars of its
wording: namely, the prohibition against even
researching the Outside. A GM looking to put a
particularly nasty choice in front of her players
could easily “hide” a piece of knowledge within a
forbidden tome of Outsider lore. And if a life is
on the line, isn’t it worth the risk? (The Outsiders
of your game would certainly hope so.
I reject any premise that labels (cosmic truth) Lawbreaker any who so much as types 'What is an Outsider?' into a google search.Seconded. I'd have to rule that trying to establish contact with them would justify a Cosmic lawbreaker while merely researching them would 'merely' draw Warden interest (were they to find out).
The Wardens may enforce as they will, but that interpretation on the cosmic truth of the 7th Law leads only to absurdity.
I don't recall that law's stance on non-humans, but the fact that the target is willing does not get you a pass.
I reject any premise that labels (cosmic truth) Lawbreaker any who so much as types 'What is an Outsider?' into a google search.
The Wardens may enforce as they will, but that interpretation on the cosmic truth of the 7th Law leads only to absurdity.
I agree but I think the idea was the more knowledge about them in the world, the easier it is for them to get into our world. So nobody should learn it because then more outsiders would get in.
I assume you meant white council?Yes, my bad.
If so that would be hilarious. You should totally do this :P
EDIT: Better yet make him a mental mancer and have him implant all his knowledge on his victems.
You insinuate that Mab,is not what I was saying, had a book published to diseminate information about Outsiders that would increase Outsiders' influence in this reality?(click to show/hide)
Keep in mind that narratively that means you believed with our entire being that the person you killed needed to die. You're pretty likely to have been doing that to the bogeymen that have been coming after you too though and for some reason they don't stain your soul.
Keep in mind that narratively that means you believed with our entire being that the person you killed needed to die. You're pretty likely to have been doing that to the bogeymen that have been coming after you too though and for some reason they don't stain your soul. A lot of picking up Lawbreaker has to do with self perception, not just the outside mechanics of Wardens coming after you. So there's a lot of factors to take into consideration when you break a Law. Do you think you did? Do they think you did? Will you actually take the power? A lot of that can come down to context.
This is part of the point I'm trying to get at. I keep seeing people say that breaking the First Law corrupts because it means you believe that you have the right to decide who lives and dies, but if on a fundamental level, what you believe is "Protect these innocents" or "punish this murderer", shouldn't that be what is enforced?
And isn't saying "punish this murderer" nearly the same as "this person needs to die" if punishment means killing him?
I suppose what drives me nuts about this specific instance is that it's sort of a real-world violation of the Fourth Law. This is basically the only circumstance (that I can see) under which the GM can say, in essence, "I don't care whether you want to play a good guy, you are going to play a bad guy".I don't see how it's saying that at all.
I don't see how it's saying that at all.
Because you have your character heroically fighting against the crazy guy with the ax (or something like that) and then the GM says "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that", when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong. Or even the GM actually taking your character away from you for trying to be a hero.First, no, you're grossly exaggerating the effect and the immediacy. It's not an instant change, any more than smoking one cigarette instantly turns you into a chain smoker. There's a reason the Lawbreaker power has it so it changes the more you break that law--one kill with magic isn't going to turn you into Bloodbath McEvilwizardington. But one kill with magic will make you somewhat more likely to kill with magic again, and it's a cumulative effect.
Hmm... maybe I could make this work by imagining that the Lawbreaker bonus in this specific case reflects less homicidal mania and more the sort of psychic conditioning that soldiers get to train them to fight and kill when necessary.
Just because they're not human and lack the same basics in terms of free will and all that doesn't mean you're not reinforcing a mindset that goes, "Kill 'em." Killing anything with magic promotes fantastic racism,
Because you have your character heroically fighting against the crazy guy with the ax (or something like that) and then the GM says "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that", when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong. Or even the GM actually taking your character away from you for trying to be a hero.
Hmm... maybe I could make this work by imagining that the Lawbreaker bonus in this specific case reflects less homicidal mania and more the sort of psychic conditioning that soldiers get to train them to fight and kill when necessary.
I think I see the disconnect here. I had forgotten that, as Lucio put it, "The Laws have nothing to do with right or wrong," so I was assuming that breaking the Laws made you evil.
Also, I remembered something I read that seems to present a good parallel. The army discovered a long time ago that all humans have a sort of mental block against killing other humans, hardwired into our emotions. So what they do is they take recruits and they subject them to battlefield conditions: chaos, explosions, noise, etc, and they have them "kill" targets over and over until the very instincts of the soldiers have been rewritten, so that when they are under stress their default setting is "Kill!". All armies have to do that, the good as well as the bad. Perhaps breaking the First Law does the same sort of thing.
Two interesting hypothetical scenarios:Yes. Though, this will only happen if A) the player want it to or B) the GM Compels the player, and the player accepts (a GM compelling a character where the player has no choice but to accept, with the result that the character loses Refresh, is generally considered a 'dick move').
1. Does it break the First Law if you kill someone with a spell intended to be non-lethal?
2. Do you get the Lawbreaker bonus on spells that don't technically break the Law again, but are very similar thematically?Technically, no. Individual GMs may be more lenient at their discretion.
