Are his mind and soul basically human?
That's the question you should be asking, if you say yes, then he gets Lawbreaker, if no, then he does not.
Essentially like Wyvern said. If it is your magic, then its guided solely by your thoughts and you have to believe in it. If its not your, ...
Deadmanwalking: Does that mean you'd also apply the laws of magic (and lawbreaker stunts) to non-human beings? After all, they have to apply their wills to use, say, unseelie magic (or whatever they've got). Does a black court vampire have to buy lawbreaker stunts on top of evocation and thaumaturgy if they want to use magic to kill, raise undead, or break people's minds?Ryan said that the character is basically a human.. but dead.
If your answer is "No, of course not" - then obviously merely having a Will isn't the defining factor. What about near-human creatures? A changeling? A scion? A red court vampire? A white court vampire? A sentient corpse that still has a human mind and soul attached to it? A free-willed golem that never had a human mind or soul, but acts more or less human anyway? Where's the dividing line?
I choose to place that distinction at "Are you using mortal magic?" In other words, the laws of magic are an issue for a focused practitioner, sorcerer, or wizard. (Of course, the Wardens may not be quite so picky...)
Ryan said that the character is basically a human.. but dead.Thomas doesn't have lawbreaker, and he's extremely close to baseline human (enough humanity for TRU LUVTM, to directly oppose his own nature, and to be converted into a black court vamp). Heck, as a player character he'd have more refresh than Harry.
The dividing line is free-will.
Deadmanwalking: Does that mean you'd also apply the laws of magic (and lawbreaker stunts) to non-human beings? After all, they have to apply their wills to use, say, unseelie magic (or whatever they've got). Does a black court vampire have to buy lawbreaker stunts on top of evocation and thaumaturgy if they want to use magic to kill, raise undead, or break people's minds?
If your answer is "No, of course not" - then obviously merely having a Will isn't the defining factor.
What about near-human creatures? A changeling? A scion? A red court vampire? A white court vampire? A sentient corpse that still has a human mind and soul attached to it? A free-willed golem that never had a human mind or soul, but acts more or less human anyway? Where's the dividing line?
I choose to place that distinction at "Are you using mortal magic?" In other words, the laws of magic are an issue for a focused practitioner, sorcerer, or wizard. (Of course, the Wardens may not be quite so picky...)
A few things to consider;
1) A wizard killing a human gets Lawbreaker. A wizard killing a nonhuman does not. Why? Do they believe any less in killing with magic? Would they destroy any less of a person if they burned Thomas to ashes or ripped Lily's heart out of her chest?
2) A wizard using mind-magic gets Lawbreaker. Molly believed that what she was doing, using her magic to help someone else, was good. She did not know of the damage it could do to others so there is no way that factored into her beliefs. So why, exactly, is she more monstrous for believing in something when, to her knowledge, it had no drawbacks at all?
3) Let's look at Kumori. Lawbreaker - Fifth. She believes that death is something one should fight against and ultimately conquer. And she is more monstrous for it. Come again? Isn't that what thousands upon thousands of doctors all around the planet are trying to do? Isn't it there in a certain book that death was not part of the plan, is a very bad thing, and it will be ultimately conquered?
Because it does not follow that will and choice have to do with Lawbreaker. Bear with me;
Fact: Magic is based on belief. To use it, you must believe in what you are doing.
Fact: Using magic in a certain way changes you because you believe in that way.
Fact: Motive is meaningless in Lawbreaker, it's deciding to do it that matters.
Fact: What someone believes in may not be the truth, or even close to reality.
So, I am a wizard. I see a building full of monsters. I believe, absolutely, that they must be destroyed. I destroy them. Without my knowledge, innocent people were in that building. I never chose to destroy them but I did. Lawbreaker or no Lawbreaker?
I am a wizard. In a fight for my life between my team and some enemies I blast an enemy... and miss. The blast accidentally kills one of my human teammates instead. I never chose to kill them but I did. Lawbreaker or no Lawbreaker?
I am a rising talent in mental manipulation. I do not know that this can destroy a mind and I try to help my friends. I destroy their minds instead. I never believed in destroying my friends. How could I? I didn't even know the magic could do it. Lawbreaker or no Lawbreaker?
