ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Rechan on March 09, 2012, 04:36:30 AM
-
I'm having a disagreement with another person who's just now reading the RPG.
They want to know if the Laws apply to psychic abilities (Specifically Domination and reading thoughts) that are not spells but, by their definition, "something a psychic could do". They are arguing that Domination isn't strictly a Magic Spell, therefore it isn't in the purview of the Council.
This person specifically said there's no proof the Council polices Minor Talents, because "Minor talents are described as those with diluted supernatural bloodlines or items of power that grant them one or two supernatural abilities. Not spellcasting."
-
I emailed Fred recently on a similar topic:
Another question that came up while we were talking about this was if a mortal takes domination (or a similar power) to represent a focused and refined spell (like the Alphas' transformation) would they take lawbreaking powers or do we go with "such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind."(YS241)
Fred: Yeah, that's a little tricky, since it's all in the "soft" details rather than firmly in the system details. The rationale. I'd consider doing the Lawbreaker stunt there because the rationale says this is mortal magic rather than a "creature power".
It's not directly applicable since we're still talking about magic, but I'd still consider the mortal as corruptible rather than the creatures who normally have these abilities.
-
They want to know if the Laws apply to psychic abilities (Specifically Domination and reading thoughts) that are not spells but, by their definition, "something a psychic could do". They are arguing that Domination isn't strictly a Magic Spell, therefore it isn't in the purview of the Council.
This person specifically said there's no proof the Council polices Minor Talents, because "Minor talents are described as those with diluted supernatural bloodlines or items of power that grant them one or two supernatural abilities. Not spellcasting."
First thing to decide, are we discussing law or Law? Capital Law, as in the metaphysical effect of an action is the more difficult of the two to discuss. It's largely dependent on group and how they interpret things. My interpretation is a human (non-vampire) using Domination on another human breaks the Law and earns him a Lawbreaker stunt. Whether the power is described as psychic, magic, or something else isn't important. The enslavement, even temporarily, of another is the issue. But there's really no wrong answer here...the previous is just my interpretation.
Enforcement of law by Wardens is another matter. Much will depend on the Warden in question. We already know they see everything (or nearly) as 'magic' even if the werewolf in question states otherwise. So the real question becomes, how does the Warden feel about the individual, the law, and killing? Is he a Morgan who thinks chopping heads is the best solution for any crossing of the line? Or does he have a grayer outlook on life?
In the long run, a wizard or warden will do whatever he thinks best. If the character isn't part of a recognized faction, he'd probably better avoid being seen to break a Law...even if immune from the metaphysical effects. If he is part of a faction, the warden might actually hesitate before chopping and courting war...unless his name is Harry.
-
Saying that Domination incurs Lawbreaker effectively doubles the cost of the power for nothing. Unless you rule that the rolls involved in Domination are spellcasting rolls, in which case it's an overpriced mandatory upgrade.
Either way, not good. This is not a metaphysical issue, it's a mechanical one.
-
Depends who is using what on whom.
A human, albeit one with domination, using it on another mortal, seriously sounds like a 4th law violation, both cosmic and legally. It's up in the air whether as a POWER not a SPELL it would leave an aura of dark magic, or grant Lawbreaker. I'm leaning towards no to the former and yes to the latter.
-
I'd ask the player in question when he took the power how he wanted to run it mechanics-wise.
In-game, Wardens go choppy-chop, if they see someone bashing someones mind into submission. Of course, I like my Wardens to be 40k Inquisitor-like: "Suffer not the Warlock to live," "Better a Hundred Innocents die Than One Warlock Go Free" and so on.
-
My group treats it as Lawbreaking.
But, we've also removed the mandatory "Lawbreaker" power. Instead, they're mandatory aspect changes which allow you to take the power. I'll have to dig up the post.
Whether or not it's Lawbreaking, a warden certainly wouldn't approve.
-
...it's a mechanical one.
Not at all...at least for us. A vampire or other predator using Domination isn't an issue. Neither is a human using it against a species viewed as monstrous. Definitely not a mechanical issue to me. YMMV.
-
I'm going with the theory that most of these powers are intended for nonhuman PCs and NPCs who won't necessarily have to cope with Lawbreaker issues. For the few NPC humans with such powers, they become a part of a story. For PC humans taking such power, beware.
-
Whether it breaks the Laws story-wise is one thing.
But ruling that the Lawbreaker-ness requires a separate power and is not included in standard Domination is another thing.
