Dismissing Conjurations (which has turned into another Laws of Magic thread)

[KOFFEYKID]

Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.

[Moriden]

Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.

There dose seem to be a distinction, if there is a separation from the affect and the origination of a spell. if you combat summon a sword to murder someone then id definitely say lawbreaker stunt.  if you spend an hour to summon a sword[although why wouldn't you just buy one?] give it to  your assassin friend and he goes on a murder spree, do you, dose he, do both of you get the stunt?


I think the answer can be worked out if we take a step back and look at the specific situation instead of it as a generic example. You spend an hour to creat a sword, why? you could buy one for a similar amount of trouble, well with a conjured sword it will dosolve later leaveing no evidence of a murder wapon!  great so you now have a reaosn to want to summen a sword instead of buy one, you also are creating this weapon with the clear intent of it being used for murder. bam! you get lawbreaker[ if that weapon actually kills someone]

You give the new shiny sword to your friend Stabbby Mcassasin to use as his murder weapon dejoir for the next few hours knowing that it will dissolve latter and leave no evidential murder weapon, he proceeds to kill people with that weapon and no other use of magic. he is not channeling magical forces so dose not get tainted by that use of magic and thus no lawbreaker stunt. he should however face similar penalties as if he had, for example a warden might view this as a violation m and one of his aspects should probably be changed to "murderer with magic sword"


When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.

[KOFFEYKID]

When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.

There, you just supported my position without even realizing it. Yes, intent  matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword. What I do with that sword is another matter entirely, and Im no-longer directing the magic that holds the sword together. The spell is cast and it'll continue to do its job (which is to keep the ectoplasm in sword shape) until the duration ends.

[Deadmanwalking]

What KOFFEYKID said. There's a world of difference in intent between creating a weapon and killing directly.

[Moriden]

no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.

\

Yes, intent  matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword.

If your going to quote me please do so in context. What i said in regards to intent was that. if i throw a fireball at a person with intent to kill them and do so i have violated the law, if i do so and fail to kill them i have not. this is irrational but it is how the laws are written.

When you summon the sword you say your intent is to "create a sword" not to kill someone, but your not creating this sword just to put it on your mantel. your creating it to be used. the only purpose of a sword is to kill human beings, its never been used to hunt and sharp metal swords are rarely if ever used for showmanship or sparing, so if you are creating a functional sword you are creating a weapon of murder. You could say that your intent was to "create a weapon to combat the monsters" but if that weapon is used to kill a human you have still violated the law just as surely as the person who throws a fireball at a crowd of monsters and "accidentally' kills a few humans as well. The fact is that your creating amagical affect with the sole purpose of combat and thus death. weather  that affect instantly kills someone or dose so a few hours latter is irrelevant the only distinction that seems to matter is weather or not the magical affect successfully kills someone.

[iago]

Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)

[Rel Fexive]

I believe the difference between "shoot a fireball" and "conjure a knife, then stab" is that you don't need to summon and direct any magical power to do the actual stabbing, as long as you use your own muscles (or someone else's) rather than flinging it at them with magical force.  Because you are not using the fundamental force of magic, directed by your will, to cause death directly then you are not killing with magic, in the sense that anyone could take that knife and use it and not just you.

This is different to "throw someone off a roof with magic and let the fall kill them" because your intent within that spell is to kill; the intent within the conjuration spell is just to create a knife.

This is again different to "conjure an anvil over someone's head and let it drop on them" as the intent within that spell is to create something that will crush and thus kill the target; the intent within the knife conjuration spell is still to simply create a knife.

It's worth bearing in mind that you could conjure a spade to dig a hole (because you're no good at earth magic, maybe?) and then find you have to whack someone upside the head with it.  Does it matter if you didn't create a stabbity-stab weapon in the first place but still killed someone with your conjured spade?  Or would you suddenly get "penalised" for it?  I'd say no - you still don't get a Lawbreaker stunt for killing someone with a conjured object in the context of "I picked it up and hit him with it" because you are not channelling magical force through the lens of your deepest held beliefs in order to do it.  There's no special corruption going on, just the regular corruption of the soul that murderers probably get, which isn't covered by the Laws Of Magic.

