Crafted Items and the First Law

[ryanroyce]

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.

 I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires.  After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?

 So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer.  However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First).  Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case.  All my opinion, of course.

[GruffAndTumble]

I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires.  After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?

 So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer.  However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First).  Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case.  All my opinion, of course.

I don't buy it. Being evil to other evil people is par for the course. Being inhuman does not make similarly inhuman people sympathetic in your eyes.

[ballplayer72]

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.

In SK harry won't hit the assassins that show up in the beginning with his force ring because it would break the 1st law.  He states this out and out.

NOTE:  that harry's ring isn't a focus. Its a magic item.  It stores energy from simply moving around on his arm.  It simply releases that energy up to a certain capacity (it can flip a car over so its pretty tough).    Thats a magic item that presumably he could enchant for anyones use.    The balance for mortals with magic is that you CANT KILL people with it without consequences.  Thats a pretty hard and fast rule.

[Todjaeger]

I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires.  After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?

 So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer.  However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First).  Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case.  All my opinion, of course.

The Laws of Magic are strictly applicable to mortal casters, they were (per the novels) originally created by the (original) Merlin who founded the White Council.  The intent behind the Laws of Magic is to restrict/control the negative impact magic can have upon spellcasters and their potential mortal targets.  Now, if ones group felt it appropriate to have a metaphysical impact for creatures other than mortal who do something similar to what would be a mortal violating one of the Laws...  On the other hand though, no one should be playing an immortal character, as they lack free will.  And that is what is at the heart of the Laws of Magic, the actions which violate them end up twisting the nature of the person who violated the Laws, and with enough violations, a person can become so twisted as to no longer have free will, instead how they respond becomes completely dependent on their twisted nature.  Given that supernatural/immortal creatures already act depending on their nature instead of with free will, it does not make sense for them to become (further) twisted by how they might use magic.

[CMEast]

And that is what is at the heart of the Laws of Magic, the actions which violate them end up twisting the nature of the person who violated the Laws, and with enough violations, a person can become so twisted as to no longer have free will, instead how they respond becomes completely dependent on their twisted nature.  Given that supernatural/immortal creatures already act depending on their nature instead of with free will, it does not make sense for them to become (further) twisted by how they might use magic.

Totally this! As to Merlin creating the laws, I'll just add that the laws were in response to the lawbreaker effect rather than the cause of the lawbreaker effect.

[toturi]

So how many Lawbreakers does Luccio have? The intent of the sword are to kill, no? The magical enhancements on the swords are supposed to enable the user to kill, are they not?

[CMEast]

1. They aren't taking up her enchanted item slots, she's somehow managed to disown them.
2. The swords are designed so that they can kill without magic, that's one of the reasons they are given to wardens.
3. They are plot devices.

[Bruce Coulson]

The rpg books reference that there's a lot of hair-splitting and grey areas in the Laws; especially the 1st.  But, in the system and books, there is a difference between using magic to kill someone and using a magical implement to kill someone (i.e. a Warden's sword).

So, enhancing a sword so that it bypasses protections (but doesn't do any additional damage); acceptable.  Flaming sword with fire damage?  1st Law violation.

Gun with magical relaoding capability?  (Why?)  Acceptable.  Bullets with enhanced damaged; 1st Law violation.  Magical targetting/balance; grey area. 

Now, a gun designed ONLY to shoot non-mortal targets?  Perfectly acceptable.

[Deadmanwalking]

So how many Lawbreakers does Luccio have? The intent of the sword are to kill, no? The magical enhancements on the swords are supposed to enable the user to kill, are they not?

Uh...they're swords. Debatably, using the Weapon: 6 power to kill would cause Lawbreaker for the person who did it (I tend to think it wouldn't, but that's an argument for elsewhere), using the normal sword to kill wouldn't cause Lawbreaker any more than any other sword. I mean, why would it?

[Dan from Chicago]

I believe it was mentioned at some point that the Wardens use the swords specifically to avoid breaking the first law, but I don't know if it was Mr Butcher who stated it or one of the game designers. It's definitely a sticky rules interaction question. How can we request an official opinion?