-
I'd say that developing one's skills to the point of having Domination as a power would preclude the "Lawbreaker" power. However, it would still be Lawbreaking in both a metaphysical sense, and something the Wardens would oppose.
-
Whether it breaks the Laws story-wise is one thing.
But ruling that the Lawbreaker-ness requires a separate power and is not included in standard Domination is another thing.
Unless you're arguing against the existence of Lawbreaker powers, I'm not following.
I agree with devonapple - the existence of a power doesn't mean it's suitable for PCs. Greater Glamours even makes that obliquely explicit.
-
I'm arguing that whether you want to use Lawbreaker as a power is a mechanical thing.
And I'm arguing that using it as a power with Domination is a mistake, because Domination always breaks the Fourth Law. So you're effectively just adding 2 to the cost of the power.
With spellcasting, you don't necessarily break the Laws so it makes sense for Lawbreaker to exist separately from the base powers. And it provides a boost that's...not really worth the cost most of the time, but whatever. The intention is good. And it can easily be made more worthwhile by adding the bonus to power and complexity.
-
I'm arguing that whether you want to use Lawbreaker as a power is a mechanical thing.
And I'm arguing that using it as a power with Domination is a mistake, because Domination always breaks the Fourth Law. So you're effectively just adding 2 to the cost of the power.
It represents a theme of Butcher's..."choices have consequences". It's the choice in how a power is used or abused which get's you Lawbreaker status. Call it a "meta-mechanic based on narrative choice" if you need to classify in terms of mechanics. But it isn't something which occurs without a choice being made.
With spellcasting, you don't necessarily break the Laws so it makes sense for Lawbreaker to exist separately from the base powers. And it provides a boost that's...not really worth the cost most of the time, but whatever. The intention is good. And it can easily be made more worthwhile by adding the bonus to power and complexity.
Lawbreaker isn't just a power purchased to make a character stronger. It's as much a consequence as an aspect change forced by an extreme consequence. Sometimes bad stuff happens to good PCs. ;)
-
It represents a theme of Butcher's..."choices have consequences". It's the choice in how a power is used or abused which get's you Lawbreaker status. Call it a "meta-mechanic based on narrative choice" if you need to classify in terms of mechanics. But it isn't something which occurs without a choice being made.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Are you advocating the non-dominational use of Domination? How is that possible?
Lawbreaker isn't just a power purchased to make a character stronger. It's as much a consequence as an aspect change forced by an extreme consequence. Sometimes bad stuff happens to good PCs. ;)
But Refresh is a measure of character power. Every power should provide its value's worth. It it doesn't do anything useful, then it should just be an aspect.
-
I can see what Sancta is saying though. Domination can't not break the laws. So one would take domination and then within the same session probably take both lawbreaker powers.
Personally, Sancta I would just consider that consequences of the player's actions though. The player could choose to create a character that isn't dominating people and isn't almost guaranteed to be corrupted. Can you think of an instance where a player taking domination shouldn't be a corrupting or negative situation? Even if they are a creature that had that option I would still see them taking a step away from heroism and towards it's predatory nature.
-
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be corrupted, I'm just saying that they should not have to spend Refresh on that corruption. Take an aspect.
-
I could see that working and would have little problem with that depending on the nature of the game.
-
Are you advocating the non-dominational use of Domination? How is that possible?
A) Don't be human. Or B) don't use it against humans or those you consider human. Those exceptions have been noted previously.
But Refresh is a measure of character power. Every power should provide its value's worth. It it doesn't do anything useful, then it should just be an aspect.
Why?
Seriously, why? That may be your vision but it doesn't appear to be Jim's and it's canonically not the RPG authors' vision. To quote a highlighted statement in the book, "By taking such an action, you've altered your self-image and your beliefs - the very basis of you - to be the sort of person who breaks the Law." The designers obviously thought that should twist both character beliefs (aspect) and powers (Lawbreaker).
I can see what Sancta is saying though. Domination can't not break the laws. So one would take domination and then within the same session probably take both lawbreaker powers.
The laws only apply to "people". They don't apply to monsters. Where that line is drawn may differ from one group to another but Domination can be used without breaking a law.
-
Domination isn't magic it is a latent psychic ability so it doesn't fall under the laws of magic (in the case of Vampires), same with incite emotion etc. It isn't mind hacks that cause the warping of personality it is the use of magic to mind hack if you can mind hack without magic due to a psychic talent then you wouldn't need to worry about corrupting effects of black magic.
