Chad, on the other hand, is personally uncomfortable with the idea that the edge cases, seeing them being low on or absent of intent. In his games, the universe would let you off the hook this time.
White Court Vampires (have souls, but Harry kills em, no problem)
White Court Virgins
Denarians (Mainly human - moreso if they are not completely dominated by the Fallen)
Winter Knight
Red Court Infected (Have souls and all, but if they count, Harry is in BIG trouble)
Werewolves (Alphas: Harry seems to consider them to be "wizards with on spell" and Wizards are apparently on the don't kill list
Loup-Garou: A human who was cursed. Does this automatically make him fair game?)
If I may ask: What about the limits of "human"?
Usual disclaimers apply. Just my opinion, my table, etc.
Most don't. I think of Thomas -- someone who's actively fighting off his demon, not giving in to it -- as more an exception than a rule.
Human.
Case by case.
Distinctly human. It's the point of the mortal knights that they are mortals.
Human. But RCIs aren't the same as RCVs.
Human.
Human, but maybe not when in full on demon-dog mode.
FWIW, the only thing we have in book-canon that's even close to an accidental breaking of the Laws is Harry blowing up Bianca's party, and scorched human remains were found later. It's possible they were already dead, and it's possible they weren't. We don't know.
But since Harry didn't seem to pick up Lawbreaker there, that's my rationalization why I tend to be more lenient on accidents.
So:
* I forzare you into the path of an oncoming car I didn't know was coming? Universe grants a pass.
* I forzare you off the roof of a tall building and you become street pizza? Lawbreaker, baby.
I'm curious Chad, where do you put a limit of foreseeable consequences? I mean, throwing someone into the road whether you knew a car was coming or not, it seems reasonable to expect a car to hit them. On the other hand I could see that binding someone and then the building burns down might go beyond the pale of reasonable.
Iago/Darkwood, do wereforms break the first law when they kill with their teeth/claws/whatever?
My main issue with the Lawbreaker stunt is the fact that it grants bonuses, and therefore has a refresh cost. There have been times in our games where Breaking a law would have been very interesting for the group, but the wizard in question only had one refresh left. At that point, breaking a law and taking a stunt would render him an NPC. Anyone have recommendations on dealing with that?
Anyone have recommendations on dealing with that?Another option - take an extreme consequence / aspect change of Wrestling with My Conscience or something appropriate and keep it until you spend the refresh on Lawbreaker.
Question my good man: Say for example I have my character Sneaky McStealthyson who is the king stealth and veiling on top of stealth. Sneaky veils himself, sneaks up on his mark, unveils himself, shanks the poor guy with a titanium spork to death, then veils himself, and stealthy skips away like a happy school girl. Other than Sneaky being an assassin with a fatter wallet at the hypothetical moment, did he even break the first law of magic or would this be an example of dancing around the edge of the laws enough to potentially invoke the wrath of the Wardens or even a "Blackstaff"?
Question my good man: Say for example I have my character Sneaky McStealthyson who is the king stealth and veiling on top of stealth.
Curse you. Now I have to make a Sneaky assassin type. One that technically only breaks the mortal laws... And find a reason that he hasn't been hunted down as an assassin by the Wardens who tend to defend innocent mortals...
That's it. He kills other killers.
Richard
As for the 'killing for good reasons'...before you can reinforce the idea that it is okay to kill 'only for the right reasons' you must first reinforce the idea that there are 'right reasons' to kill, and that the individual is capable of distinguishing them.
Jim has referred to magic as "the power of creation". Killing with it apparently violates that essential nature of magic.
True. But Im talking of more...natural? things. Like animals or plants. I can wrap my head around faries and undead. Other earthly creatures makes less sense to me, though the imagination bit might have something to do with it.
If working under the assumption of blackstaff's theory, mundane non-humans would fall under the category of 'byproducts of creation'.As a matter of fact, you're right: My theory IS incredibly humanocentric. That is because it's only a Lawbreaker violation to kill humans, enthrall, transform, mentally invade them.
