Compels, Accidental Killings and the 1st law

[DFJunkie]

I have allways wondered if you never knew you killed someone with magic and had no intent to kill anybody with magic when you used it and the white council never found out would this still give you the lawbreaker stunt would your soul be tainted by something so external to you?  

Yes, absolutely.  The Lawbreaker power is always applied when a mortal practitioner breaks one of the Laws.  Whether or not the WC discovers the transgression and sends in the Wardens is an entirely separate issue.

[bitterpill]

My question was more about if a character never knew he had killed someone (and never found out) and had no reason to suspect that his actions would lead to death. So would he be tainted by something he never even knew about on a conscious level, something completely isolated from both his knowledge and intentions?

[DFJunkie]

Well Jim has stated a couple times that intentions don't matter, outcomes do, so I'd say yes.  Lawbreaker does seem to be imposed by something external.  So if (for instance) a blast of fire went through a RCV, through a wall, and vaporized someone's toddler the spellcaster in question would get the Lawbreaker power.  Admittedly, the player would have to know, but it's possible that the character never would.

[Wolfwood2]

Ultimately something like this could turn into a showdown at the table.

REFEREE: Take the Lawbreaker stunt.

PLAYER: I refuse.

Then the rest of the players start offering their opinion, and somebody gives or the game breaks up.

[DFJunkie]

Wait, you mean if a GM were to simply impose that outcome on a player without offering the player a choice, or even a warning with the option to let the spell fizzle?  That would be just absurdly high-handed.  The appropriate response would be for the entire group to quit on the spot.

I thought this was some hypothetical scenario, or for someone's PC background.  You know, a character that's just strangely good at killing things, and isn't sure why.

[bitterpill]

Wait, you mean if a GM were to simply impose that outcome on a player without offering the player a choice, or even a warning with the option to let the spell fizzle?  That would be just absurdly high-handed.  The appropriate response would be for the entire group to quit on the spot.

I thought this was some hypothetical scenario, or for someone's PC background.  You know, a character that's just strangely good at killing things, and isn't sure why.

It was, it was me proving to myself to a large extent the rules of magic are arbitary and random but then so is life so I can't really complain.

[DFJunkie]

It was, it was me proving to myself to a large extent the rules of magic are arbitary and random but then so is life so I can't really complain.

Or maybe they're neither arbitrary nor random.  Maybe Harry is wrong, and magic is derived from an essentially corrupting, evil source and only strict adherence to certain laws prevents that evil from influencing the caster to it's own diabolical ends. 

[sjksprocket]

But if that's the case Harry would have at least law break two or higher. He would have LB 1 for killing Justin then +1 for every person he killed when he blew up Bianca's mansion. On a number of occasions Jim Butcher writes in several of his books that Harry does not know if he killed anyone when he blasted the mansion But they found remains of a number of human bodies. And yes there where human remains, besides the RCV remains. Harry doesn't know if he killed them or if they where already dead. If someone wants to play with the laws of magic as completely black or white, with nothing in between feel free, but I'm not because it doesn't appear to be. Just look at the countless arguments on this board.

If I came into a situation where I had no idea it was "Do this one option or die" and the GM knew about it and didn't forewarn me, or they didn't know it would happen and they didn't bother with another potential outcome, I wouldn't be all that happy about it.

Wait, you mean if a GM were to simply impose that outcome on a player without offering the player a choice, or even a warning with the option to let the spell fizzle?  That would be just absurdly high-handed.  The appropriate response would be for the entire group to quit on the spot.

I would quit. But yet again if that's how someone else wants to play that's fine. Just talk with your group before you start playing to warn them that this possibility could arise. If everyone around the table knows this can happen and is okay with it, I'd say run with it. But not all player (including me) might like this.

An unhappy player does not make good narration. just make sure all the players are on the same page. And that should be standard for all campaigns. Unfortunately it isn't. I can't tell you haw many game I've played that just fell apart because people had different expectations, or just simply didn't know what was going on.

