Wards and the First Law

[devonapple]

Council is a bit overly jumpy, they might decide you are a law breaker (though a soulgaze could change their mind, I think).  In game terms, you don't get lawbreaker though, and that's far more important than such petty issues such as whether you get killed over a misunderstanding or not.

Dresden's insistence on

(click to show/hide)

bringing down his Wards in advance of a police raid

has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.

[zaq.hack]

Wards = Your will ...

You may not desire to kill anyone, but there clearly is a reason why killing with magic is different than killing with a big rock. As mentioned above, if your wards kill someone, that goes on "your tab." You may not be considered a huge threat (the first time) and it may be pretty explainable as "self defense," but it's your magic that killed them in most cases. YS277 makes it pretty clear that "landmines" in your wards are your responsibility.

I've come around to thinking of this as "The Wardens will want to have a talk with you" and they better like what they hear if you don't want separation anxiety with your cranium.

[Tbora]

Wards = non sentient.So long as you don't make a ward with "instant death to Mr.NotInTheKnow VanillaMortal" your clear. And suppose someone/something disappears the body before the wizard in question gets back? Then how would he know someone died in the first place, ergo how would it twist his soul?

Dresden's insistence on

(click to show/hide)

bringing down his Wards in advance of a police raid

has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.

I have agree with this.

And here is my Ward idea, in the presence of an offensive attack the ward is tripped and anything within a 10 square foot radius outside of the door is immediately Banished into a random part of the Nevernever that is far from the place the Ward is located both physically from a crossing point in the real world and metaphysically in the Nevernever.Leaves no trace evidence of the victim setting it off so no no mess to clean up.Also, no First Law as you did not kill them, in fact because its completely random its up to the GM where they appear (so long as it follows the Far away from ward placement requirement).And if GM decides "oh they appeared over a bottomless pit of darkness" and asks you take a First Law violation that is a dick move, and as stated previously Zeroth Lawbreaker.

[Sanctaphrax]

That's a bit sketchy. I'd say that the GM can call that Lawbreaking as long as he's upfront about it in advance.

[Drachasor]

Dresden's insistence on

(click to show/hide)

bringing down his Wards in advance of a police raid

has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.

I concur.  I also think Dresden has his place set up so that it wouldn't inadvertently kill anyone just passing through.  I think that IF you setup your wards to be trigger-happy about killing people, then that could get you Lawbreaker if they killed someone.  So if hitting the door kinda hard results in an explosion that kills whomever did that, then that's probably grounds for giving them lawbreaker as that goes even beyond reckless disregard for others.  I admit this point is arguable, but it seems about right as designing a system with casual lethality seems to imply a certain ugliness in your intents.

While the book emphasizes intent as a huge factor, and that makes sense from how the system works.  I think a GM in a game also has to be wary about how reckless disregard for lives can also be an intent of its own.  Obviously this gets a bit tricky if we are extremely concerned about replicating what is in the book (Dresden torching the Bianca's mansion and not getting Lawbreaker).  One might allow extremely dire straights without alternatives beyond uncontrolled magic leading to some inadvertent deaths to be an excuse to not get Lawbreaker.  Or one could say the GM forgot about the innocents in the mansion until way after the fact (next session or something) and decided to handwave the lawbreaker bit away.  Honestly, I think the mansion bit is the trickiest bit in the books to adapt to the rules in a way that doesn't open up abuses.

[Bruce Coulson]

In the mansion, Harry was facing a dire situation; the deaths of his friends, and himself.  His intent was to save his life, by empowering the only force available to him.  The idea that there might have been mortals also trapped in the mansion didn't even occur to Harry until sometime after the event was over.

In that case, the intent (save my ass and kill vampires) was clear.  Not only did Harry not intend to kill mortals, he didn't even have time to think or consider whether any mortals were actually present.

Any interpretation is open to abuses; but there's a world of difference between making a split-second decision to save lives (including your own) and crafting a ward which has potentially lethal effects.  With a ward, you have plenty of time to make decisions as to how the ward will operate, and what it will do when triggered.  This is where intent (or reckless disregard) comes in.  If you have time to consider the full ramifications of your actions, and still do something that may lead to Lawbreaker...you voluntarily took that risk.

[devonapple]

I wonder if there could be some Community Code for "There is no wrong answer - discuss with your GM in light of the points discussed here - but there will never be a right answer on X topic."

[sjksprocket]

I wonder if there could be some Community Code for "There is no wrong answer - discuss with your GM in light of the points discussed here - but there will never be a right answer on X topic."

I like discussions like this. We might not come up with a set rule, but it can still be a good discussion because someone might come up with something for themselves that other wise they wouldn't. Plus it's interesting to see other peoples thoughts on this matter.

[Kommisar]

I already thought that was the point of this (and similar threads).   

One of the things I really like about this RPG is that it doesn't feel the need to try and codify every single thing that may come up!  Perhaps this love comes from having spent the last 8 years or so running various GURPS games.  Nothing better than having a player spending hours combing through a stack of supplemental books, errata, and printed FAQs to prove that he was right about some obscure call.

