ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 10:30:50 AM

Title: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 10:30:50 AM
Where's the line drawn with were creatures and the first law?

White court vamps have souls - we know this for a fact.  White court vamps are ok for wizard to kill.

Were people like Billy have souls too - but they may not be ok to kill.

Should we just arbitrarily say that unless a person is a pure mortal with +2 to their refresh rate they are pretty much considered a supernatural creature?

Otherwise, how is it possible for a wizard to figure out when he can defend himself or not?

Are things only kill-able with magic if they look "scary"?

Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Tsunami on February 08, 2011, 10:55:32 AM
One single question:

Is it human in the eyes of the council?

Yes makes killing it a No-No.
No makes it acceptable.

That's really all there is to it. Were-People like Billy are nothing more but "Wizards" able to cast one single transformation spell.
Hence human, hence NoNo.

Pure mortals only... no, because if so, why would harry have been made a 1st lawbreaker for killing Justin.

Well, it's really difficult to know when you can use lethal magic... sucks eh?  :P

Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 11:55:30 AM
One single question:

Is it human in the eyes of the council?

Yes makes killing it a No-No.
No makes it acceptable.

That's really all there is to it. Were-People like Billy are nothing more but "Wizards" able to cast one single transformation spell.
Hence human, hence NoNo.

Pure mortals only... no, because if so, why would harry have been made a 1st lawbreaker for killing Justin.

Well, it's really difficult to know when you can use lethal magic... sucks eh?  :P



I'm more worried about the lawbreaker stunt than the white council.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: jybil178 on February 08, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
Well, unfortunately at this point, the err... Point gets a little muddled...  Billy and the Alphas are a definate no on the kill list, but thats already been mentioned...

But maybe...  And I don't know, I COULD be going outa the water on this..  Maybe, while the White Council may not bat an eyelash at killing most White Court Vampires, you also wouldn't have to normally worry about the lawbreaker stunt...  But if you were to kill someone like Thomas, who has a positive refresh, and attempts to keep a hold on his hunger, THAT would be breaking the First Law..  The Council may not do anything about it, but you might still walk away from the encounter with a Lawbreaker Stunt...

Maybe it could follow along the idea, that if a "creature" that could be considered fairly alien still has a positive refresh, it may fall under lawbreaker territory?
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 12:47:19 PM
Well, unfortunately at this point, the err... Point gets a little muddled...  Billy and the Alphas are a definate no on the kill list, but thats already been mentioned...

But maybe...  And I don't know, I COULD be going outa the water on this..  Maybe, while the White Council may not bat an eyelash at killing most White Court Vampires, you also wouldn't have to normally worry about the lawbreaker stunt...  But if you were to kill someone like Thomas, who has a positive refresh, and attempts to keep a hold on his hunger, THAT would be breaking the First Law..  The Council may not do anything about it, but you might still walk away from the encounter with a Lawbreaker Stunt...

Maybe it could follow along the idea, that if a "creature" that could be considered fairly alien still has a positive refresh, it may fall under lawbreaker territory?

That is awfully complicated.

Who is to say that Lara Raith is not a positive refresh?  If Thomas could do it, so could she.

I mean, what if you meet one ghoul who tries to be a good... person, an that makes you wonder if every ghoul might not be?

I think that since magic comes from what you believe, second guessing whether it's right to kill something or not based on what decisions they've made instead of their nature is a slippery slope to carebear-land.

I mean, it's a great roleplaying opportunity, but my character is a war hardened x soldier.  He can and has disassociated himself from vanilla mortals enough to kill them.  I doubt he'd have second thoughts about blasting a werewolf of any sort.

My question is if you think it's right, would that be a lawbreaker stunt?  I don't think so.

The more we talk about the subject, the more I think that anyone who does not have that extra 2 points of refresh is fair game as long as the PC believes it's justified.

Perhaps Harry got the lawbreaker stunt for killing a wizard because it was a wizard (like him) and someone he knew and raised him for a time.

