ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Jersalyn on July 09, 2010, 09:07:42 PM

Title: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Jersalyn on July 09, 2010, 09:07:42 PM
So i will soon be running a game and one of my players have taken the Unseelie Knight template. I was wonder what opinion people had about them and the LAws of Magic. they gain access to some of the same skills as wizards but, because they gain that through the courts do they have to follow the laws, and how much of the accords can they skim?

Ideas?
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Deadmanwalking on July 09, 2010, 09:28:24 PM
IMO, the White Council can't enforce the Laws on them, so they escape any physical punishment. But! They can still be forced to get Lawbreaker powers if they use their magic to do things against the Laws. Others can and do disagree with that interpretation regarding Sponsored Magic, though.

And what exactly do you mean by 'skimming the Accords'?
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Mindflayer94 on July 09, 2010, 09:34:49 PM
I agree with Deadmanwalking in that the white council can't do a thing, I disagree that they need to take lawbreaker, because from my perspective it's Mab's power being corrupted not the knight's therefore they do not need to suffer from a lawbreaker power.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: TheMouse on July 09, 2010, 09:53:47 PM
My interpretation is that faerie Knights aren't under the jurisdiction of the White Council. They are no more bound by the laws of magic than a sidhe.

They are, however, bound by the Accords.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: luminos on July 09, 2010, 09:58:33 PM
My interpretation:  The queens need the knights because the knights mortality gives them the power to effect most of the mortal world, and thus the actions of the knight must be understood as an expression of the knights free will, even if they are bound to Mab/Titania.  They have all the benefits and hindrances of free agents, which includes the risk of a lawbreaker stunt.  And I also think that the Wardens aren't going to hesitate to take down a lawbreaking knight.  We don't know the exact wording of the accords, but the impression I get from the books is that the wardens have complete jurisdiction over mortals that break the laws of magic, in so far as they are allowed to kill those people.

Others can and do disagree, yadda yadda yadda.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: DFJunkie on July 09, 2010, 10:16:47 PM
The strongest case against the Wardens beheading a Winter Knight who kills with magic is that they wouldn't want to incur Mab's wrath, especially Winter's cooperation is so vital to keeping the ways to and from Edinburgh open. 
Second, it's possible that doing so would be considered an act of war under the Accords.  We don't have a copy to peruse, but unless the Knight in question was also at one time a WC wizard I'd say it's very unlikely they could legitimately claim to have jurisdiction over his actions.
Finally, and this is just my interpretation based on some things that come to light in Changes, I don't even think that a person who uses solely sponsored magic would be eligible for Lawbreaker.  It seems that the corruption inherent in Lawbreaker is from an external source, and my interpretation is that using magic to certain ends allows that source to taint the user.  However, in the case of a person using borrowed power there is no link to that person's soul, so no taint can be conferred.  That is just my personal interpretation though, and neither the RPG nor the books have provided a conclusive example one way or the other.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Bruce Coulson on July 09, 2010, 11:08:23 PM
My take on the matter.

Unseelie Knights are part of the Winter Court, and hence not under the jurisdiction of the White Council.

However, they are beholden to the Queen of Winter...who WROTE the Accords.  So, if a Knight breaks the Accords, they answer to their Mistress.  Which means falling on their sword (literally) might be a preferable fate rather than suffer whatever punishment might lie in store.

As for 'skimming'...the Accords are a maze of legalease.  Technically, if you stay within the exact letter of the Accords, you're fine.  That doesn't mean there won't be consequences; just that you're officially free and clear.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: ahunting on July 09, 2010, 11:21:25 PM
They cannot violate the letter of the accords. IE if he does stupid things that kill people, or does things that openly display magic to much, or in some other way endangers thing the accord protects,  a warden or some other BA of the accords can shows up and challenge them to a dual, they may or may not have to accept that challenge as ordered by their liege. Also for certain, they will have to be prepared to follow the orders of Meave, Mab and the Grandmother Winter, Get mixed up in untold numbers of fairy plots and be constantly at war with the summer court.

But they cannot get lawbreaker if they are using Unseelie magic, or the Knights Sword. If they had Evocation or Thaum separate from that and used that to kill someone then they would be open to lawbreaker. Unseelie magic, only requires they believe in fairies to work after all.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Drachasor on July 10, 2010, 09:19:35 AM
Quote from: Deadmanwalking on July 09, 2010, 09:28:24 PM
IMO, the White Council can't enforce the Laws on them, so they escape any physical punishment.

Well, they can't do it without breaking the Accords (and pissing off the Fae)....publicly.  If a Winter or Summer Knight committed genocide or something the White Council really objected to though, then McCoy or whomever the Blackstaff was might have a very private "talk" with him.  If a Warden managed to kill in a Knight who was regularly violating the Laws in complete Stealth and only the Council knew, then they'd probably look the other way, I'd think.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Jersalyn on July 10, 2010, 12:13:03 PM
Ok, but I though one of the reasons the Knights had free will was because they were the only one that could ignore sections of the accord. For instance they are allowed to kill someone of there own branch where the queens & ladies cannot.

(click to show/hide)

As for the sponsor thing I've always seen that argument in the same light as "Guns down't kill people, People kill people." Granted the gray area would be to use magic to incapacitate someone then just put a round through their skull.

