Clearly not. At least, based on Harry not getting Lawbreaker for the thing with Sue in Dead Beat, or the potential human casualties in Grave Peril. There is clearly a grey area in the laws, or Harry would've been an NPC ages ago
Sue on the other hand was under his control and there were few mortals left in the area. Unless someone was sitting in a car she stepped on which is a danger that could not be directly assumed from the nature of the spell.
I would argue that as of Grave Peril Harry should have his second violation. He agonizes and rationalizes considerably about the possible mortal casualties in the fire. Sue on the other hand was under his control and there were few mortals left in the area. Unless someone was sitting in a car she stepped on which is a danger that could not be directly assumed from the nature of the spell. A bomb is an uncontrolled device meant to kill anyone in the area regardless of status since RCVs feed on mortals it can be assumed that any gathering of them worthy of a bomb will contain some mortals. Calling them "acceptable" losses does not make them unintentional. Anyone whose soul would not be stained by their deaths is already a sociopath and should be an NPC anyway.
No, he shouldn't, because Sue wasn't human. If he gets Lawbreaker-Fifth for that then he'd need to get Lawbreaker-First for all the Red Court and Ghouls he's slain with magic, and have all his Aspects vtwisted by that by this point. As will every PC wizard ever. Which is my point, there are grey areas.
I'd say that's it's intent that matters,By my reading of the books: Intent doesnt matter (at least in some if not most cases).
But we dont know,
if what causes the Taint of the Lawbreaker-Power is the same as what gets the Warden to separate your head from the rest of the body.
By my reading of the books: Intent doesnt matter (at least in some if not most cases).
(example: Healing people from an addiction with mind magic.)
But as I was saying, its not clear in the source material.
So every GM needs to think about how it works in his world and stick to it...
So did he discover what taints your soul and quanitfy it? Or did he warp mortal magic to fit his laws?
Also don't forget during Changes:(click to show/hide)
So did he discover what taints your soul and quanitfy it? Or did he warp mortal magic to fit his laws?
The Stunts are way more than balance they reflect the metaphysical reality and the moral structure of the game world and ones self control.
Why the hell is it so damn hard for people just to play by the damn rules! why does every other thread on this board devolve into "here is why the Laws do not apply to my character."?
For the record, I'm not trying to get out of anything (and tend to agree with you that doing so is annoying), and would never play the stated character, I'm just a firm believer in a consistent and specific interpretation of how the Laws work, and will continue to bring that perspective to discussions.
SRL: I think you and I have had a similar discussion in another thread. The point is that some people are interested in pushing the boundaries in their game worlds. You don't. That is just fine. I have a thing for evil characters but I'm not playing one right now. Assume, for the sake of the discussion, that magic DOES work with more flexibility, because it just might in other people's worlds. How would you approach this issue, in that specific case?
If the Laws were this flexible as a GM I would have to have a very strong and active Warden force to introduce the appropriate tension and create a dividing line between what is legal/social acceptable and what is not. In the current IC conditions of the Vampire War you would have a world lousy with necromancers and charred mortal corpses. one of the defining characteristics of the modern setting is the need to deal with a modern (mortal & magical) legal system and its ability to investigate ones actions. This is not the wild west its the modern world and the modern world comes with cops. It is a element that is often missing in RPGs in general. If power corrupts the ability to burn someone to ash for stepping on your toe must be contained.
As Harry says in several of the novels,
As to the bomb question, I'm going to side with the dissenters and say that a bomb serves one function, and one function only. To kill. Even young people know that bombs kill people. It would be VERY hard to say that even a very young practitioner could reasonably believe that his/her bomb could never be misused or kill unintended targets. Even if it didn't bring down the Lawbreaker stunt (depending on how intrinsically corrupting the Laws are in your world), I would probably say he becomes Target 1 should the Wardens find out about it.
That said, they'd still recieve Lawbreaker stunts as normal, since the magic doesn't care who you work for.
Also, on a system basis, it seems really unfair to ding a Wizard with Sponsored Magic for the laws he breaks with it (which clearly happens, look at Hellfire and Kemmlerian Necromancy), and then let someone off just because they only paid 4 Refresh instead of 8.
This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.
Now, thinking about it, there is a circumstance that would serve to define the line, at least for me: "Does your character think of him as human?"
This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.
