Author Topic: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking  (Read 86779 times)

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
"Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« on: March 15, 2011, 08:19:55 PM »
Hey, folks. I've had a few people from the forum email me directly asking for an official word on Lawbreaking. We hate doing official word stuff in general, because we believe in folks getting to own their own version of the setting with each campaign.

So this isn't an official word. Instead, it's what our perspective would be on the topic if we were putting together a campaign of our own.

Before I get into it, I want to note that I don't think it's particularly fruitful for folks to hijack every conversation to bring up the breaking of the Laws (and it seems like that, sometimes, when we peek in). But that's not a one-sided issue. I think anyone posting a topic for discussion that is NOT interested in discussing the Lawbreaking side of the topic should say so in the original post (maybe even in the subject line, so it's always obvious to folks clicking in, e.g., adding [No Law Talk Please] or similar to the subject). It would then be considered rude and bad form to start talking Law in that topic; start another topic and link back to the original if you feel you absolutely must.

Finally, I'm pretty busy! So I'm firing this off, but I probably won't be available for follow-up conversation. That shouldn't stop all of you from discussing amongst yourselves, of course. Just trying to set an expectation here.

So, the basics, in very short form:

It absolutely is a law of the universe that breaking one of the Laws of Magic actually changes you. Us folks who've worked on the RPG find this to be established in the canon, in the books, and as such don't see it as particularly up for debate. If you disagree, great, but shouting this over and over again just isn't constructive.

Intent matters. If you have the intent to kill someone with magic and you do it, you're changed.

Edge cases do come up in the grey areas: self-defense, first mistake, and accidents. The canonical answer on the first two seems to be a yes. Personally, I'd make it a yes to all three, because I don't think the powers that be in this regard are much for finesse, and trend towards a draconian posture. So, game-canon (if not book-canon) is that it still counts. That said, my personal draconian posture on this is founded in confidence that me and my crew can have *fun* when an accidental Lawbreaking occurs. If it's not fun for your table, there's certainly wiggle-room for the universe (i.e., the game mechanics) to give you a pass. In other words, if pushing hard for the stunt to show up in the case of an accident ruins the fun, makes the GM come off as a jerk -- then don't push hard. But me? I'm all go hard or go home. In my games, you'd get the stunt. 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.

But even when the universe gives you a pass (i.e., you don't pick up a Lawbreaker stunt), the White Council manages to be even less forgiving. Remember that the Doom of Damocles is a rare mercy, rarely exercised, and requiring a mutually-imperiled sponsor; beheading is the prevailing preference.

Harry is an unreliable narrator. We can only model the universe based on his imperfect understanding of the universe, but he could be wrong. Which is at the root of why we say...

It's your table. Figure it out on your own so you're all happy. Talk honestly, openly, and clearly. Mind the fun. That's what matters. But remember:

This forum isn't about just one table. That means what works at your table might not work at someone else's. That doesn't make your table wrong, and it also doesn't make their table wrong. So quit acting like either is the case. This is a big tent. Make some room for each other, and focus on the areas where you agree.
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline chadu

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Atomic Sock Monkey Press
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2011, 08:30:31 PM »
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.

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.


Chad Underkoffler
Atomic Sock Monkey Press

Offline knnn

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 4946
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2011, 08:45:56 PM »
If I may ask:  What about the limits of "human"?

i.e. 

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?)
         
DV Geek code:

DV knnn v1.2 YR4 FR3 BK++ RP+ JB+ TH WG+ CL(+) SW++++ BC- MC---(+) SH[Murphy+, Molly+]

Find out your Dresden Files "Purity" score: http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity.html

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2011, 08:49:54 PM »
Usual disclaimers apply. Just my opinion, my table, etc.

White Court Vampires (have souls, but Harry kills em, no problem)

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.

Quote
White Court Virgins

Human.

Quote
Denarians (Mainly human - moreso if they are not completely dominated by the Fallen)

Case by case.

Quote
Winter Knight

Distinctly human. It's the point of the mortal knights that they are mortals.

Quote
Red Court Infected (Have souls and all, but if they count, Harry is in BIG trouble)

Human. But RCIs aren't the same as RCVs.

Quote
Werewolves (Alphas: Harry seems to consider them to be "wizards with on spell" and Wizards are apparently on the don't kill list

Human.

Quote
                      Loup-Garou:  A human who was cursed.  Does this automatically make him fair game?)

Human, but maybe not when in full on demon-dog mode.
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline chadu

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Atomic Sock Monkey Press
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2011, 08:52:30 PM »
If I may ask:  What about the limits of "human"?

At my table?