I think this whole thing was left vague for ST opinion but I wanted to see what some of the arguments were for or against the idea. So far I like the idea of gaining lawbreaker but not having the wardens hunting you down, directly.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: Wordmaker on July 10, 2010, 02:41:48 PM
The Fae Queens' inability to kill mortals is down to their nature as supernatural beings, not the Accords. They're physically unable to take certain actions, which is why they have their Knights. But the Knights, as members of nations under the Unseelie Accords, are fully beholden to the letter of those laws.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: DFJunkie on July 10, 2010, 05:59:14 PM
See, I don't think we can really answer the question "does a mortal using a sponsor's magic to break the Laws assign the Lawbreaker power to that mortal?" because we don't know exactly what Lawbreaker represents, and how it comes into being. 

If it is purely a stain on one's soul, 100% internal to the person using magic, then any mortal who breaks a Law purely with sponsored magic should get Lawbreaker.  The reason I don't think this is the case is precisely because subduing someone with magic and then shooting them in the head is not a gray area at all, the Wardens do it regularly. You've still used magic to kill, it just wasn't the actual instrument you used to deliver the coup de grace.

If Harry is right, and magic really is the essential force of life and happiness and puppies, then breaking the Laws is perverting the nature of magic, and Lawbreaker is the backlash of that act.  It's an outside force damaging the soul of the user.  In this case I do not think that a mortal using purely sponsored magic would become a Lawbreaker, because the power in question is not the power of life, but the power of some other entity, generally one of the Faerie courts (since most other types of sponsored magic require the user to have magical power of their own). 

The gun analogy doesn't apply since it isn't the act of killing that is problematic, but the act of killing with magic (or breaking one of the other Laws).  Unlike the "guns don't kill people" argument in this case the instrument is absolutely the issue.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: sjmcc13 on July 10, 2010, 08:13:17 PM
Quote from: Jersalyn on July 10, 2010, 12:13:03 PM
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: ahunting on July 10, 2010, 09:01:26 PM
We have two discussed cannon examples of the effect "lawbreaker" See Molly and See the Warlock (for about 10 secs), but they do talk about how it changes them, on a Literal level.

Now when it comes to sponsored magic not all sponsored magics are created Equal.

Unseelie and Seelie magic are clear from their descriptions to be alternative sources of magic. Using them is using the power of the Fae, and there for should not give law breaker.

Rune Magic, I'd say comes from Odin, and so also probably wouldn't cause law breaker.

Kemlerian Necromancy- Specifically requires you to already be a full wizard, and basically just gives you more bang in the necromancy evil spells category. If you have this your probably don't care if you do end up with lawbreaker 3 times but it does seem like using it would give lawbreaker.

Hellfire- I'm not sure on. You could theoretically have this independent of another type of magic, now in that case, you probably had to sell your soul to get it, so its doubtful your to concerned about lawbreaker, Most likely it would come as an advantage. But I'm not certain using it by its lonesome would count as breaking the laws of magic. Its pretty clear the source of hellfire is naturally hell.

Soul Fire- Here again book description tells you about nothing, cannon discussion is a little more informative. Ether way its hard to say anything that seems really certain. If the sources is the "Fire of Creation" or if the source is your character Soul, would really be the key distinction. If your using the Fires of Creation it wouldn't seem to likely that lawbreaker is going to bite you. But if your using your very soul to generate magical effects I suspect Lawbreaker would hit you like a ton of bricks.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: blcahill on July 10, 2010, 09:30:42 PM
The Knights of the Sidhe exist because the Sidhe cannot kill someone not attached to their court.

If the White Council went after a Knight for fulfilling their orders from the Queen then it would break the accords.

For lawbreaker things are a bit different. Lawbreaker is personal. If a Knight was instructed to kill someone and they used magic no lawbreaker would be picked up. The knight was following orders.

If the knight killed while on vacation and not under direct order then the lawbreaker would apply.
Title: Re: Laws of Magic vs Accords
Post by: JosephKell on July 11, 2010, 03:19:30 AM
The Laws of Magic aren't directly related to the Accords.

The Accords are about how different supernatural political groups interact with each other.

The Laws of Magic have to do with the limits of what mortals can do without monstrous consequences (either making themselves a monster or unleashing a monster).

They are like apples and oranges.

OP's question: "Does an Unseelie Knight have to respect the accords?"

My answer: All members of the accords have to respect the accords unless...
1.  They don't care about causing a war.
2.  They don't plan to leave witnesses or evidence that the accords were breached.
3.  They don't care about being thrown under the bus to "make things right."

But this whole "Sponsored Magic and Lawbreakers" discussion has gone way past the point of being productive (and it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread).  It really comes down to two points of view.

A.  You want to allow sponsored magic to be an out for mortals to violate the laws.

B.  You don't want to allow sponsored magic to be an out for mortals to violate the laws.

Those that feel that A is correct will keep saying it is, and those that think B is correct will keep saying it is.  It's called disagreement and it is perfectly acceptable to disagree.

Just sit down with your own group and discuss it.  Way more productive.  Just focus on the implications.

Under B, Sponsored Magic means you can only "borrow" fate points to invoke for your magic (and your magic might count as something special for satisfying catches if applicable).  If you go this route, it is really only valuable if you find yourself in situations where you have no fate points but could REALLY use an extra fate point (or two).  If that never happens, you probably don't need Sponsored Magic.

Under A, Sponsored Magic is WAY better.  Assuming you would violate the laws of magic on at least 2 occasions, Sponsored Magic was a good investment, and you can still "borrow" fate points if you find yourself out of points (or want to save points for when you might be compelled).

This topic will never be "resolved" short of a "Word of God" being handed down by Jim Butcher or the Evil Hatters.  Since they have all been absent from this argument, I am guessing they have no plans to jump in now.