There's a big difference between killing a stranger in self defense and killing a family member.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: sjksprocket on February 08, 2011, 04:14:31 PM
I think that it might have to do something along the lines of whether or not it stains your soul. Harry killing Justin definitely did something negative to Harry. Hence the Lawbreaker. Does the kill spiral the character into more darkness?
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: bitterpill on February 08, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
You can kill white court vamps under the first law period, killing Thomas would be wrong but not against the Law as to killing Were Creature it is probably something stupid like you can kill them as long as their not in human form.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Moriden on February 08, 2011, 05:30:38 PM
Unfortunately the only way to be safe on this is to sit down with your st and figure out how they interpret lawbreaker. Due to Mr. Hicks dislike of universal consolidated rules they where written in a very nebulous manner meaning that you will find a different interpretation every time you play the game.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Imp on February 08, 2011, 05:34:01 PM
look as it from an old D&D rule.   the spell "hold person", if it the spell wont work on it it aint people and doesn't fall under the law.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 05:34:31 PM
Unfortunately the only way to be safe on this is to sit down with your st and figure out how they interpret lawbreaker. Due to Mr. Hicks dislike of universal consolidated rules they where written in a very nebulous manner meaning that you will find a different interpretation every time you play the game.

I think this is the "correct" answer.  Whatever that means. lol

I suppose if it comes up I can ask at the table.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Moriden on February 08, 2011, 05:39:58 PM
Quote
I suppose if it comes up I can ask at the table.

id actually suggest that you talk to the gm before hand. its not the kind of thing you want to be surprised by.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 05:47:15 PM
id actually suggest that you talk to the gm before hand. its not the kind of thing you want to be surprised by.

Well, I partially want to get a community consensus because I may be stepping in and GMing if/when our GM wants to play a character.

Plus, since everyone in my group is new to this system and I have read the book 6 times and lurked in these forums so often, I've kind of found a niche as the "rules guy".

While the GM gets final say, the sheer expedient that I've spent so much time trying to understand the rules and I don't play favorites (even with myself) means that my opinion is at least listened to.

That's actually why I post so often of late.  I'm trying to understand the community's agreement on everything - not just the things that affect my character.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: MrobFire on February 08, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
Well, I partially want to get a community consensus because I may be stepping in and GMing if/when our GM wants to play a character.

Plus, since everyone in my group is new to this system and I have read the book 6 times and lurked in these forums so often, I've kind of found a niche as the "rules guy".

While the GM gets final say, the sheer expedient that I've spent so much time trying to understand the rules and I don't play favorites (even with myself) means that my opinion is at least listened to.

That's actually why I post so often of late.  I'm trying to understand the community's agreement on everything - not just the things that affect my character.

Yeah, even if people are free to come to their own conclusions I agree that I do like finding the community's consensus on these topics which I think are the most interesting. My personal favorite interpretation is that Harry did get a +1 to the bonus from lawbreaker and that
(click to show/hide)
It's more interesting to me to think that you gain lawbreaker when you kill anything that has a soul and that the White Council simply hasn't realized that wampires count since they've never engaged them in large scale combat (and they tend to take the traditional view that monsters are bad).

Alternatively the ensouled and positive refresh is an ok idea but it fails when you consider that most warlocks probably would have gone into negative refresh based on how lawbreaker works. I find it hard to believe though that wardens (or ancient wizards for that matter) wouldn't eventually notice that there were no metaphysical consequences for using magic against warlocks.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 08, 2011, 06:06:57 PM
Well, there is no 'community agreement' on much of anything, except for the Golden Rule that whatever ruling works for your group is the right one.

As far as the First Law... WCV are genetic in nature, and so inhuman from the start (although they have a chance of becoming human).  Mortal spellcasters in general are considered human (hence Wardens with swords).  Were-creatures are 'humans with a spell' (as far as game mechanics and Harry/Bob are concerned; the reality may be different) and so are off-limits.  Changelings could eventually be mortal; the subject hasn't come up, but I'd play it safe and say Changelings are human enough until/unless they Choose Fae.  Red Court Vampires are infected with a demon, lose their soul, and hence are fair game.  (Where Red Court Infected fall under this is an interesting question; I'd say they count as human until/unless they turn completely.)
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 06:07:42 PM
Yeah, even if people are free to come to their own conclusions I agree that I do like finding the community's consensus on these topics which I think are the most interesting. My personal favorite interpretation is that Harry did get a +1 to the bonus from lawbreaker and that
(click to show/hide)
It's more interesting to me to think that you gain lawbreaker when you kill anything that has a soul and that the White Council simply hasn't realized that wampires count since they've never engaged them in large scale combat (and they tend to take the traditional view that monsters are bad).