* White Court Vampires = Fair Game
* White Court Virgins = Off Limits [1]
* Denarians  = Fair Game
* Winter Knight  = Fair Game [1]
* Red Court Infected  = Fair Game
* Werewolves = Off Limits
* Loup-Garou  = Fair Game

[1] WC Virgins and the Sidhe Knights would, in the final analysis, be treated as noted above, but I would totally be playing up the ambiguity in the midst of the game for drama's sake. (Heck, I could even be argued around on making the Virgins fair game and the Knights off limits!)


Chad Underkoffler
Atomic Sock Monkey Press

Offline knnn

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 4946
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2011, 09:26:49 PM »
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.

Thank you for coming back with an "official" answer so quickly.  My reasons for asking come of course from the various times that Harry seemingly uses magic with deadly force against various monsters without apparently considering the consequences of breaking the Law.

Examples include:
1) Blowing the tires off the truck in Fool Moon (Lycanthropes - though maybe the chance of killing there was rather low?)
2) Loup-Garou (he was in demon-mode - so like you said, maybe that doesn't count).
3) Denarians at the Shed (including the two that Luccio took down).  Also later on - on the island.
4) [Changes]
(click to show/hide)

Thanks again for responding so quickly
DV Geek code:

DV knnn v1.2 YR4 FR3 BK++ RP+ JB+ TH WG+ CL(+) SW++++ BC- MC---(+) SH[Murphy+, Molly+]

Find out your Dresden Files "Purity" score: http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity.html

Offline Tallyrand

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2011, 09:33:50 PM »
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.

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2011, 09:40:45 PM »
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.

To an extent, we can "meta" this. I think part of the job of defining "foreseeable" is on the GM's shoulders -- or the table in general. The GM says, "Hey, that's a busy road, and you might knock him out into it" and you go ahead and do it, I think technically the intent's there. The GM doesn't give you that warning -- and it's not brought up in any other way at the table -- then maybe it'd be dirty pool to assert intent. Not that the GM has to warn all the time, but doing so in advance of accepting the declaration of action should keep the air clear. Not letting a player correct his declaration of action once the player's given a fuller picture would be, after all, a bit of a dick move.
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline LCDarkwood

  • Warden
  • Conversationalist
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2011, 11:20:16 PM »
My thoughts on the topic required their own thread:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24800.0.html

Offline Ophidimancer

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2011, 05:52:40 AM »
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, Fred.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 02:19:41 PM by Ophidimancer »

Offline MacShidhe

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2011, 01:32:19 PM »
Thanks for this, it really helps  :)
Full Assed FTW!

DV MacShidhe v1.2 YR2 FR 0.75 BK++  RP++++ JB++ TH+ WG ?CL+ SW BC+ MC SH [Murphy++, Molly--, Elaine -]

NERO Plot Merc - "Have Mod, Will Travel"

Samael

  • Guest
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2011, 02:55:00 AM »
Iago/Darkwood, do wereforms break the first law when they kill with their teeth/claws/whatever?

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2011, 03:04:56 AM »
Iago/Darkwood, do wereforms break the first law when they kill with their teeth/claws/whatever?

I'd probably say no. (Consider that Wardens get a pass when they kill w/ their enchanted swords.)
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline Mij

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Undertown!
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2011, 04:09:10 AM »
Wow -- thanks Iago, for your thoughts on the matter! 
Your Laundry skill is Poor (-1), and the difficulty here is Great (+4) owing to old machines, poor lighting, and panty-stealing neighbors.  Roll the Fudge Dice, please.

Offline jstomel

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2011, 05:41:46 AM »
My view is that there may be a difference between what the universe thinks and what the council thinks. As near as I can tell the universe is not a moral creature in the dresdenverse and the laws of magic have little to nothing to do with "sin". Consider that killing somebody with a gun is fine, but killing somebody with a fireball is not. My understanding from what Harry has said in a few books is that magic is generated by life and using magic to directly destroy life sets up a negative feedback loop that permanently removes some magic from the universe. Presumedly the taint of dark magic is what wells up to fill the void. If you use magic to light a house on fire and that fire then rages out of control and kills some people after you stop pumping magic into it, no lawbreaker stunt. Similarly, if you forzare someone off a building you also get no lawbreaker stunt. What matters is the force of life causing death. However, the council's views on the first law may be more complex. To them the laws of magic don't just represent the physics of how the universe works, they represent a social order that must be maintained. A warlock might be clever enough to avoid direct lawbreaking (for instance, enchanting beer with the force to bring on unnatural lust in any who drank it), but the wardens would hardly care and no one would criticize. Example: Harry's love potion in storm front did not violate the fourth law as far as the universe was concerned (he didn't get another lawbreaker stunt for it), but directly entering someone's brain and tweaking them to love you would certainly violate it because twisting their brain when you were directly connected would also twist your own. The potion acts as a buffer that prevents you from becoming twisted by the act. If the wardens found out you were spreading love potions around, however, you probably wouldn't get a chance to plead your technicality at trial.