[DesertCoyote]

How can we request an official opinion?

Send a white court vampire to Jim's house with instructions to use her mind mojo to get Jim to post whatever you want the rule to be.

[luminos]

I'm pretty sure we have the official opinion, in the form of Jim not counting the wardens as lawbreakers, in the form of Harry not wanting to kill people with force rings, and in the form of the rulebook that talks about the laws of magic.  Everything else is interpretation squabbles, which I doubt will be settled no matter what the developers or Jim says on the matter.  Someone will always find room for loopholes, and what seems common sense to some will be disagreed on by others so that nothing can be solved without getting a ruling on each and every minor variation on the same theme. 

[Todjaeger]

I'm pretty sure we have the official opinion, in the form of Jim not counting the wardens as lawbreakers, in the form of Harry not wanting to kill people with force rings, and in the form of the rulebook that talks about the laws of magic.  Everything else is interpretation squabbles, which I doubt will be settled no matter what the developers or Jim says on the matter.  Someone will always find room for loopholes, and what seems common sense to some will be disagreed on by others so that nothing can be solved without getting a ruling on each and every minor variation on the same theme. 

I generally agree, that people are likely to keep picking at the issue due to differing interpretations for every minute variation.  Two things come to mind though.  The first is that with the Laws of Magic, it is not so much the letter of the law which is important, but the spirit of the law (unlike the Unseelei Accords, where there is no spirit to the accords, just the letter).  The other important issue is that for a First Law violation to occur, a mortal needs to kill another mortal with magic.  How often would a Warden actually bother using the Weapon: 6 power of their Warden Sword against another human being?  I would expect that sort of power to be kept in reserve for times when the Warden is fighting a tough supernatural beastie that they have to get up close and personal with them for some reason.  When possible I would expect that Wardens would use normal/conventional weaponry if they needed to fight/kill other mortals.

And I tend to agree, though the books have not stated this as fact yet, that the original Merlin created the Laws of Magic as a response to the potential effect the now prohibited actions had.  Not necessarily the effect had upon the violator, but on people/mortals in general.  While I can imagine that a 7th Law violation could have pretty extreme consequences for the violator (nevermind possibly becoming a Warden snicker-snack) but what impact would there be if the Outer Gates were breached or thrown open completely?

[vultur]

Totally this! As to Merlin creating the laws, I'll just add that the laws were in response to the lawbreaker effect rather than the cause of the lawbreaker effect.

Unless Merlin was powerful enough to change the nature of mortal magic, that is.

...I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

[ballplayer72]

I generally agree, that people are likely to keep picking at the issue due to differing interpretations for every minute variation.  Two things come to mind though.  The first is that with the Laws of Magic, it is not so much the letter of the law which is important, but the spirit of the law (unlike the Unseelei Accords, where there is no spirit to the accords, just the letter).  The other important issue is that for a First Law violation to occur, a mortal needs to kill another mortal with magic.  How often would a Warden actually bother using the Weapon: 6 power of their Warden Sword against another human being?  I would expect that sort of power to be kept in reserve for times when the Warden is fighting a tough supernatural beastie that they have to get up close and personal with them for some reason.  When possible I would expect that Wardens would use normal/conventional weaponry if they needed to fight/kill other mortals.

And I tend to agree, though the books have not stated this as fact yet, that the original Merlin created the Laws of Magic as a response to the potential effect the now prohibited actions had.  Not necessarily the effect had upon the violator, but on people/mortals in general.  While I can imagine that a 7th Law violation could have pretty extreme consequences for the violator (nevermind possibly becoming a Warden snicker-snack) but what impact would there be if the Outer Gates were breached or thrown open completely?

Ramirez used it on grevane.  Chopped his head clean off with one stroke without knocking his head off.  That means he sheared through his flesh bone muscle and tendons like it was nothing.  Which doesn't happen in real life (especially with a willow sword like ramirez uses.  it lacks the cutting power of a katana or a kilij that could realistically take someones head off in one stroke) ergo it must be DV magic.

If the outer gates get open the outsiders come back.  that would be Bad.