I am a rising talent and my mentor is teaching me to contact Outsiders, telling me they are benevolent spirits that can help us gain power to cure the sick, heal the wounded if only we choose to ask for their help and call them. I believe in helping others absolutely so I call outsiders. I definitely did not know about or believe in violating the borders of the Universe but I do it anyway. Lawbreaker or no Lawbreaker?
I have a talent in chronomancy. I have no knowledge of chronomancy being bad-nobody there to teach me-so there is no reason for me to believe it bad or wrong. In fact, I believe that glimpsing the future and averting disasters thus saving innocent lives is a good thing and it is my duty to do it, my responsibility to the power I was given. Why would I become more monstrous from my belief in saving lives?
If, in the above situations, it is my belief in magic and my own will that change me into a monster, how could I cast these spells to do things I did not believe in? If my belief and will do not matter, how can Lawbreaker be linked to them?
(in short, applying Lawbreaker through belief and choice simply does not work because belief and choice are based on knowledge. Wrong knowledge can and does shape our choices and beliefs or even cause results we would not believe in.)
Thomas hasn't broken any magic laws though.He's killed people using magical abilities.
He's killed people using magical abilities.
And you don't neccessarily need to will or believe for your fey court stuff or mordite-fueled necromantic energy to kill people either.
Are you really saying that if Harry killed a guy with pure Soulfire or Hellfire he'd not get Lawbreaker?
1) A wizard killing a human gets Lawbreaker. A wizard killing a nonhuman does not. Why? Do they believe any less in killing with magic? Would they destroy any less of a person if they burned Thomas to ashes or ripped Lily's heart out of her chest?Things without free will are in many ways animals (or forces of nature) that can talk. You can't rehabilitation something without free will. If something presents itself as sufficiently dangerous, you kill it, or failing that try to banish or contain it.
2) A wizard using mind-magic gets Lawbreaker. Molly believed that what she was doing, using her magic to help someone else, was good. She did not know of the damage it could do to others so there is no way that factored into her beliefs. So why, exactly, is she more monstrous for believing in something when, to her knowledge, it had no drawbacks at all?Same as above. Mindbending, in some ways, is even more dangerous that killing. Because if you mindbend a non-human you are exposing your mind to its mind and who knows what messed up stuff goes on in there.
3) Let's look at Kumori. Lawbreaker - Fifth. She believes that death is something one should fight against and ultimately conquer. And she is more monstrous for it. Come again? Isn't that what thousands upon thousands of doctors all around the planet are trying to do? Isn't it there in a certain book that death was not part of the plan, is a very bad thing, and it will be ultimately conquered?Playing god always twists a person's brain. Hence the lawbreaker. Even if someone didn't use Kemmlerian necromancy. Heck, even under the condition that someone made themselves a "living dead" humans (why is it "humans" and not "humen?") it is still twisted.
Getting the lawbreaker stunt has nothing to do with whether or not the White Council will prosecute you for your actions. The stunt represents an internal change in the person with it, not an external political fact.
All stats in OW are based on what we actually see them do, and they just generally didn't worry about Lawbreaker too much. If you look at who has Lawbreaker in the Early Bird PDF it's...highly inaccurate (and one of their few major statting issues). There was a thread here where people pointed out stuff, and Lawbreaker not being on people it should've been was one of the issues (Grevane lacked Lawbreaker (Fifth) once for example).
That's actually really good information to have, thanks. Means I don't have to worry I'm doing something wrong if I decide to add lawbreaker stunts to people like Kumori or Cassius.
Other than that, I'm probably stepping out of this conversation now; I've made my opinion visible and had some good discussion (thanks, by the way) on various options of where to put the limits of lawbreaker-ness.
Getting the lawbreaker stunt has nothing to do with whether or not the White Council will prosecute you for your actions. The stunt represents an internal change in the person with it, not an external political fact.
when broken, lead to a fundamental change in the nature of the person who broke them. The White Council also enforces them as laws, but thats in addition to the fundamental change. You could say the Laws exist as two separate concepts with 99% overlap - the Wardens of the White Council enforce once concept (law), while reality metaphysically enforces the other (nature).
