Crafted Items and the First Law

[cetra02]

If a wizard made a magical gun for a friend that put elemental effects on the rounds, like say the fire effect makes incendiary rounds, and the friend kills a mortal with it in a gun fight, does this violate the First Law?

[luminos]

oh goodness, this one resulted in a huge argument a month or so ago.  I might try to dig to find that thread, but generally, yes, magic with intent to kill + resulting in a kill is lawbreaking.

[DesertCoyote]

I didn't read the thread in question.  I only pop in to read the first few threads. 

But...

You could always try sidestepping that.  Get something that isn't bound by the laws of the white council to make the gun.  Come up with a design, then get something like a troll-smith (but can manipulate iron) to make the final weapon.  The white council doesn't appear to bother with the knights of the cross, who clearly wield magical weapons to kill people (tongueless cultists... among other things).

[ahunting]

You don't get lawbreaker from killing with a warden sword. So why do you get it from shooting them with a gun?

[DesertCoyote]

Probably because warden swords have only a questionably magical killing ability.  Their primary use is the spell breaking.  The secondary power of being weapon 6 for one attack, which is closer to a mortal stunt than a magical effect on the sword.

(YS 152)
Killer Blow:   Add 3 damage to the damage of a fists attack on a successful hit, once per scene, for a fate point.  This stacks with any other damage-increasing stunts for Fists.

Sounds more like what the swords are rocking, could just be an outrageously finely crafted sword and warden training that gives it the weapon 6.

[Todjaeger]

My first post, so please, be gentle...

Having taken a quick read through of the forum, this post struck me so I thought I'd toss my $0.02 in.

The first thing which came to my mind, is that a "magic" gun which can give fired rounds an elemental effect is a bit over the top uber-powerful.  Secondly, such an item would pretty much be a First Law breaker, at least in human hands.

For starters, a decision would need to be made as to how such a gun would "work".  Does the weapon actually enchant the round fired?  Or does it just replace any round shot with an elemental effect?  Given the various problems with allowing a "magic" item to enchant other items, I would expect that it would be more reasonable to allow the "gun" just shot elemental effects instead of bullets.

This would make the gun not unlike Harry's various force rings, the lethal use of which upon another human being is a clear First Law violation.  Additionally, the force rings are quite limited in terms of usage, both in the books and the RPG.  

So, at present to get a "gun" which fires an elemental effect of strength 2 (standard pistol is Weapon:2) able to be used once per session, it would require the following:
a minimum Lore of Average (+1)
an enchanted item slot
either Ritual or Thaumaturgy: with the Crafting-Strength specialization

Now, if the "gun" is to supposed to be able to be used by others, then the creator needs to either have an additional rank in Lore (min of Fair +2), or a Refinement of +1 to the Crafting-Strength specialization, or an additional enchanted item slot is required.  Similar requirements exist for the "gun" to have greater strength/power

If additional per session uses of the "gun" are desired, then a combination of additional ranks in Lore, enchanted item slots, or Crafting-Frequency Refinements are required.

Having the "gun" be able to use additional elements beyond the first one would also require additional enchanted item slots, one for each additional element desired.

In terms of someone from the Nevernever that might be able to fashion such an item, a svartalf likely could, even with using iron.  It would just be costly.

Lastly, a Knight of the Cross does not kill human mortals with magic, even using a Sword of the Cross.  If a Sword was used to kill a human mortal, it is still a sword, magic is not required for it to deliver a killing strike.  A Sword of the Cross itself is not really so much an enchanted item as it is an Item of Power, being in essence a Focus Item for the power (Faith) of the wielder, and/or acting as a focus for the Faith of people in the world.  Not unlike what made the theft of the Shroud of Turin such a concern.  It was less important whether or not the Shroud was "real", the fact that so many people believed it was/is "real" and for such a long time, potentially made the relic a focus/source of power.

[DesertCoyote]

Lastly, a Knight of the Cross does not kill human mortals with magic, even using a Sword of the Cross.  If a Sword was used to kill a human mortal, it is still a sword, magic is not required for it to deliver a killing strike.