-
In general, you are allowed to do things without using magic that the Laws would forbid you doing with magic. For the most part, the Laws are against doing a certain set of things by means of magic. The big exception being, of course, Outsiders; since this isn't about that, we can discount it.
Psychic powers aren't magic. They're a supernatural power, but that power isn't magical in nature. Since the Laws apply to magic, and since psychic powers aren't magic, the Laws don't generally apply to psychic powers.
This is why the Laws aren't broken if you kill someone with a gun. Or if you stab someone with a unicorn horn, to use an example of using something supernatural that is none the less not an act of magic. Neither is casting a spell, so neither breaks the Law.
So I wouldn't have using a psychic power to control someone's mind give you the Lawbreaker hit. It's not magic, so the Laws needn't apply in a metaphysical or rules sense.
On the other hand, if a Warden sees you put the mind zorch on someone with your psychic powers, expect them to cut your head off. Maybe not 100% of the time, since they might conceivably be open minded enough to look into it and differentiate between magic and psychic brain-zorching. But easily 99% of the time, expect a head-chopping.
-
Seriously, why? That may be your vision but it doesn't appear to be Jim's and it's canonically not the RPG authors' vision. To quote a highlighted statement in the book, "By taking such an action, you've altered your self-image and your beliefs - the very basis of you - to be the sort of person who breaks the Law." The designers obviously thought that should twist both character beliefs (aspect) and powers (Lawbreaker).
I think that this is the vision of the RPG authors. They made Lawbreaker provide bonuses, and there's no indication that they intended those bonuses to be weaker than Refinement. In fact, the opposite is implied.
They included corruption, but they also made sure that you get what you pay for.
DFRPG is a very good game when it comes to making sure that people get their power's worth, generally. Better than any other game I know, and I know a reasonable number of games.
The laws only apply to "people". They don't apply to monsters. Where that line is drawn may differ from one group to another but Domination can be used without breaking a law.
Good point, can't believe I forgot that.
-
Domination isn't magic it is a latent psychic ability so it doesn't fall under the laws of magic (in the case of Vampires), same with incite emotion etc. It isn't mind hacks that cause the warping of personality it is the use of magic to mind hack if you can mind hack without magic due to a psychic talent then you wouldn't need to worry about corrupting effects of black magic.
Can you think of a situation where a mortal could use such power against other mortals and not be corrupted by said power though? I can't. Mankind is entirely too self serving by nature.
-
Can you think of a situation where a mortal could use such power against other mortals and not be corrupted by said power though? I can't. Mankind is entirely too self serving by nature.
Lawbreaking has always been about magic, the wardens are all (or at least a good chunk of them) murders but because they do it without magic they don't have the lawbreaker stunt. What that doesn't mean is that they are not corrupted by their actions I imagine Morgan's personality was shaped by his work (Morgan being an obsessive, paranoid person whose first reaction to a problem is to cut its head off). The Laws of Magic apply only to magic and thus the lawbreaker stunts must apply only to magic (with the bizarre exception of the outsider law). Corruption outside the rules of magic are represented by aspects in this game and if you have a player who routinely uses his powers malevolently he certainly should have an aspect relating to the fact.
-
Agreed, Lawbreaking is about magic. But if you ascribe to the belief that refresh=free will, and would like to represent a character sliding from a hero with a choice to a (human) monster that blindly follows it's desires then removing refresh might be a good way to do that. Might as well give them something in return, since it kinda sucks otherwise, how about a bonus to continue doing the things that they are doing (since of course they are going to get better as they continue to do that)?
I'm not saying it's required or RAW or anything, just that an appropriate way to represent that slide is by giving lawbreaker powers (tailored to the behavior rather than the Laws).
-
Well I won't get into an ethics debate about equating free-will and morality, but if you want to set up a Dark/Light Side Morality system in your game go ahead something similar to Lawbreaking (darkside powers) would work, though personally I prefer monochrome games rather than black and white ones and prefer the consequences of players actions to be in game rather than on their character sheets.
-
Lawbreaking has always been about magic...
Sure...so what is magic? Harry seems to think a werewolf simply uses a spell. He seems to have similar attitudes towards many of the minor talents mentioned in the books.
The RPG simply states "Magic is an expression of the person who brings it forth." It goes on to state "Whether it’s faith or magic, all power comes from the basic nature of the mortal or monster who is using it. Evil brings forth evil, and good brings forth good. We are what we do, and we do what we are."