But on something like this, everyone is going to have to find their own answer with their group.  This is just a great method of exposing yourself to different view points. 

[devonapple]

I like discussions like this. We might not come up with a set rule, but it can still be a good discussion because someone might come up with something for themselves that other wise they wouldn't. Plus it's interesting to see other peoples thoughts on this matter.

Of course! I enjoy them as well. But some threads die down to a stalemate, and then get resurrected by a new member of the hobby, only to flare up, die down to another stalemate, and... well, it's like the Summer and Winter Courts. And maybe I'm being Aurora.

[sjksprocket]

LOL. Too true, too true. But that's human nature. It's interesting that sometimes the differences between us and the Fae can be so close. Maybe that's why they show such interest in us. 

[Drachasor]

In the mansion, Harry was facing a dire situation; the deaths of his friends, and himself.  His intent was to save his life, by empowering the only force available to him.  The idea that there might have been mortals also trapped in the mansion didn't even occur to Harry until sometime after the event was over.

I just don't think that not considering the consequences of your actions really is all that valid of an excuse.  Especially in a game it encourages people to not think.  And as far as story goes, I really doubt the Wardens would take "well I didn't even remember there were a dozen innocent bystanders around when I filled the place with magical fire" as a valid defense.  Heck, they don't even take self-defense as justification (Harry barely managed to survive killing someone who was utterly evil when his life was on the line).

In that case, the intent (save my ass and kill vampires) was clear.  Not only did Harry not intend to kill mortals, he didn't even have time to think or consider whether any mortals were actually present.

Which is a really dangerous and even scary way to use one's immense power.

Any interpretation is open to abuses; but there's a world of difference between making a split-second decision to save lives (including your own) and crafting a ward which has potentially lethal effects.  With a ward, you have plenty of time to make decisions as to how the ward will operate, and what it will do when triggered.  This is where intent (or reckless disregard) comes in.  If you have time to consider the full ramifications of your actions, and still do something that may lead to Lawbreaker...you voluntarily took that risk.

It isn't like Harry didn't have time to realize there were innocent people around.  On some level he most definitely knew it, he had been at that gathering for an hour or more.  He had dealt with the fact Michael was completely pissed off about the innocents there.  Heck, he didn't even like it.  What you are saying here is not that different from someone saying they didn't even consider what would happen if a human came in contact with a ward.  It's the same sort of thoughtlessness, the same lack of clear intent to kill a human, the same reckless disregard.  Heck, at least with a ward you didn't see the people moving in and out of the warded area in the last few moments (or perhaps ever).

Frankly, it is kind of hard to believe Harry didn't get a lot of flak from the council over the burnt human bodies in Bianca's mansion.  It doesn't really make any sense given how the Council was portrayed before and after that incident.

[Bruce Coulson]

The way the scene is described, Harry has tunnel vision (which is not uncommon in combat situations) and probably tunnel thought.  So, his thoughts were strictly focused on survival.

There's also the possibility that Harry didn't kill anyone.  The RCV may have fed up in anticipation of the battle; or they may have killed the mortals in a desperate attempt to get the energy to flee and survive.

And there's the political angle.  Either Harry is going to be handed over to the Red Court for violation of the Accords (in which case prosecution of him as a Lawbreaker is not only moot, but possibly a violation of the Accords) or the White Council is at war, in which case killing off your own membership is a bad idea.

There's also the key fact that Harry did not command or order anything.  He gave the ghosts power, but not orders.  He did not summon them, nor even speak to them except to send power to them.  Yeah, it's a loophole; but it required the presence of a group who would attack.  Had Bianca decided to have her soiree in a brand new hotel, without any ghosts, it wouldn't have worked.

[sinker]

I would like to point out that mechanically the events of Grave Peril are a poor example. Harry already has the lawbreaker(first) power, therefore breaking the first law again would have no mechanical consequences. Although Harry's player Jim did a really good job of playing the conflict that would have resulted.

Also you're confusing two different events, Bruce. There was the party that Dresden was invited to (that he burned down, possibly with living mortals inside) that Bianca escaped. Then there was the failed assault on Bianca's house afterward where Harry called up and empowered the ghosts of the dead to kill her (and am I the only one who's wondering why he doesn't have Lawbreaker(fifth) now?).

[Bruce Coulson]

He was still acting instinctively, without thinking.  (btw, the only way I'd let a player get away with that defense is if they blurted out what they were doing without hesitation, during a very intense scene with build-up to a climax.)

I would think that Harry would have Lawbreaker (2) for killing a second time, mechanically.  (Although Harry and Billy would probably argue that a game gets to break down events into neat little boxes, whereas real life tends to be untidy, messy, and with occasional conundrums.  Then Bob would chime in with 'I'm all in favor of occasional condoms, if Harry actually needed them.')

The Fifth Law isn't very clear.  Harry didn't seek power; he gave power.  Again, this could have been a Warden issue if there wasn't a war brewing.  (I see this as a group decision on interpretation.)