From the book:
Without the external enforcement or at least the possibility of it a character is getting a +1 (or more) bonus to lots of magic (like all killings or enthrallments), for -1 refresh. Its to cheap. If you remove the authority of the White Council from over a character (by tying them some other Signatory of the Accords) they can not be allowed to get Lawbreaker and the bonuses that go with it. Its unfair to the other spellcasting players and is not in the spirit of game balance.
Ok, I was wrong - I do have something more to say.But it is a power, not a stunt, so gets a little bonus.
Smoore: Whether the lawbreaker stunts are "too cheap" depends entirely on your perspective. If you're looking purely at the mechanics of building a powerful spellcaster, then yes, they're too cheap. But if you look at it from a perspective of making a character, from the perspective of what your aspects are and *who* you are, they're absurdly expensive, and all too capable of turning a player character into an insane NPC monster - even if the White Council is for whatever reason unable to hunt you down.
JustinS: Lawbreaker is a +1 per point... but that +1 stacks with refinement bonuses. They're scary powers in terms of, well, raw power.
The theory is:
Most people who kill someone with a gun do it on reflex, or because they were under orders, or to save their own life, or even in pursuit of righteous vengeance. They do it without focusing their entire will and being onto the idea that this guy needs to die and nothing else. by believing in his death so hard it happens
Even one of the books mentions how this isn't the case. Green soldiers can hit targets well, but they almost always suck at hitting people. They unconsciously avoid it. It takes will and a decision to do it most times.
I don't see how it is all that different with magic anyhow. You toss a fireball at someone you aren't thinking "kill, kill, kill" necessarily. You could just be thinking "fire, fire fire" or "get him away" or "make him stop" or any number of things (maybe even that he isn't human). Even thoughts like that will come as a reflex in time.
You have to visualize what's going to happen exactly in order to make it occur...and that includes what damage you want your spell to do.Then avoiding lawbreaking is super-easy. Hostage situations are also easy. Just don't imagine the fire/whatever hurting anyone you don't want it to. Being a bit facetious here, as obviously Harry has demonstrated in the books that magic can have unforeseen consequences that you didn't imagine (like burnt b it iuildings). Once you make fire, then it is fire and acts like fire.
Its not a case of imagination, its a case of will. If you will it not hurt anyone, then you can't perform a magic effect designed to hurt people.
I don't think any is arguing that you get a lawbreaker for summoning fire, which then kills someone after acting outside of your influence. You get lawbreaker when, through pure force of will, you propel that fire at someone and kill them.
I'm not sure what I can say to make my point more clear: Magic requires a psychological commitment to the act on a level that nobody sane would ever do without magic, and that kind of commitment to killing or acts of hubris changes somebody.
I'm a Psych major, and this makes perfect sense to me based on the way magic is described (must focus one's entire being and will on the magic to make it work). Almost nobody believes things that deeply, and those that do are seen as fanatics or madmen. So in a way, all Wizards are mad by society's standards (and not just for believing in the existence of magic), megalomaniacs of a sort. Those who break the Laws twist that pre-existing madness into the kind that is focused on the Laws they broke.
Think of it like a religious fanatic suddenly converting, it's that big a change of focus in the Wizard's thought processes, because it has to be to make it work.
From the book:These forces are and should be separate. (yes if you do the cost out for the bonus for law breaker you do get a lot more bang for your refresh.) But most Wizards in the game are going to be riding the bleeding edge of refresh. So if they collect the 3 law breaker cost its totally possible they will drop to 0 Refresh and lose the character.
Without the external enforcement or at least the possibility of it a character is getting a +1 (or more) bonus to lots of magic (like all killings or enthrallments), for -1 refresh. Its to cheap. If you remove the authority of the White Council from over a character (by tying them some other Signatory of the Accords) they can not be allowed to get Lawbreaker and the bonuses that go with it. Its unfair to the other spellcasting players and is not in the spirit of game balance.
Killing someone with magic, for example, only requires that you truly, really want that person dead and believe you can do it. THAT level of commitment is entirely possible with a gun, especially for someone trained to fully commit to things (as all Wizards are). Heck, we see Harry purposefully kill people quite a bit and he has no doubts or reservations at the time, and he even remarks upon this (once or twice doubts later, but that's 100% allowable even with magic).
