Duels between mortal Practitioners and the Law of Magic

[SaintAndSinner]

But members of the Accords when acting under them must abide by them. Which the White Council are members.

Again I still think this is probably an issue for the GM just interested what other GMs would do.

All I meant was you need to not confuse breaking the Accords with breaking the Laws of Magic.  Different things.  It looked like some posters might have been getting them confused.  

[meh]

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.

The other option in this whole debate is a purely consequentialist reading for First Law, with exceptions /possibly/ being granted as an executive pardon not a juristical conclusion.

I think that might actually work better for an RPG, and it allows formal duels to have structure as part of executive power and the a priori granting of pardons.

[Deadmanwalking]

The other option in this whole debate is a purely consequentialist reading for First Law, with exceptions /possibly/ being granted as an executive pardon not a juristical conclusion.

I think that might actually work better for an RPG, and it allows formal duels to have structure as part of executive power and the a priori granting of pardons.

Personally, I'm arguing metaphysics, not law. I'm arguing what twists your soul and grants Lawbreaker, not what the Wardens will prosecute.

[meh]

Personally, I'm arguing metaphysics, not law. I'm arguing what twists your soul and grants Lawbreaker, not what the Wardens will prosecute.

I got that.   

My point here being that the other possible reading is that everyone is metaphysically contaminated, and the gray Warden cloaks stand as symbol of that.

[Deadmanwalking]

I got that.   

My point here being that the other possible reading is that everyone is metaphysically contaminated, and the gray Warden cloaks stand as symbol of that.

Oh, probably. In a philosophical sense nobody's pure. But there's still a difference between gray and black, which the Laws (as portrayed in both the books and game rules) help to distinguish between.

[KOFFEYKID]

Whats interesting is you can burn down a building, provided you think that its empty. It could be full of people, and as long as you didn't think there where people in it, you would not get a lawbreaker.

On the other hand, if you know there are people in it, and accidentally set fire to said building, lawbreakers all around.

[Deadmanwalking]

Whats interesting is you can burn down a building, provided you think that its empty. It could be full of people, and as long as you didn't think there where people in it, you would not get a lawbreaker.

On the other hand, if you know there are people in it, and accidentally set fire to said building, lawbreakers all around.

Yep. Well, on the first one at least. The second might not net you Lawbreaker if you immediately try your hardest to rescue them (yeah, even if you fail I might give you props for trying). It's all about intent, at least IMO.

[KOFFEYKID]

Hmmm, if you play an Insane wizard who believes everybody is a monster of some kind or another, you could conceivably avoid almost every lawbreaker.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmmm, if you play an Insane wizard who believes everybody is a monster of some kind or another, you could conceivably avoid almost every lawbreaker.

Anyone that crazy I'd just give the Lawbreaker stunts to automatically to reflect the nature of their insanity.

[Moriden]

Whats interesting is you can burn down a building, provided you think that its empty. It could be full of people, and as long as you didn't think there where people in it, you would not get a lawbreaker.

this came up in another thread. Iago said and this is one of the times i agree with him, that if you a use magic, and b kill a human you get the stunt regardless of your intent.
However they are intended to be interpreted differently in each persons games so really whatever your st says.

[Moriden]

Anyone that crazy I'd just give the Lawbreaker stunts to automatically to reflect the nature of their insanity.

This makes sense to me. if it is enough part of someones nature that killing with magic wont change them. that is represented by having lawbreaker -2 and not being over there refresh limit. you don't technically have to have actually broken the laws to be built this way. the mechanics are there to be used as building blocks not gospel [weather or not i personally think a system should work that way ].

[Deadmanwalking]

this came up in another thread. Iago said and this is one of the times i agree with him, that if you a use magic, and b kill a human you get the stunt regardless of your intent.
However they are intended to be interpreted differently in each persons games so really whatever your st says.

If this is the thread about conjured weapons, that's not quite what he said. And yeah, this particular example is more or less used on p. 234 in the "Gray Areas" section as something that should vary from game to game.

[Falar]

I think if you're playing a wizard who views everyone else as monsters - then you need to get a party of player characters together to take down what is obviously a good villain. ^_^

[Moriden]

i was paraphrasing yes. wasent meant to be an exact restatment.

I think if you're playing a wizard who views everyone else as monsters - then you need to get a party of player characters together to take down what is obviously a good villain. ^_^

and if the entire party is this kind of "person"?  :p
i could easily see were creature varients with the lawbreaker stunt for this kind of reason. simply vieing murder as part of the cycle. how usefull it would be to them is debatable but still.

[Deadmanwalking]

and if the entire party is this kind of "person"?  :p
i could easily see were creature varients with the lawbreaker stunt for this kind of reason. simply vieing murder as part of the cycle. how usefull it would be to them is debatable but still.

Werecreatures don't need Lawbreaker, nor can they get it. Well, not without being spellcasters anyway.