Yes, but you don't need magical effects to kill someone with a gun either.  In trained hands, a .22 is deadly.

[Nomad]

If you use the gun to fire a .22 that kills the Mortal target it is ok (As far as Firt Law is concerned). If you use the gun to fire an elemental effect and kill the said mortal, then you just broke the first law.
The Law is very clear on that.

Now the grey area: IF the gun puts a fire effect on the bullet like making a W:1 bullet into W:2 effect with flaming bullet then I would say it is still a Lawbreaker. Because it is still using magic to kill.
On the other hand, IF the magic effect made targets armor 1 less like some kind of penetration aid, not really connected to what happens to the guy, then I would say it isn't a lawbreaker... And sic someone like Morgan on you.

[Ophidimancer]

Consider that there's something inherently nasty about putting bits of your soul into enchanted bullets, which I would say would be Potions for the purpose of mechanics, because they are made for killing.  Unless you're making non-lethals, like Sunlight in a Shell or Cupid's Lust Bullets.

[Ophidimancer]

Of course, if someone else actually did the killing I don't think the metaphysical Lawbreaker would happen, though the crafter might still get charged with Lawbreaking.

[cetra02]

If you use the gun to fire a .22 that kills the Mortal target it is ok (As far as Firt Law is concerned). If you use the gun to fire an elemental effect and kill the said mortal, then you just broke the first law.
The Law is very clear on that.

Now the grey area: IF the gun puts a fire effect on the bullet like making a W:1 bullet into W:2 effect with flaming bullet then I would say it is still a Lawbreaker. Because it is still using magic to kill.
On the other hand, IF the magic effect made targets armor 1 less like some kind of penetration aid, not really connected to what happens to the guy, then I would say it isn't a lawbreaker... And sic someone like Morgan on you.

We had actually discussed using aspects instead of elemental damage, slow down for earth, confusion for air ect.

[Nomad]

Those would be rote's for different spells using "the" gun as a focus.
If you are looking at similar but pre-prepared methods, try looking up the alchemist discussions on the board.

[CMEast]

Those would be rote's for different spells using "the" gun as a focus.
If you are looking at similar but pre-prepared methods, try looking up the alchemist discussions on the board.

Or bullet shaped potions.

[ryanroyce]

In general, I don't think using enchanted items or potions can earn you the Lawbreaker power. 

Based on my reading of the novels, a wizard cannot cast any spell that they don't truly believe to be Right.  If they cast a spell that breaks a Law, they MUST believe that breaking the Law is the Right thing to do... and that mentality is what earns Lawbreaker.  Harry believed he was Right to kill Justin with magic, and Molly believed she was Right to invade and alter the minds of her friends.  Casting a spell to kill a vampire that misses and ends up accidentally killing an innocent bystander will not earn you Lawbreaker, IMO.  Similarly, just attempting to enthrall someone with magic, regardless of whether you succeed or not, would earn you Lawbreaker, since you truly Believed that enthralling another mortal was Right.

This does not mean that the White Council won't have you executed as a warlock anyway, provided that they become aware of it.

Along the same lines, use of an enchanted item does not require the wielder to believe it is Right, especially if that item is usable by others.  IMO, that's how love potions get around the fourth law (margins comments aside).  Harry could blast a mortal with his rings and probably get away without increasing his Lawbreaker, but he simply chooses not to.

NOTE: I do not assert that my POV is backed up by the rulebook (it isn't), but I do feel like I am being consistent with the source material nonetheless.  Not everyone will agree with my POV, of course, but that is to be expected.

[CMEast]

I think as long as a game is consistent in it's approach to the laws of magic, it doesn't really matter how you interprer them. They are plot devices rather than game rules in my opinion.

To my mind, I prefer games where any mortal magic that breaks a law can result in a lawbreaker stunt, including crafted items and accidents. Non-mortal magic isn't subject to the laws, but a warden may still lop the casters head off if they aren't protected by the accords.