The books really don't seem to differentiate between types of power. A 'psychic' who can see through sheet rock and ectomancer with little power are both simply minor talents. Where both novels and RPG draw a line is between Nature and Choice - between being a monster and being 'mortal' to one degree or another.
Of course we are free to insert additional lines wherever we want. Powers may be designated as psychic, super-science, magic, luck, alien, or simply a sixth sense. We can even create mechanical differences with advantages, disadvantages, and lawbreaking. Can do all that and more.
But the books are about the choices we make, not the fuel used for a given power.
-
You're going too far here, UmbraLux. The fact that the laws only apply to spellcasting is stated more than once.
But wasn't the whole premise of this thread the idea that someone was fluffing their Domination as spellcasting?
EDIT: Just reread, and apparently not. Huh.
-
The fact that the laws only apply to spellcasting is stated more than once.
If you replace "spellcasting" with "magic", I agree. My question is simple, what is magic? Perhaps more correctly, what is magic in the Dresden Files setting?
-
I used the word spell on purpose. Check out YS page 244 paragraph 8 sentence 3. Or YS page 232 paragraph 5. Or the effects of Lawbreaker, which only boost spellcasting rolls.
-
I used the word spell on purpose. Check out YS page 244 paragraph 8 sentence 3. Or YS page 232 paragraph 5. Or the effects of Lawbreaker, which only boost spellcasting rolls.
While you bring up some good points, you appear to avoid mine. What is magic / spellcasting? Harry tells us the Alphas' shapechanging is just a good spell. He makes similar, if less pointed, statements about most minor talents mentioned.
If Harry is correct, all those minor talents shapechanging and whatever else accomplished by humans are spellcasting.
Of course Harry has been wrong before. And, from an outsider's view, it appears to be a self serving argument put forth by the White Council as an excuse to enforce their laws. Which probably explains why the minor talents are so afraid of Harry and other White Council members. Politics aside, it's how you answer the metaphysical question of "What is my magic?" that decides whether or not it's affected by Lawbreaker status.
-
If Harry were right, and the Alphas were using magic of the same kind that he does, would they not be warlocks?
-
Nope. The book is clear that bringing yourself a weapon that you then use to kill is not breaking the law, nor is making it easier to kill. Only actions that directly result in a broken law are applicable.
-
Evocation and Thaumaturgy are spellcasting, other powers can be spellcasting if their players choose to flavour them that way.
Still wouldn't require Lawbreaker for weres, even if they chose to be spellcasters. Lawbreaker does absolutely nothing when attached to Beast Change. Since there's no mechanical effect, use an aspect.
-
Sorry if someone already mentioned this but the Book says its a violation here is the text on it.
Psychic Abilities Psychic abilities seem to divide into two types—
ones which are more trouble than they’re worth
(using the Sight can drive you mad; Cassandra’s
Tears is more a source of sorrow than solace),
and those which break the hell out of the Laws
of Magic (Domination being a good example).
Hope that helps.
-
The one issue is that there's also this:
Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
As enforced, the Laws of Magic are applied
where human victims are involved, but similarly,
they’re primarily applied where human
spellcasters are the ones doing the deeds. This
means that a White Court vampire laying her
sex mojo on a tasty little morsel is not technically
breaking the Fourth Law. This doesn’t mean that
the White Council has to like it, but usually this
is a case where the Accords trump the Laws, at
least as far as the politics and legal maneuverings
are involved.
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind. No
Red Court vampire is going to get slapped with
a Lawbreaker stunt for addicting someone to his
narcotic saliva. To be frank, with all the other
abilities that come along for the ride, he’s already
made himself inhuman enough.
My inclination is that mortality is where the line is drawn, but I could see it interpreted as the power source.
-
I am surprised at all the "The Laws Only Apply to Magic" and "A Human Using Domination Powers Isn't Magic" arguments.
How can a human dominate another without magic? Just because the title of the power isn't "Evocation" or "Thaumaturgy" doesn't mean it's not magic.
The Laws apply to humans using supernatural abilities on other humans. Vampires are not under their purview because vampires are monsters. Hence Domination being a monster ability as mentioned by sinker and Arcane 257, above. Monsters do it, but they're monsters and we all agree that The Laws don't apply to them (they're below 0 refresh anyway, no need to tempt them into more corruption -- they'll corrupt themselves more whenever able).
It's not about what group or faction the lawbreaker or their intended target are in. It's about someone with a soul -- using powers -- to negatively influence other beings that also have souls (or, in the case of Law 7, looking into things that corrupt your own soul by their very nature).