This theory is incredibly humanocentric, but hey, maybe that works for your game.
The Dresdenverse uses a different definition of 'soul' than most real-life people would readily recognize.
Angels are not protected under the Laws any more so than demons, and yet they are beings of (almost) entirely soul.
So Fae have souls? RCV too? They can use magic. (playing a little devils advocate here)I did specify that it has to do with the human soul, and free will.
Yea, but you also said magic comes from the soul. Souless creatures, therefor, would not be able to do magic.I think it has to do with the human soul and its potential to change--in both ways.
I think recklessness with magic counts.The White Council will just take off your head but that doesn't decide whether or not you get Lawbreak (the metaphysical punishment for breaking the Laws). If there is no intent to kill then there should be no Lawbreaker (and especially if there is no intent to do harm to another human); but the White Council will still take off your head if you kill with magic regardless of circumstances or any extenuating information.
I think that's why some people, Morgan for example, are so hardcore when it comes to the Law.
If you let people be reckless with their magic and use excuses to worm their way out of the consequences, then what's the point of the Law? Incinerating a building that you believe to be empty... but you don't know for sure? That's reckless and claiming ignorance or accident if someone gets killed by that recklessness is practically begging to be killed. "Kill me now because I'm too stupid for magic."
Or Wardens like Harry that refuse to kill people.Um Harry has no problem with killing people. He doesn't like it (and even less likes killing kids who have gone Warlock pretty much just out of ignorance and might be salvageable) and it grateful that the warden commander generally doesn't assign him to anti-warlock duty but he doesn't refuse to kill people.
I think recklessness with magic counts.I've seen Jim say something similar--that the results matter as much as the intent, because even if you intend not to, ending someone else's life is a big thing.
I think that's why some people, Morgan for example, are so hardcore when it comes to the Law.
If you let people be reckless with their magic and use excuses to worm their way out of the consequences, then what's the point of the Law? Incinerating a building that you believe to be empty... but you don't know for sure? That's reckless and claiming ignorance or accident if someone gets killed by that recklessness is practically begging to be killed. "Kill me now because I'm too stupid for magic."
Um Harry has no problem with killing people. He doesn't like it (and even less likes killing kids who have gone Warlock pretty much just out of ignorance and might be salvageable) and it grateful that the warden commander generally doesn't assign him to anti-warlock duty but he doesn't refuse to kill people.What Harry objects to isn't so much killing people, but executing people.
Even Warlocks.
1: You cast a fire evocation that burns a human to death.
Lawbreaker and WC coming to kill you.
2: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a fire evocation.
Lawbreaker and WC coming to kill you.
3: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a lighter that has been conjured.
No Lawbreaker. WC may gnash its teeth, but probably won't kill you.
4: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a torch that has been lit with a fire evocation.
Same as 3.
5: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a torch that has been previously lit with a fire evocation for the purpose of providing illumination.
Same as 4.
6: You use a fire evocation to incinerate a building that you honestly believe to be empty.
Lawbreaker. Harry escapes this one because I subscribe to "they were already dead in the Velvet Room. If the WC finds out, choppy choppy stab stab.
7: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a regular lighter.
Nope.
Hard-line old-school warden gets the case? A ten minute 'investigation, 5 minute 'trial', and a quick death.Put much better than I did.
Ramirez-era or similar warden gets the case? A much longer investigation, an actual trial, and the potential for rehabilitation.
I have a hard time picturing them killing kids...
Well, they'd keep the Aspect-based corruption from their law-breaking. But I don't see much point in docking their Refresh.Hmm, the whole justice/mercy debate I suppose.
I suspect this is the sort of thing that would actually be a 'even the most hardliner of Wardens would at least consider the Doom over execution'.Forget it. If it was the wardens own child maybe but even then it was already too late because another warden cut his head off before the 5 minute trial could start.
Hope, anyway. :P