Further, the laws ARE overdone from a point of realism. They are kinda of like the Categorical Imperative on steroids (where the rules are arbitrarily overgeneralized). Just because you 100% believe person X should die, doesn't mean that desire stands in a vacuum, there can be very, very good reasons for that such as "people who rape children should die" or "killing someone to prevent the death of loved ones is ok".
Obviously killing people isn't necessarily bad (though it often is), but this is highly dependent on the reasons. Fully believing those reasons is not as rare as you think, especially for people trained to be able to fully commit to something (at least in the short term while the act is being done). Heck, a good way to do that is just to not think about the fully ramifications of what you are doing until after it's done. You file that away and devote your will to the task at hand...that's not THAT hard a skill, even if many people aren't capable of that level of focus.
True! But you're forgetting something: Harry has Lawbreaker (First). He is able to kill instantly and with no doubt because he's already done it with magic. Now some people could've easily done the same, don't get me wrong, but the level of needed focus is still much lower than doing it with Magic, which is part of why it's so easy for Harry.
But are their motives really that clear and direct? I'd kill in both situations you describe, and only allow myself to do so for the reasons stated, but mine wouldn't be, they'd be all wrapped up in hate and rage and a desire for revenge. And that's inevitably going to be part of the magic, and thus part of what you believe. Killing a guy with magic doesn't make you a monster (look at Harry)...but you keep doing it, in varying situations, then more and more it's gonna be those negative emotions that are internalized as when it's okay to kill: When you're angry, or hate a guy. Now it could be argued that this doesn't apply if you only kill people in one specific situation, and I might even allow that to not grant Lawbreaker again in that very specific situation (your wife being in mortal danger, say), but broadening it by killing when your sister's in danger would still get you a kill on your tally.
Having Lawbreaker doesn't make you evil, it makes you the guy who'll break that Law. Harry Dresden isn't a bad guy, but he is a killer and as cold and certain a killer as people who've been doing it for years despite only having killed human bengs a handfull of times. That's what having Lawbreaker does to you.
Again, I don't think we're quite hitting the same wave-length about the insane level of devotion required for magic to work. It's not just devotion to a cause, it's enough to give suicide bombers the heebie-jeebies. Yeah, that's actually a good comparison, it requires being significantly more devoted to making X happen, than you need to be to blow yourself up.
I don't think it is that different inherently. Harry really has some trouble working up to killing people without doubts. Of course, the issue with his mentor was very different emotionally compared any time he's killed a mortal and was also an act of desperation.
I wouldn't think there'd be any doubt in killing someone to save your sister's life (unless you are unusually estranged, perhaps).
Magic is also about will, so you don't necessarily need to have a whole bunch of hate and emotion built in (that's just a short-cut for some and handy for the emotionally). Doubts are the main obstacle.
I'd think even killing to defend your wife gets you lawbreaker (Harry has it).
My argument is that whatever is going on with the magic produces a kind of psychic backlash.
It makes you less human, getting you closer to zero refresh. Also, Dresden might seem really cold now, but you have to bear in mind that in the first book he was pretty gentle overall. He's gotten colder and it's had zero to do with having lawbreaker.
There's nothing in the books that suggests this is the case though. Molly certainly isn't a fanatic for altering people's brains when she did it. Certainly no more so than someone killing in self-defense with a gun or in the defense of a loved one. There's really no indication that Harry was some sort of fanatic for killing people with magic either, rather he was just traumatized by all the trauma he had been through.
Further go beyond killing. Harry uses fire all the time, but that doesn't make him insanely devoted to fire and hence a pyromaniac. There's something odd at work regarding the rules of magic.
Lloyd Slate was a complete bastard, who has undoubtedly killed several times with sponsored magic.
However, I have yet to find a writeup for an NPC with sponsored magic (only) who has Lawbreaker, which indicates that the intent of the authors is that sponsored magic doesn't count towards breaking the Laws of Magic. However, sponsored magic has debt, which incurs its own costs.
One note about Kumori: This might be a veeeeeery long shot but technichally, you don't have to work with free willed beings to use necromancy. If she has been careful like a... well madwoman, she could have developed her abilities by draining the ambient life and using it as fuel instead of dense fuel rods (ie humans).Kumori violated the 5th law during Dead Beat when she saved that guy's life in front of the EMTs. He was gone and she brought him back.