How many people are going to die by your magic because you're "doing the right thing?"Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.
My main point of contention is that you can find another way to solve the problem rather than breaking one of the Laws of Magic. In my estimate that means that when you break one of the Laws your only complaint should be about your lack of restraint, creativity, or resourcefulness. A great and powerful wizard named Albus Dumbledore once said (I'm paraphrasing): "There will come a time when you will have to make a choice between what is easy and what is right. Choose wisely."
That's what Lawbreaker is about.
Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.
Creativity and/or resourcefulness covers about nearly all of how any problem can be solved. There will come a time when a choice has to be made between what is selfish and what is selfless. Someone is holding the world hostage, the only way you can stop him is to kill him with magic (you do not have the resources to do otherwise, and the time contraints greatly limit your creativity). Do you save the world and damn your soul or save your soul and let the world burn? Choose wisely indeed. I think this is what Lawbreaker is truly about.
I think I will always argue that there is another way as long as the protagonist has something like magic at his disposal. You don't have to damn your soul to save the world. That seems like a weak justification for every bad thing that could happen.I can make the same argument. But with the caveat that given enough time and resources. I could think of several alternatives but they all require time to prepare or a lot more resources. Which in my example, the character would not have.
I also find it hard to believe that you couldn't think of an alternative to Lawbreaking in order to stop someone from "holding the world hostage" or "letting it burn."
I can make the same argument. But with the caveat that given enough time and resources. I could think of several alternatives but they all require time to prepare or a lot more resources. Which in my example, the character would not have.
Making the opposite argument would be like the infamous Kobayashi Maru test of Starfleet. Or even the "lifeboat" game. You would have to construct a scenario and place a rule on me (or yourself) that the only way to resolve this scenario for the win is to use your magic to kill another human being (or otherwise be a Lawbreaker).Well, you'd either have to kill a human with magic, or cheat (ie. use a solution sufficiently far outside the imagined options of the framer of the challenge that they did not prepare for it and so could not prevent its successful implementation).
Making the opposite argument would be like the infamous Kobayashi Maru test of Starfleet. Or even the "lifeboat" game. You would have to construct a scenario and place a rule on me (or yourself) that the only way to resolve this scenario for the win is to use your magic to kill another human being (or otherwise be a Lawbreaker).But it would well be within the bounds of the setting and I would argue even well within the supposed themes of the DFRPG.
That's dramatic, I won't argue with that. And if that's how your group wants to roll, it makes for awesome stories. But it's not the truth. It's a box. It's a fiction you've constructed for your story and it removes a certain amount of agency from the player. And, like James T Kirk, that's what I would argue against.
But it would well be within the bounds of the setting and I would argue even well within the supposed themes of the DFRPG.
But some kind of corrupting mental attack/Aspect change could be cool.
Thanks, Serack. Very kind of you to say so.
Hope the links are useful in a non-gaming context.
Fuzzy grey areas.When you are in a fuzzy grey area, don't look for a black and white solution.
I lean toward the idea that the First, Second and Fourth are about free will, and probably necromancy too...it's the part that enslaves souls that seems problematic.I think this is the most correct way to look at it. The general idea of the laws is that you're using your magic to destroy the free will of another human, and that's why killing vampires, humans enthralled by people, fairies, etc, isn't really that bad because they don't have free will anymore. Traveling against the currents of time essentially destroys the decisions made by people with free will in the whole timeline you just made split off. Enthralling(4), killing(1), and destroying someones mind(3) all make it now unable for a person to make decisions.
The general rule when determining whether or not something is a spoiler is this:
Did it come out this year?
Is it from a book that is currently only available in hardcover form?
Do I have any doubts about whether or not it's a spoiler?
Okay I haven't used these forums a lot and I know the first law is discussed a lot, and I know that my query has probably been dealt with in the past, but, and I haven't read the whole thread to look to see if it's in there, but it's hundreds of posts long or something, so excuse me.If you are using Runic Magic (a version of Sponsored Magic) and you use it to kill, you will absolutely take Lawbreaker unless your Sponsor is willing to take the karmic hit for you, forcing you to take probably at least one point of Debt--I admit I forget how much Debt the Sponsor charges for absorbing the Lawbreaker hit. That's my understanding of it. I'm hoping heads mor erudite on the topic than mine will gently correct me if I am wrong.
So in my game I am the only one flinging around evocation at all, (well someone just took runic magic, but he won't be attacking with it, and it's not mortal magic anywho) and the ruling on how the first law is broken is pretty harsh.
If you are using Runic Magic (a version of Sponsored Magic) and you use it to kill, you will absolutely take Lawbreaker unless your Sponsor is willing to take the karmic hit for you, forcing you to take probably at least one point of Debt--I admit I forget how much Debt the Sponsor charges for absorbing the Lawbreaker hit.
This is definitely a house-rule whatever it is. There's no RAW provision for this. And I don't think I'd allow it in my game...if you're breaking Laws, you're breaking Laws.That would certainly put forward the case that some Sponsors (like Mab) may prefer their proxies to gradually lose Free Will, so long as they still remain effective and bound to them. The last line Michael speaks at the end of Skin Game comes to mind.