Alternatively the ensouled and positive refresh is an ok idea but it fails when you consider that most warlocks probably would have gone into negative refresh based on how lawbreaker works. I find it hard to believe though that wardens (or ancient wizards for that matter) wouldn't eventually notice that there were no metaphysical consequences for using magic against warlocks.

I think I can see where you're coming from.  Unfortunately, the books and the RPG are never going to truly line up parallel to each other.

For the purposes of the RPG, it would be pretty crappy if PC defended themselves from a White Court Vampire (notice the "vampire" in the name) and lost a point of refresh from it, effectively making them lose their character for most wizards. :(
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Moriden on February 08, 2011, 06:27:38 PM
Quote
For the purposes of the RPG, it would be pretty crappy if PC defended themselves from a White Court Vampire (notice the "vampire" in the name) and lost a point of refresh from it, effectively making them lose their character for most wizards. Sad

Theirs a very simple solution to that. *don't use lawbreaker stunts*. now bear with me for a moment. what do the stunts do? they give a fairly good bonus to a specific type of magic and force you to change an aspect after you've used that magic a sufficient amount of times. The kicker though is that if your using that kind of magic you should be changing your aspects to reflect it  as a responsible spell caster irregardless of the stunt or not. which means that lawbreaker serves two legitimate purposes as a rules wise to force a character into retirement, and as a alternate refinement option for characters who its appropriate for. using the negative refresh = npc rule is fine for play balance purposes but rapidly falls apart in any other light.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 08, 2011, 06:42:55 PM
It's more a question of what type of game your group wants to play.

Is your group comfortable with a world where spell-casters are never quite certain if it's okay to use lethal force?  A grey world where it's easy to slip over the edge and become a Lawbreaker while trying to do the right thing?

Or would your group prefer (at least in the case of the First Law), that the boundaries are clearly laid out; when fighting creature 'X' you can use your big guns without fear of becoming a Lawbreaker, whereas when confronting warlock 'Y' a different approach is needed?

Neither world is 'right'; it's a question of what your group thinks would be dramatic and fun.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: sinker on February 08, 2011, 08:54:40 PM
I tend to agree with Bruce on the interpretation of "What is human" with the singular exception that I believe that all Whampires at least have the potentiality for a soul (Thomas' soulgaze would imply as much), and therefore the law may apply.

As for lawbreaker bear, you really shouldn't be worried about it. There should be no situation that should give you the lawbreaker power without your say so. Either you will find a situation that you deem justified to twist your character, or you'll describe whatever other outcome to take someone out. Any GM that is holding that over someone or who surprises anyone with it is just being vindictive and needs to rethink their priorities as a GM.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 08, 2011, 08:58:50 PM
I tend to agree with Bruce on the interpretation of "What is human" with the singular exception that I believe that all Whampires at least have the potentiality for a soul (Thomas' soulgaze would imply as much), and therefore the law may apply.

As for lawbreaker bear, you really shouldn't be worried about it. There should be no situation that should give you the lawbreaker power without your say so. Either you will find a situation that you deem justified to twist your character, or you'll describe whatever other outcome to take someone out. Any GM that is holding that over someone or who surprises anyone with it is just being vindictive and needs to rethink their priorities as a GM.

I suppose you're right - and my GM would not try to "whoops" me.

It's just an interesting thing to discuss I suppose - notably because it's not defined in the books, the RPG books, or even by Jim himself.

In fact, the next time I see Jim at a convention or something I will probably ask him about this if the matter hasn't been officially resolved yet.

