Since this is Paladin week, I have a question about the move “I am the law”. Maybe I am not looking at this the wrong way but I don’t like the way it works.
On a 10+ you get +1 ongoing against them and they have the choice to 1) Do as you say
2) back away cautiously, then flee
or
3) Attack you.
In 2 of the 3 scenarios this doesn’t seem like much of a success. It could be just me. Thank in advance for your thoughts.
The move is there to exert your authority. That is what the “success condition” is. How people react to authority depends on them, but there is no question who is in charge.
Yeah, when my group first saw it the GM said basically “Wow that’s cool. Basically you’re just forcing the situation. One way or the other it’s going to get resolved.”
I like that a lot.
Stephen Brandon right? I feel like maaaaaybe there’s room for one other option like “they mumble, apologize and dissemble, waiting for a way out” but maybe that’s covered by “back away slowly”
I think that could easily fall under “back away slowly.”
It feels so righteous to use I Am The Law when you’re totally outmatched.
It also allows the paladin to not throw the first punch. I love it. They say “stand down” and it turns into a brawl, but the paladin can be like “but he started it.”
The Paladin always has the moral high ground.
Adam Koebel Which is not to say that the paladin is always a good person.
Damn right.
The way I see it is, it’s a crap move if you use it to say “Stop Attacking Me!” or “Don’t Run Away!” because those are just things they can do if you succeed. It’s a brilliant move to say “Leave Those People Alone!” or “Unhand the Holy Crest of Auron!” because if you succeed, they can’t keep doing what you told ’em not to.