[bitterpill]

In the core book in the lawbreaker section it says that you gain lawbreaker when you choose to break one of the laws (the corupting bit where you use you identity as weapon and blacken yourself) this would mean accord to system mechanics non-intentional breakage of the law would not give you the stunt.

[DFJunkie]

But if that's the case Harry would have at least law break two or higher.

Only if he actually killed people at the party.

Look, my theory is just that, a theory, and under my theory Harry would not have been able to kill those people.  

However, I do not find the idea that the laws just exist arbitrarily and randomly likely at all.  Jim has put a lot of thought into the series, and from what I understand of the way that Evil Hat came up with the books Jim had a lot of input.  I doubt that the implementation of the Laws is particularly divergent from the way he envisions them working.

Alternatively, harm caused by magic is "fed back" to the caster via the sympathetic link between caster and target, so even if the caster is unaware of the effects of his or her actions the metaphysical repercussions still find their way back.  If the victim of the action is too alien (non-human) there is no real resonance, and no lasting effect to the caster.

In the core book in the lawbreaker section it says that you gain lawbreaker when you choose to break one of the laws

The "choose" might refer to the player.  I'd have to read the section to be sure.  I'll check WoJ over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure he was clear that causing a death with magic makes one a Lawbreaker, intent doesn't enter into it.

[bitterpill]

Whenever you choose to break one of the
Laws of Magic, you’re crossing a very real line.
By taking such an action, you’ve altered your
self-image and your beliefs—the very basis of
you—to be the sort of person who breaks that
Law. Often, once you do that, there’s no turning
back.

[DFJunkie]

Remember the central conceit of the game is that it's being designed by Billy the Werewolf to be run by Kirby the Werewolf, with Bob and Harry as consultants.

It's going to reflect Harry's views of magic, with some attempts by Bob and Billy to attain some sort of objectivity.

I would love to play The Cowl Chronicles: Will to Power.  

It has only one volume, called My World.

[sjksprocket]

Only if he actually killed people at the party.

Look, my theory is just that, a theory, and under my theory Harry would not have been able to kill those people.  

However, I do not find the idea that the laws just exist arbitrarily and randomly likely at all.  Jim has put a lot of thought into the series, and from what I understand of the way that Evil Hat came up with the books Jim had a lot of input.  I doubt that the implementation of the Laws is particularly divergent from the way he envisions them working.

Alternatively, harm caused by magic is "fed back" to the caster via the sympathetic link between caster and target, so even if the caster is unaware of the effects of his or her actions the metaphysical repercussions still find their way back.  If the victim of the action is too alien (non-human) there is no real resonance, and no lasting effect to the caster.
The "choose" might refer to the player.  I'd have to read the section to be sure.  I'll check WoJ over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure he was clear that causing a death with magic makes one a Lawbreaker, intent doesn't enter into it.

I don't think my view of this is random or all that arbitrary. It is my interpretation of the series as well as the RPG that you have to choose to blacken your soul. Karma can still come back and bite you in the butt. I know that "the road to hell is paved in good intentions" but I think that karma can come back at you more ways than dooming you to burning for all eternity. That's why I'm saying it's a huge gray area, that has to be taken case by case, and can't be blanket statemented.

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this point.

Remember the central conceit of the game is that it's being designed by Billy the Werewolf to be run by Kirby the Werewolf, with Bob and Harry as consultants.

It's going to reflect Harry's views of magic, with some attempts by Bob and Billy to attain some sort of objectivity.

That's just the perspective that was used to make the book more interesting. It wasn't actually written by them in real life.

[Bruce Coulson]

I think Kumori's (?) perspective would be far more interesting...and troubling.

Cowl is, at heart, your standard megalomaniac rule the world kind of guy.

Kumori presented a more nuanced approach, and one that Harry didn't have a good answer for.  (Or perhaps, Harry didn't have reasons for his answer, whereas Kumori clearly had thought about the questions.)

It's easy to dismiss the guy who wants to rule the world no matter what; it's much harder to deal with someone who may be doing the wrong thing...but for good reasons.