Of course, it may be different in your games  

[Rel Fexive]

Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)

So, looking at my previous post, what if you create something intended for another purpose that you then find yourself having to use as a weapon?

[KOFFEYKID]

It doesn't matter what I intend to do with the sword, you want to tie the creation of a thing with the use of a thing, which is different. One can make a sword for more than just killing. What if the intent behind the forging of a sword was for defense? Defense might include killing, but it doesn't have to. Sometimes just having a sword would be enough to stop a fight.

Lets move away from the sword, lets say I conjure a brick. I can use that brick as part of a wall, or I can throw it through somebodies window, or I can use it to bash a skull in. Its just a brick.

Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)

I think the key word here is "murder":

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

So just going out with the intent to kill a human would get you a lawbreaker for using the sword. If while defending yourself with it, it kills a human, well, thats self defense, not murder, and a warden lawfully executing a warlock wouldn't trigger it.


Here is a different example:

Lets say I use my skill In fire Evocation to freeze water into a spike, then I kill somebody with it. Lawbreaker or not?

[iago]

So, looking at my previous post, what if you create something intended for another purpose that you then find yourself having to use as a weapon?

The First Law as worded in the books is about killing (requirement #1: the act of taking the life of a human being) with magic (requirement #2).

Creating a magic item (requirement #2) but not killing someone as a part of that creation (failure on requirement #1) does not, for me, violate that law.

[Moriden]

Quoting Iago

Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)

Or as i have repeatedly phrased it, successfully using magic to kill gets you lawbreaker regardless of the description of what that magic looks like, or your intent when you cast the spell.


And yes if you cast the spell to kill someone and fail it should change your aspects just like lawbreaker would you just don't get the actual stunt.

[iago]

Remember Harry's line: You can't do anything with magic you don't believe you can do. Killing is a part of that (even accidental killing; in retrospect, that eats into you and changes you too, though perhaps not so potently as doing it with intent does).  Believing you can create a weapon is one thing. Believing you can use that weapon to do harm is quite another.

Though even there I'm shaky when the weapon is mundane, or used mundanely like a sword-stroke and so forth, since it's really about using *magic*; the reason Wardens carry those swords, supposedly, is so that they won't violate the First Law when they execute a warlock.

But here's the other thing: this is all opinion, from me, by intention. The subtext of the Laws discussion in the RPG is not "and this is how it is always with no wiggle". It's meant to say, how the Laws are interpreted -- both in-character as a body of Law that the Wardens enforce, and in-system as to when one is required to take (or expand) a Lawbreaker ability -- is something to be explored as you play the game. It's a journey, and as your game travels along that path certain themes should emerge.  One game's themes might point away from the idea that the Laws-as-enforced-by-the-Wardens-matches-the-Laws-as-enforced-upon-your-soul; another's might insistently point towards it, suggesting that the Laws as laid down by the Council are Laws Of The Universe that have been uncovered and codified.

[Rel Fexive]

And I think the "that might be how it is in your game, but it is different in mine" aspect of using the Laws in games is the most important thing to remember when discussing them.  No one is wrong, everyone is right (for them).  Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone

[iago]

Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone

Or at least, right for the game he's running for Harry.

[Moriden]

And I think the "that might be how it is in your game, but it is different in mine" aspect of using the Laws in games is the most important thing to remember when discussing them.  No one is wrong, everyone is right (for them).  Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone

This is unfortunately as much a flaw as a strength. without a clear, understandable, and universally true way that the laws work ooc then you will have radicaly different interpretations on them, this is good in that aindividual st is not "tied down" in there implementation and bad because most st's are not in anyway skilled enough orators, debators, or writers to actually express there individual interpreation and as such you will have many players who think they ooc know how the laws work get a rather harsh surprise when they get slapped with lawbreaker and are told there charecter is now unplayable.

Transparency and consistency are good... yes freedom for individual its is good[or so i'm told]. but you can take it to far and i believe this is an example of that.