In fact, we actually HAVE seen Harry fight whampires in the books... but Thomas has a soul.  Perhaps we should start calling Thomas, "Angel".

Sorry - bad joke. :)
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 08, 2011, 09:08:23 PM
Jokes aside, I see Thomas as an exceptionally rare WCV.

Most of them, after their first kill, would not qualify as 'human' for purposes of breaking the First Law.  (Although there would be other consequences...), at least in my opinion.  Lara, for instance, appears to be a typical (albeit highly intelligent) WCV and monster.  Now, White Court virgins, who have not killed, do qualify as 'human' by almost any standard.

But other players and groups may well see this differently.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: sinker on February 08, 2011, 09:12:13 PM
And from a gaming stand point the "souled" whampires are considerably less likely to leap out of the shadows at you for no reason.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Drachasor on February 08, 2011, 09:23:41 PM
Loup Garou seems to be OK.  White Night indicates that probably using magic on White Court Vampires is ok.  Killing with magic against Denarians is ok.

Using it against Wizards, who have supernatural powers, is not.  It's unclear about changelings and people like Billy.

My tentative conclusion, is that if the person isn't time-sharing with some other entity or force that takes control (e.g. WCV and their demon, Fallen Angels, or whatever calls the shots for a Loup Garou), and they are human, then they count as least as far as killing goes.  If there IS time-sharing going on, then killing them with magic is ok while the entity is present (e.g. not ok for the Loup Garou when they are just a normal human, but with WCV and Nickelheads, they always have another entity there).  So Changelings and most other Scions are off-limits, arguably Red Court Infected are ok to kill (they have a demon in them), and people like Billy are also protected.  I think it gets murkier with some of the other laws, but perhaps I just feel that way in my gut because they book doesn't do much there (
(click to show/hide)
never looks around in a faerie's head for instance).

That seems to be how the books lean, anyhow.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: bitterpill on February 08, 2011, 11:02:24 PM
Loup Garou in terms of law breakers should be the same as a were creature, if you think about it they have both humans who have been turned into a 'animal' by spell only the Loup Garou never had a choice, this is why I think that were-beasts are fair game as long as they are not in human form (i don't think the first lore counts for animals) and tecnically in  beast form they are not human.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 09, 2011, 12:02:13 AM
ehhh...I would have real issues with that interpretation.  What about a wizard who has shape-changed?  Are they suddenly 'not human'?  The governing intelligence is still human, still has a soul.  The point made that people with a 'demonic co-pilot' may no longer qualify as being human under the Laws I can see; they've agreed to let an inhuman monster take over the operation of their body.  (Voluntary possession.)  But a wizard blasting away weres in their animal forms?  If they know that they're killing weres, I'd be inclined to slap Lawbreaker on them for that.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: sinker on February 09, 2011, 12:10:23 AM
Killing with magic against Denarians is ok.

Not arguing with this (cause the novels seem fairly clear) but it just seems really weird to me. Technically you aren't harming the possessing entity at any point. Even if the host dies the Denarian will be fine. So it seems to that you're totally killing the mortal part of the equation...
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: bitterpill on February 09, 2011, 12:15:23 AM
There clearly is no unitary value of a soul in the Dresden verse which means that doing some things is wrong and others is not. I suppose killing the Denarians could count as saving them and from the silly metaphysical thing about the use of magic to kill being corrupting you could argue the wizard in his mind’s eye is targeting the monster not the man.   
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Drachasor on February 09, 2011, 12:42:33 AM
Not arguing with this (cause the novels seem fairly clear) but it just seems really weird to me. Technically you aren't harming the possessing entity at any point. Even if the host dies the Denarian will be fine. So it seems to that you're totally killing the mortal part of the equation...

Struck me as weird in the novels as well.

Two possible interpretations:
1.  If you kill a person fully or partially possessed by an evil entity, then the soul-staining backlash of doing that gets attracted to and joins with the evil entity rather than going back and staining your soul.