Magic v. Not Magic aside: UmbraLux's argument on morality is, I think, where we should end this argument (going further will just be arguing where the line is, which I think, is group-specific and will simply devolve into "I'm right," "Nuh-uh!" exchanges):
The RPG simply states "Magic is an expression of the person who brings it forth." It goes on to state "Whether it’s faith or magic, all power comes from the basic nature of the mortal or monster who is using it. Evil brings forth evil, and good brings forth good. We are what we do, and we do what we are."
The books really don't seem to differentiate between types of power. A 'psychic' who can see through sheet rock and ectomancer with little power are both simply minor talents. Where both novels and RPG draw a line is between Nature and Choice - between being a monster and being 'mortal' to one degree or another.
...
But the books are about the choices we make, not the fuel used for a given power.
This is, I think, the most important point here.
Run your game how you and your players agree will be fun and rewarding. Just remember, The Dresden Files are, in large part, a play about power v. corruption.
-
I am surprised at all the "The Laws Only Apply to Magic" and "A Human Using Domination Powers Isn't Magic" arguments.
How can a human dominate another without magic? Just because the title of the power isn't "Evocation" or "Thaumaturgy" doesn't mean it's not magic.
The Laws apply to humans using supernatural abilities on other humans. Vampires are not under their purview because vampires are monsters. Hence Domination being a monster ability as mentioned by sinker and Arcane 257, above. Monsters do it, but they're monsters and we all agree that The Laws don't apply to them (they're below 0 refresh anyway, no need to tempt them into more corruption -- they'll corrupt themselves more whenever able).
It's not about what group or faction the lawbreaker or their intended target are in. It's about someone with a soul -- using powers -- to negatively influence other beings that also have souls (or, in the case of Law 7, looking into things that corrupt your own soul by their very nature).
I would say where this breaks down is White Court Vampires, which do have souls. They happen to be humans whose souls are unfortunately entwined with a demon which gives them their powers and their Hunger. They've got souls and they use their powers on people with souls, yet they don't earn the Lawbreaker stunt for doing so. And they're PC options with a positive Refresh, so the whole argument that they're just monsters who don't have to worry about corruption doesn't apply either.
Another thing to consider is perhaps the reason powers don't earn you Lawbreaker powers is because those powers already encompass them. It's the same reason you don't need to buy Channeling if you've got Evocation. The powers are already a better form of Lawbreaker. Lawbreaker makes you better at breaking a particular Law of Magic? How much better can you get than being able to do so at will with no stress cost whatsoever? Powers don't earn you Lawbreaker because the relevant powers are already the uber-form of that Lawbreaker power.
-
No, Orladdin, Lawbreaker only applies to spellcasting. This is made clear in the rules.
So if you say that your Domination ability works through brain-rewiring neurosurgery or something, then there's no Lawbreaker attached.
Shooting a dude in the head breaks no Law, and you can chop people up with your IoP sword and your Supernatural Strength all day without changing an aspect.
-
As the passage that Sinker linked says, the costs and benefits of Lawbreaking are more or less built into the power. What's the max roll bonus you can get for breaking one law? +2, unless I'm mistaken. What's the bonus that Incite Emotion gives to deceit rolls? +2. Same with Addictive Saliva.
Put it this way:
Does using Domination or Incite Emotion to screw with someone's mind break a Law of Magic? Yes.
Does it mean you take the Lawbreaker power, with its refresh, and spellcasting bonus? No.
Does it mean you have an aspect of yours reflecting and/or twisted by the breaking of the law? Probably.
-
No, Orladdin, Lawbreaker only applies to spellcasting. This is made clear in the rules.
This is a flavoring issue, then; not a mechanical one?
So if you say that your Domination ability works through brain-rewiring neurosurgery or something, then there's no Lawbreaker attached.
Except that such a massive reflavoring isn't covered as RAW. "Neurosurgery" is not what is priced at X refresh in the DFRPG. "Domination" is.
Shooting a dude in the head breaks no Law, and you can chop people up with your IoP sword and your Supernatural Strength all day without changing an aspect.
Right in all these cases. None of these cases cover the application of a "magical force" directly to "possible law-breaking event". The IoP does the killing in the case of a magic sword (see: warden swords. items containing magic, yes, but not "magic" themselves). Same with supernatural strength. Same with a veil to become invisible which allows you to knife someone in the back. But as soon as you use that fireball, mind-whammy, time-rewriting balefire, etc, you have broken the laws.
