Duels between mortal Practitioners and the Law of Magic

[Deadmanwalking]

mindream can install complete belief /easy/.    And the originating practitioner completely believes in mindreaming nonhuman monsters.

I think you misunderstand, I'm talking about the one using mind-control, not the victim. To program someone (even a monster) to commit murder requires the same commitment to murder as directly killing someone with magic...and thus gives you Lawbreaker (First). Though not Lawbreaker (Fourth) since you're doing it to a monster.

Also, not to spoil anything, but have you read Turn Coat? Instilling complete belief is pretty much impossible.

Though it is, admittedly, gonna be fairly easy to get a Red Court Vampire to kill someone.

[KOFFEYKID]

You dont have to program it to kill somebody, you just have to program it to follow your orders. Thats all.

[Falar]

You know, I think that even if your GM ruled it wasn't a direct break of the Fourth or First Law to do that, I think the Wardens would more or less be on your case 24/7 once they found out that you were doing something like that. If you can do that to a supernatural creature, whose mind doesn't even work like a human's, it means you have all the more likelihood of pulling it off on a human, whose mind you actually know how works.

Heck, if I were Senior Council, I might have you executed on a suspicion of wrongdoing. Or a well-intentioned mistake that saw the Red Court Vampire you're enthralling as a human and did The Right Thing. And not to mention pulling something like that would probably break the Accords if you pulled it on most connected bad things.

[Deadmanwalking]

The possibilty of existence of an item that can mask intent from consequence negates the following:

What? How is using an item we know nothing about as an example NOT useless and silly? For all we know the Blackstaff can't be switched from one owner to another. Or makes unicorns appear on the moon. We have no idea what it does. If I started to use Tiania as a Dresden Files example of anything, it'd be silly, because we don't know shit aboit her. Same deal with the Blackstaff.

Meh is right, all you have to do is Mindrape some supernat critter, and make it utterly devoted to you, and your protection. Then just have it guard you. No 4th lawbreaker since its not a human, and you can give it commands verbally (without magic) to kill and avoid a 1st lawbreaker.

Eh. If you make it so devoted to protecting you it'll kill people, well, there's almost no way you didn't know that was going to happen eventually. Lawbreaker (First), right there.

And, as Falar mentions, there's the whole "The Wardens will kill you." thing.

[meh]

I think you misunderstand, I'm talking about the one using mind-control, not the victim. To program someone (even a monster) to commit murder requires the same commitment to murder as directly killing someone with magic...and thus gives you Lawbreaker (First). Though not Lawbreaker (Fourth) since you're doing it to a monster.

So everyone with intent to kill but not applying magic to the victim at the time of victim death is guilty of First law breaking?

[meh]

For all we know the Blackstaff can't be switched from one owner to another.

We have JB stating in interviews that the WC stole it from the original owner.

[luminos]

We have JB stating in interviews that the WC stole it from the original owner.

Wait what?  I have to see this interview.

[KOFFEYKID]

Nope, no lawbreaker as long as there is no Magic involved in the killing. Thats how it works, period, you cant just suddenly switch and say that you'll get a 1st lawbreaker if a flunky kills something for you. Whats the difference between just hiring a hitman? Almost none at all. Thats why Wardens dont get lawbreakers for beheading warlocks with a sword.

Also, yeah the white council might get uppity about such things, but again, thats something you and your dm are going to have to hash out.

[meh]

What? How is using an item we know nothing about as an example NOT useless and silly?

Because asserting that we know nothing about it is false.  We Do know things about it:

With it consequences happen   - undeniable
With it there is intent to make consequences happen  - yes?
With it there is no Law-based prosecution based on intent - undeniable

[meh]

Nope, no lawbreaker as long as there is no Magic involved in the killing. Thats how it works, period, you cant just suddenly switch and say that you'll get a 1st lawbreaker if a flunky kills something for you. Whats the difference between just hiring a hitman? Almost none at all. Thats why Wardens dont get lawbreakers for beheading warlocks with a sword.

Exactly.   So long as it's a nonhuman flunky, no harm, no foul.

[Deadmanwalking]

So everyone with intent to kill but not applying magic to the victim at the time of victim death is guilty of First law breaking?

If you build a magical bomb (literal or metaphorical, and a profgrammed Red Court bodyguard is a damn bomb), that you know might kill people, then yeah, you get Lawbreaker when you create the 'bomb'. You intended a human death. Or didn't care if it occurred. You made magic with death as it's goal. Have Lawbreaker.

We have JB stating in interviews that the WC stole it from the original owner.

Yeah, but maybe it can only be taken from a dead owner? My point is that we don't know jack or shit about it. So using it as an example is ridiculous.

Because asserting that we know nothing about it is false.  We Do know things about it:

With it consequences happen   - undeniable
With it there is intent to make consequences happen  - yes?
With it there is no Law-based prosecution based on intent - undeniable

Sure, we know that. But how is that info relevant? Clearly the Laws change you, clearly the Blackstaff prevents that, but nobody can answer hypotheticals based on their conception of the Laws and the Blackstaff because we don't know how it does any of that. I could come up with rationales, but they'd be pure bullshit, because I have no idea HOW it works.

[Falar]

There is the little problem of the rules of the game. The following is taken from Your Story, 239 to 240. Although this is in a discussion of the Third Law, I believe it would apply just as well, if not more so, to the Fourth Law. You'd basically break your mind open trying to do something like that and become a gibbering maniac.

So, if the Laws of Magic are only supposed to apply to humans, why not run around and peer into the minds of all the nonhuman problems you’re facing? Well, aside from the risk you’ll run afoul of a Warden troubled by your “grey area” activities, there’s not much stopping you—just give us a moment to call the pleasant brawny men with the white vans and straitjackets before you give it a try.

The real problem is this: as a human spellcaster, you only really have the faculties for understanding human thoughts. Try to tap into the mind of a faerie and you could find yourself a few minutes later rocking in the corner and laughing at how everything is made of rainbows. It only gets worse, the nastier or more powerful your target is. Try to read the thoughts of a Red Court vampire and it’s even odds that you’ll shatter your psyche before you learn anything useful—assuming you can even understand whatever strange language their internal monologue is using. Try to read the thoughts of something ancient, and you’ll probably find yourself a mind-wiped puppet in short order.

It’s kind of a disappointment, in the end, for the would-be mind-reader. All the minds he might be allowed to read, he can’t, because he doesn’t speak the language, and all the minds he isn’t allowed to read, he could—at the peril of breaking the Third Law.

[meh]

If you build a magical bomb (literal or metaphorical, and a profgrammed Red Court bodyguard is a damn bomb), that you know might kill people, then yeah, you get Lawbreaker when you create the 'bomb'. You intended a human death. Or didn't care if it occurred. You made magic with death as it's goal. Have Lawbreaker.

This would seem to ban lethal wards.

[meh]

You'd basically break your mind open trying to do something like that and become a gibbering maniac.

Fair point, well made.

[Deadmanwalking]

This would seem to ban lethal wards.

If you expect humans to ever interact with them, yes. Ever notice that Harry carefully warns people about not trying to get into his house?

Lethal Wards on your own home are the definition of a bomb that you have a fair expectation of NEVER harming a human. It's only if you know it's probably gonna that you get Lawbreaker. Lethal Wards on someone else's home as a booby trap? Lawbreaker territory.