2.  Things like they are enough "not human" that believing that killing them is ok doesn't stain your soul.

Personally, I think 1 is a bit more consistent with Law Breaking in general as it implies accidental Law Breaking still stains the soul (if you kill someone without knowing they were there, you didn't have to think killing them was ok).  It also adds an element that explains why killing someone like Toot Toot wouldn't get you Law Breaker even though it would be a vile act.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: toturi on February 09, 2011, 03:18:22 AM
If the character/player is concerned about getting Lawbreaker, I'd allow him to assess with Lore (most probably) to find out. Kind of like the "Search Your Feelings" ability in Star Wars - searching your feelings, you know this to be true/false.

Maybe with Guide my hand, you will get a Compel to stop yourself from doing something that would get you Lawbreaker.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: vultur on February 09, 2011, 08:44:42 AM
The Denarian thing is *very* weird.

Two ways I can see to look at it:

1) in borderline cases it depends on the wizard's belief. Killing with magic is tainting at least partially because it makes you, deeply, the kind of person who *would* kill another person. So if you're thinking of the Denarian, loup-garou, White Court vampire as a monster, there's some insulation. But wizards aren't going to think of other wizards as less human, so they are just as tainting to kill as ordinary mortals. In this view, if the wizard knew the were-creature was a human practitioner, it would count as human, but if they just killed a werewolf that jumped them in wolf-form, it might well not.

2) Wizards & other practitioners are 'more human' than White Court vampires, Denarians, other humans-with-magic. Unlike the others, there's no sharp line between wizard and mundane -- it seems that magic is a pretty common human ability in the DV, so weak it's irrelevant in most people, quite a few people have a touch of talent that can be more if trained, a few have serious sorcerer talents, and one in a million are Council-level. But even the strongest wizards are just an exceptional form of a trait already inherent in humanity at some level; wizards aren't a 'supernatural race'. In this case, the human-practitioner kind of werewolf that the Alphas are would count as human. [Hexenwolves might theoretically be like Denarians, at least while in beast form... not sure about them.]

The second seems closer to the feel I get from the books, personally...
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 09, 2011, 09:46:43 AM
The Denarian thing is *very* weird.

Two ways I can see to look at it:

1) in borderline cases it depends on the wizard's belief. Killing with magic is tainting at least partially because it makes you, deeply, the kind of person who *would* kill another person. So if you're thinking of the Denarian, loup-garou, White Court vampire as a monster, there's some insulation. But wizards aren't going to think of other wizards as less human, so they are just as tainting to kill as ordinary mortals. In this view, if the wizard knew the were-creature was a human practitioner, it would count as human, but if they just killed a werewolf that jumped them in wolf-form, it might well not.

See... that doesn't make any sense because the Laws have nothing to do with morality.

A wizard could easily hold someone down with magic, rape them, then snuff the life out of them with a pillow and that would be 100% OK as far as the laws of magic are concerned.

I agree with you that option #1 is definitely not it.

Quote
2) Wizards & other practitioners are 'more human' than White Court vampires, Denarians, other humans-with-magic. Unlike the others, there's no sharp line between wizard and mundane -- it seems that magic is a pretty common human ability in the DV, so weak it's irrelevant in most people, quite a few people have a touch of talent that can be more if trained, a few have serious sorcerer talents, and one in a million are Council-level. But even the strongest wizards are just an exceptional form of a trait already inherent in humanity at some level; wizards aren't a 'supernatural race'. In this case, the human-practitioner kind of werewolf that the Alphas are would count as human. [Hexenwolves might theoretically be like Denarians, at least while in beast form... not sure about them.

The second seems closer to the feel I get from the books, personally...

This seems to be closer to the books, but we have to keep in mind that:

A. Everything we know about the magical world is told to us through Harry's narrative and

B.  Harry is not a completely trustworthy narrator.

Plus, belief is an extremely relative thing from person to person.  Perhaps the reason Harry does not do some of the things he does is due to personal beliefs rather than an immutable and unmoving magical rule.

I cannot help but think that if there /were/ a solid line in the sand drawn between things that are killable and things that aren't, all wizards including Harry would know of it.

I am more of the opinion that whether a person is twisted by killing has to do with how they feel about it internally than anything else.