For full White Court vampires, I'd say that depends on how hard they're trying to maintain their humanity, and to a lesser extent whether the spellcaster considers them to have succeeded at all.
This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"
This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"
I already went there. :D
Or to put it another way, seeing monsters as human can get you Lawbreaker, seeing humans as monsters can't save you from it. It's a one way street.
After all, someone who can casually kill humans because they're 'monstrous' should have Lawbreaker, shouldn't they?
however the purely physical one uses his paid for claws power to kill people does not get ooc penalized by having to take the lawbreaker stunt. whereas the thaumaturge uses a ritual or enchanted item to "temporarily" grow claws which he then uses to kill someone, he dose get the lawbreaker stunt. Because he used magic for the sole purpose of helping him to kill some , thus fully believeing that that act is right he then uses the magically created claws to kill someone.
h...no, actually. If that were true then Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't. Growing claws (which can do a variety of things besides kill, just BTW) won't get you Lawbreaker. Killing someone with Evocation by roasting them alive will, but that's not quite the same.
And actually, I do in fact allow intent to defend against Lawbreaking...as I argued extensively earlier in this thread. It just has to be a lack of intent to break the Law as opposed to questions of motivation and reasons. For example, assuming there were several living humans in the building Harry burned in Grave Peril, I still wouldn't give him Lawbreaker because killing humans wasn't his intent. He was too far gone to even think of it, really.
Now, a person who's gotten to the point of seeing people as objects, vermin, or monsters, should firstly probably not be a PC.
Heck, mechanically speaking, if you intend to use it Lawbreaker isn't even that bad. -2 Refresh for a +2 to all offensive magical combat when you're trying to kill someone? That's not bad at all. And you can write all your Aspects about what a killer you are to start with, never changing a thing.
Warden's Swords would count as Lawbreaking too, which they don't.neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.
neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.
There's probably some distinction between seeking knowledge about how to defend/preserve the Outer Gate and stuff from beyond it that he can use.
Casting a spell with the intent of using the manifestation of that spell to kill someone counts. the fact that in this case your using thaumaturgy to make "claws' which are represented as one point of weapon, is in no way different from throwing fire at them. its just a little slower.
If lack of intent means you don't break the law then molly would not have gotten lawbreaker. if being "to far gone to care" doesn't give lawbreaker then you could just make a charecter with rage/frenzy like tendency's and just go berserk when you need to kill. its a slippery slope, its a bad ruling, and its not supported by the books.
Not gonna argue that, obviously it depends on the gaming group.
Also not arguing this. the reason getting the lawbreaker stunt is a penalty isn't because of what it dose. as Ive argued in other threads the "penalty" of having your aspects change will happen naturally over time regardless of weather or not you get the stunt. the penalty is that it gives you negative refresh, which then because of how the "play balance" is set up can make your character an npc. I still maintain that that is flawed game design as well. the last example i gave was a pyromancer with full lawbreaker first is a fully playable character point wise but really shouldn't be for so many other reasons.
neither dose the gatekeeper have lawbreaker seventh when he obviously should. the game writers obviously did not want to give lawbreaker to the "good guys" regardless of weather or not it makes sense.
...Honestly the fact that im arguing for strict and universal interpretations of the laws astounds me. i don't even think they make any sense.
Uh, Lawbreaker isn't intended to necessarily put characters out of play, just reflect their inevitable Dark Side tendencies. It's only flawed for what you seem to want it to be, not what it is.
Uh, no. The reason that killing with magic taints you is that you need to believe absolutely in the magical effect you create. Believing absolutely that this sword exists isn't nearly as tainting as believing that guy should die. The end result is similar, but the devotion to the goal required is alot less.
True, but my point was that in a game where that kind of character was okay, why would having Lawbreaker not be perfectly reasonable and cool?
just do mundane researchEven mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt
And that's the problem, really. You've decided they don't make sense and are completely arbitrary, so that's how you run them and rule on them, with a strict mechanical approach and a tendency to ignore the why's and spirit of the Laws.
Not everyone shares that particular point of view, and if you look there are several underlying logical principles that can make the laws make sense.
My interpretation of what the lawbreaker stunt is intended to do and yours are different. Since the non beneficial affects of the stunt will happen regardless of weather you have it or not, i view being given it in play as no more then an attempt to give a reason to forcibly retire a "problem character". This is simply my interpretation though and unless lc or iago wants to chime in and let us know what there intent is theres not much point into continuing that line of contention.
