I'm just wondering if it is appropriate to let him squirm out of the lawbreaker stunt.I'd ask him if he's willing / interested in playing the redemption / road to corruption theme. If so, give him the Lawbreaker power and let him work through it. If not, come up with a reason it won't apply. One possible reason is lack of intent - if the 'damage' from breaking the law is from knowingly killing a human... (I tend to take a more literalist view, but either is valid depending on what the group wants.)
"I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder," is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation. You had the weapon. You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion. (Or if you DIDN'T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people's lives, something really no less excuseable.) But you chose to employ the weapon anyway. The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.
Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions. You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn't like anyone *died* or anything. He's fine (at least in the long term), you're fine, and there are fewer repercussions--regardless of your hideous intentions.
Except as Jim said in that very post it's the end result that matters, not the intention that led to that result. So even if he thought he was killing zombies the fact is that he took a life.
At this point I'm only playing the devil's advocate. My real opinion can be read further above. Just stating that Jim seems pretty clear about his opinion in the post.
Um, I think that whole "eat the ghost" thing was a bit of a ramp up.
In later books he sometimes struggles with the urge to kill, something that had been fading until then...
But you're right - the books aren't stat'ed out so we'll never know for sure. All we do know is the feelings of Jim who says "intent doesn't matter". So you didn't intent to kill people and you did - that's life.
Richard
Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.
Intent doesn't matter. Belief does.
There are stats for Harry after the start of the vampire war, and he doesn't have the second lawbreaker stunt.
Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.
Intent doesn't matter. Belief does.
So in summary yes it sucks, but that 1 refresh is also the main balancing point of playing a wizard in this game. And if he takes the doom, remember his mentor is also putting his life on the line. That is why it's so rare, most folks won't put thier life on the line for someone else. Another option is that everyone keeps it hush hush and makes sure the council never finds out.
so it would be quite easy to hide your lawbreaking especially in places with on going conflict.
Does the Lawbreaker Stunt mean anything other than, "Now as punishment, I'm going to force you to play at one less Refresh than all the other player characters. Their PCs all get 7 Refresh to play with. You only get 6 because that Lawbreaker Stunt that will never help your character is going to squat like a toad on your character sheet, occupying space uselessly. Congratulations on having a character that sucks more than everyone else's."
I mean, heck, even an Extreme Consequence is still an Aspect like any other. It can turn into a Fate point factory and benefit your character. Lawbreaker is a sucky stunt. If Lawbreaker could actually help your PC in some fashion other than forcing more lawbreaking on him, it would be a different matter.
Ghosts aren't people.
Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.
Intent doesn't matter. Belief does.
Wizards have the Sight. They can take a second See if someone is a person or a thing - which is a bit like pausing for half a second to be sure that you're aiming a real deer and not a person. How is this different than shooting intending to hit a deer and hitting Frank instead?
The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.