As for whether the council comes after you, I think that has to do more with whether a wizard killed "one of us" or not.  It seems like the Council is pretty xenophobic.  Anything not human is not a person and a-ok to kill.

::shrug::
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: vultur on February 11, 2011, 07:12:37 AM
See... that doesn't make any sense because the Laws have nothing to do with morality.

I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about belief shaping how your magic works... I don't think WCVs inherently 'count', but if you *believe* they do the effect on your soul via killing them with magic might be the same.

"Classic" werewolves are just human magic practitioners. So they definitely count as human inherently; I'm just not sure whether killing one you believed was a natural wolf would stain your soul.

Quote
I cannot help but think that if there /were/ a solid line in the sand drawn between things that are killable and things that aren't, all wizards including Harry would know of it.

I doubt that; Kumori's actions in DB seem to seriously raise questions about the blanket prohibition of necromancy. I think the Council tends to steer well clear of messy issues and gray areas, and I doubt they encourage looking into them. (Also see: why nobody else ever animated a zombie T-rex).
Quote
As for whether the council comes after you, I think that has to do more with whether a wizard killed "one of us" or not.  It seems like the Council is pretty xenophobic.  Anything not human is not a person and a-ok to kill

Mostly, although I don't think it's xenophobia as such -- that implies the attitude is irrational. Thomas is a very unusual exception -- the vast majority of non-human intelligent creatures in the DV seem to be amoral, alien and dangerous to humanity at best. Toot-toot is also an exception, apparently, but he's *personally loyal to Harry* -- I'm not sure whether he's actually inherently any 'nicer' than any other fae. He seems pretty happy
(click to show/hide)
in Changes, and he kind of laughs about Slade's torture, so he's relatively amoral as well.

The Council's position about one-strike warlocks like Harry after Justin or Molly in PG is a lot shakier than their position toward nonhuman intelligences. If anything, given that they seem to claim some sort of protection of humanity, and given the levels of supernatural predation Harry suggests in DB, they're arguably not hitting the ghouls and vampires
(click to show/hide)
and such as hard as they should be -- I've argued for a while that if they really *believed* their protecting-humanity rhetoric rather than just used it as an excuse for why the survival of the Council in its current form is absolutely necessary, they'd be a lot more proactive against supernatural predators. Given the situation we see in WN, where a pretty major operation *actually aimed at the WC itself long-term* would probably have been missed by 'normal' (=Not Harry) White Council Wardens till too late... I'm not convinced they provide any meaningful protection against them at all. So Listens-to-Wind's idea that the fall of the Council would mean humanity taken over by predators seems a bit questionable in light of this and his Senior Council position. (And if we're really to accept potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths *per year* from supernatural predators in the US alone, in what sense are they not --already-- taken over? How many supernatural predators *are* there anyway?)
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 11, 2011, 08:15:54 AM
Quote
The Council's position about one-strike warlocks like Harry after Justin or Molly in PG is a lot shakier than their position toward nonhuman intelligences. If anything, given that they seem to claim some sort of protection of humanity, and given the levels of supernatural predation Harry suggests in DB, they're arguably not hitting the ghouls and vampires
(click to show/hide)
and such as hard as they should be -- I've argued for a while that if they really *believed* their protecting-humanity rhetoric rather than just used it as an excuse for why the survival of the Council in its current form is absolutely necessary, they'd be a lot more proactive against supernatural predators. Given the situation we see in WN, where a pretty major operation *actually aimed at the WC itself long-term* would probably have been missed by 'normal' (=Not Harry) White Council Wardens till too late... I'm not convinced they provide any meaningful protection against them at all. So Listens-to-Wind's idea that the fall of the Council would mean humanity taken over by predators seems a bit questionable in light of this and his Senior Council position. (And if we're really to accept potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths *per year* from supernatural predators in the US alone, in what sense are they not --already-- taken over? How many supernatural predators *are* there anyway?)

We're going off on a rather large rabbit trail here but it's an /interesting/ rabbit trail so I will play too. :)

I think the only real meaningful service to humanity that the council gives is policing and killing warlocks.