What if you use a clearly law-breaking Thaumaturgy mind-rewriting spell? What if you use it to rewrite the mind of a blampire? No longer law-breaking, right? What if you use that mind-whammy on said blampire to have it murder a human? What about now?
Like I said above, this is devolving into a "where to draw the line" and "You're wrong / nuh-uh!" contest. It should always be decided in-group on a case-by-case basis with Intent in mind.
-
Well from what we have seen of the psychic powers none of them count as direct magic, addictive saliva is a narcotic, incite emotion is done at least partially through pheromones and suggestion and we have no idea how exactly Renfields are made other than it requires a powerless victims and it takes a day so it could just as easily be torture and infecting the poor sap with vampire blood as anything magical.
-
As a general rule, powers in DFRPG can be flavoured however the heck you want. And whether there exist magical forces that aren't spells is kind of open to interpretation.
-
I would say where this breaks down is White Court Vampires, which do have souls.
Looking at Fred's "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking post (one of the stickies above) it's clear that some White Court Vampires have souls - but most don't. The exact quote on them having souls is:
Most don't. I think of Thomas -- someone who's actively fighting off his demon, not giving in to it -- as more an exception than a rule.
How do they go from "have soul" to "you can kill them without worrying about the first law"? My guess is it that's multiple law breaker stunts driving them into negative refresh territory. Thomas doesn't feed like most of his kin and thus is still positive refresh.
Which would make the end of Turn Coat a compromise where the player negotiated for an extreme social consequence (Unfeeling Predator) as opposed to taking all the law breaker stunts that ravaging those Does would have brought.
Richard
-
Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
...
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind.
This seems to be definitive
-
You might think so GryMor, but Fred himself has said otherwise. More specifically that a mortal using domination to represent a specialized and refined spell (like the Alphas transformation) should take Lawbreaker if they use it on other mortals.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26459.msg1314956.html#msg1314956
-
That was hardly very definitive and was very explicitly related to people who flavoured their powers as mortal magic (which obviously is linked to lawbreaker), that certainly wouldn't apply to someone who claimed that there powers was an inherent ability rather than magic (due to being a psychic etc).
-
Agreed. GryMor seemed to be stating definitively that domination (or similar powers) should never impose Lawbreaker. I was showing him an instance in which Fred disagrees.
-
Agreed. GryMor seemed to be stating definitively that domination (or similar powers) should never impose Lawbreaker. I was showing him an instance in which Fred disagrees.
That being said, the book does say that it shouldn't. Fred may disagree, but it's not what his staff wrote in the actual rules. I'd say RAW trumps extrapolation by designers if a specific rule was created to adjudicate it.
Now, with that in mind, I'd still say there would be consequences in story for it. Wardens not being familiar with the rule books and such.
-
If you want to be purely technical RAW doesn't really allow for mortals to have domination as there is no template where it's appropriate. So if you want to play with that then you have to look at the intent of the people who wrote the book. Seems to me that the intent of those people is that this is most likely a "Creature Power" and those creatures that have powers that "hold sway over the minds of others" already have other downsides to compensate.
-
"Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up." ;) I see two general approaches being made. One considers the powers' mechanics as discrete functions while the other takes a more holistic approach and considers powers in the context of both character and world. I don't think we'll convince each other, our approaches to the game are too different and, as the dueling quotes have shown, there's support for either argument. All depends on what you perceive as the emphasis...and that perception is heavily influenced by our approach to the game.
In the end, I don't think either decision on Lawbreaking is "wrong"...as long as your group is in agreement. That's the real sticking point to me. We can argue on forums until World's End and it's just bits lost in the cloud. But if we can't come to agreement or compromise within a given group it affects play adversely. Putting it mildly of course.
Interestingly, the two differing approaches are apparent in many of the disagreements here...and lawbreaking isn't even the most common. ???
-
If Harry were right, and the Alphas were using magic of the same kind that he does, would they not be warlocks?
The law on weres is "Thou shalt not transform others." It does not include transforming yourself.
-
...
In the end, I don't think either decision on Lawbreaking is "wrong"...as long as your group is in agreement. That's the real sticking point to me. We can argue on forums until World's End and it's just bits lost in the cloud. But if we can't come to agreement or compromise within a given group it affects play adversely. Putting it mildly of course...
I agree. I think there should be a serious discussion at the table when a player decides he or she might want to go this route-- maybe even before someone decides. The group needs to be in agreement. It is, after all, Your Story.