Good logic here. The question though is if i use magic to light a house on fire, is my intent to murder the inhabitants or to create fire? if there are human children in the house and they die do i get the stunt? do i only get the stunt if i'm latter told that people died in that fire? these are all metaphysical grey areas that theirs no easy answer to, that is why i don't believe the laws make sense.
If they are a metaphysical reaction to actions, much like the laws of physics [which is how they are most frequently portrayed] thenIf you break the law=you get tainted
it has nothing to do with morality, justification, or what you meant to do at the time, weather or not those thing -should- make a difference.
honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces" went mad and cant be played] while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be.
Even mundane research is a violation of the law, i can get the quote if you'd like. obviously in the gatekeepers case hes immune to the social sanctions but that doesn't protect him from the "taint" of having the stunt
There not Completely arbitrary there just illogical. theirs a difference. there portrayed as universally true. and that is how i'm arguing you should portray them. I don't actually disagree with you that intent should make a difference, i think it should. however as portrayed and as written it dose not.
Id be rather please to listen to how they make sense. and im sure it would be extremely helpful to other if you could explain it in a clear and concise manner. without contradicting either how they are portrayed in the books or how there written in the rpgs, please remember to use quotes and citations for your precedents.
Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)
and the Refresh limit is a general rule, and IMO, usually a good one.I just view it as a flaw in the system[one of the two major ones ive mentioned in other posts] im not fan of narrativistic rules so it just rubs me the wrong way.
Uh, iago actually responded to this, and I agree with him: to get Lawbreaker you need to work magic. Mundane research is still 'illegal' and gets the Wardens on your ass (unless you're the Gatekeeper) but it doesn't net you Lawbreaker because you're not twisting your soul with magic.
The Gatekeeper must be a special case of some kind or surely he would be a raving, power-mad lunatic by now. Either he resists or is perhaps immune to their corrupting influence and has special power over them by dint of knowledge or the circumstances of his birth... just like Harry....?
honestly its not a bad stunt to take piont wise. and if your intent is to kill a rampant murder you should probably have it, my objection is entirely based around the fact that the system says that you are unplayable if you have x levels of stunts. and that x is variable depending on gm fiat, in my opinion the pyromancer with full lawbreaker:first and hellfire should be the one that faces "went mad and cant be played" while the full wizard with 2 levels of refinement who "accidentally" breaks a law should not be.
To get a lawbreaker you have to do magic. The only law that mentions not even doing magic is the 7th. My guess is that studying the outer gates doesn't give you a lawbeaker (the stunt), but gives you the social consequences of a lawbreaker. Since the Gatekeeper is basically appointed to do that, he doesn't suffer from the social consequences.
the gatekeeper not only has done research but has also used that knowledge to cast wards on the outer gates. and to use magic that successfully works against the outsiders would require knowing a goodly bit about them since with the exception of harry they are nigh invulnerable to magic.
yeah, but the law is "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates."
You are definitely correct. the wording of the law itself would say that hes clean, but everything else written about the law contradicts that. so i guess it comes down to what exactly is The seventh law, is it "Never Seek Knowledge and Power from Beyond the Outer Gates." or is it as the detailed description would lead us to believe, "Do not seek knowledge or power about the outer gates or the beings beyond them. "
If that's the case, you can learn anything you want ABOUT the Outsiders, you just can't Open the Outer Gates to interact with them. Of course, I'm sure that the WC feels that it's unnecessary for anyone besides the Gatekeeper to know any about the Outsiders, or that it's unlikely that anyone would have a good reason to learn about them. Thus the stigma on learning anything at all about Outsiders, which might have made it unofficially part of the law as far as the Wardens and execution are concerned.
Remember: Knowledge is power. At what point do you have enough grains of sand to have a pile? When is your knowledge of the Beyond corrupting? Best to play it safe because some things may not be easy to identify a hard line on.
I disagree, because the knowledge on its own shouldn't ever be corrupting, only acting on it.Many, Many metaphysical schools of thought profoundly disagree with this, they state that there is certain knowledge that simply having will cause you "damage" it is strongly portrayed that any level of understanding about the outsiders is this type of knowledge. Am example from a completly differnt setting/ game system would be wyrm lore from the owod, simply haveing even one level of it could give you a permenent derangement[ drive you insane]