That can work fine if he picks an appropriate playbook (Chopper is especially appropriate, though many others could also be good) and isn't horribly underpowered compared to the others (maybe give him a couple free advancements?), and he's cool with playing a character who's gonna die.

And, of course, assuming all the players are on-board with inter-PC conflict (which I'd assume most AW groups are, but it doesn't hurt to make sure).

Anyone else have an opinion?

I mean, I don't disagree with those put forward so far, but I was hoping for more.

Yes.

See here for the definitive statement. Though, as you note and like all moves, the 'to do it, do it' principle applies, so you have to explain how you're helping or hindering.

I wouldn't worry too much about it getting too good, after all helping out opens them up to you making Moves against them if they fail, so it's not like they aren't taking a risk to do it, and the benefits are nice but not overpowering.  Besides, even if it is unbelievably awesome there being very good benefits to cooperation feeds perfectly into both being fans of the PCs and making Apocalypse World seem real.

It says 'Choose 3-5 laws and the penalties for breaking them'. I think that pretty clearly indicates specific penalties per law, and the way Lawbringer works gets really strange and counterintuitive if the Laws don't have specific penalties as well.

So I'm pretty sure you assign specific penalties per Law. I could be wrong, obviously, but that's how I'd play or run it.

So, I've noticed that as of 2E, there's a fundamental scarcity of high Sharp playbooks. I mean, in the core and extended playbooks combined there are 4 Cool, 4 Hard, 3 Hot, 4 Weird, and a whole 1 Sharp based playbook (plus The Show, which is half Hot and half Weird and thus not super relevant to this specific discussion). There's only the Angel, nobody else. Angel is also the only playbook that allows Sharp to advance to +3 before the generic 'any stat to +3' advance, and does it without making it a Move, making this unavailable to anyone who isn't an actual Angel.

This doesn't seem to be a major design goal (unless I'm wrong and it is), just a side effect of the Driver being Cool based now (rather than Sharp based as in 1E...probably a good decision) and none of the extended playbooks being Sharp based. It's nonetheless interesting to examine...and partially made up for by a full eight non Sharp-primary playbooks having a Sharp +2 stat line (Brainer, Driver, Gunlugger, Hardholder, Savvyhead, Faceless, Quarantine, and Child Thing), while only four non Cool-primary playbooks have a +2 Cool stat line (Angel, Brainer, Chopper, and Gunlugger), and only one playbook each having such an option for Hard, Hot, and Weird respectively (Maestro D' for Hard, Battlebabe for Hot, Gunlugger for Weird).

Those are interesting numbers to note, and say interesting things about how the stats are distributed, with Sharp rarely being a main focus but often a secondary focus, and Cool being a surprisingly common secondary focus as well.

It's also notable that Brainers have +2 Cool and +2 Sharp both as available options, and that the Gunlugger has both those and +2 Weird as well, making everything but Hot available at the +2 level for the discerning Gunlugger.

A related (and also interesting) note is the +1 stat moves, of which there is one each for Cool and Hot, two for Hard, and a full three for Weird...and, as noted, none at all for Sharp.

So...yeah. That's a thing I noted and wanted to share.

Yeah, I'd say it's about how the world views the situation.

If you don't pick those options, the world might think they maybe owe you a little barter or something, but they don't see it as a big deal.

If, on the other hand, you pick those options and then they fail to pay up? Then the people they interact with are gonna see them as someone that doesn't pay their debts. Someone untrustworthy.  And that matters.

Yes, I'd agree that's how that works.

I mean, how else can you parse that sentence?

So...basically what the title says. In Apocalypse World 2E, Suckering Someone is listed as a separate move from Going Aggro, but it's mechanics specifically reference Going Aggro and (more importantly) the descriptive elements of the Battlebabe's 'Ice Cold' seem tailor made for helping them commit cold blooded murder.

If MCing a game I'd definitely have it work, but I'm wondering if that's a House Rule, or rather the intent of the rules as they stand?