With the vast majority of the world being "in the dark", several thousand warlocks running around, killing and doing just about anything they please would be chaos.

Additionally, after humanity all collectively became "clued in", there would be mass paranoia and panic since a dark practitioner doesn't look any different than Larry or Beth down the street.

What the White Council does  is enforce a loose code of ethics on high level magic practitioners.  This gives a level of credibility to those affiliated with the White Council.  In many ways, the Council is like an elite practitioner's union.  If a wizard is a member of the White Council, one can be reasonably sure that said wizard is not going to make your head explode for no good reason.

Other than that... it seems like Harry is one of the only wizards around who is actually fighting the good fight and protecting humanity.

Then again, our narrative is through Harry's eyes, and he has two issues:
1. A martyr complex
2. An overwhelming animosity towards the Council in general and it's leadership in particular.  Harry is still not all that high ranking despite his power.  I highly doubt he knows everything that the wardens do in the US, much less in the rest of the world.

I'm not an apologist for the council.  I think they're a bunch of selfish bastards who hoard power and influence for themselves.  That said, perhaps they are not the bastion against the dark they like to believe themselves to be, but they are at least a fairly powerful force that any alien power would have to get rid of first before making a blanket power play on the whole world.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Drachasor on February 11, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about belief shaping how your magic works... I don't think WCVs inherently 'count', but if you *believe* they do the effect on your soul via killing them with magic might be the same.

By the rules accidental killing counts (that's what it recommends, generally speaking*).  Killing non-humans like Fae on purpose doesn't seem to count even if you consider them close enough to people.  So personally I think an explanation that goes beyond belief makes the most sense.

*They seem to make an exception for Harry.
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: BumblingBear on February 11, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
By the rules accidental killing counts (that's what it recommends, generally speaking*).  Killing non-humans like Fae on purpose doesn't seem to count even if you consider them close enough to people.  So personally I think an explanation that goes belief makes the most sense.

*They seem to make an exception for Harry.

Hmmm.

I know it's probably a pipe dream but it would be really cool to get something official on this.

I know that it'll probably have to wait until the whole series is done, though. :(
Title: Re: First law and were creatures.
Post by: Bruce Coulson on February 11, 2011, 05:24:59 PM
We have several sets of Laws.

Consider that Morgan was prepared to give Harry a hard time over summoning a minor Fae, despite the fact that (according to the RPG) such an act does not contravene any Law.  Nor has there ever been a suggestion that such an act could possibly impose the Lawbreaker power.

So.  We have the Laws as written (per the books), the Laws as enforced (per the books), and the Laws in the RPG.  There are some common areas of agreement (killing regular humans with Magic is Bad) but some areas where the Laws conflict and contradict.  (And the fact that in the books, the Laws of Magic; unlike the Unseelie Accords; do appear to have a spirit as well as a letter of the law.)

My opinion/take on this.  The basic Laws are generally understood statements of meta-physical reality; rules of thumb on what is bad for a mortal practitioner to start doing.  (Sort of like natural philosophy as opposed to Newtonian physics; you don't need to know the math behind gravity, or the Laws of Motion, to understand falling off a cliff is a Bad Idea.)  The Laws as enforced are White Council edicts.  They can be rigidly and narrowly interpreted when dealing with political outsiders or those who have angered the White Council.  Contrariwise, they can be broadly interpreted for political favorites or when the situation seems to require this.  (What would the White Council have done to Harry, had it not been clear that the Red Court was spoiling for a war and a casus belli?)  The Laws in any given game will fit the requirements of the group playing.

So, the White Council does have the right basic idea; enforcing the Laws of Magic.  However, over time this has been used as a means to gain and retain power over mortal practitioners, and the regard for the 'Laws of Magic' is as much political as it is a reflection of reality (crazed wizards doing whatever they can for power Would Be Bad).  Supporters of the current regime can argue that without the Council, things would be much worse, and who's going to stop all these warlocks if the Council collapses?  The opponents (if they dared to voice an opinion) would argue that the very perversion of the Laws to maintain power rather than protecting humanity reflects a darkness within the Council.  And both sides have some right.