The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[Belial666]

That's why my characters tend to banish people instead of killing them. Don't like someone? Send them through a temporal rift a year or two ahead in time. Technically YOU aren not swimming against the current; somebody else is. And technically he is not swimming against; only forward.

[Wyrdrune]

Disagree, thats totally another question.
Entirely separate from the Lawbreaker stunt power.
You get the Lawbreaker stunt power if a Warden is watching or not (if your group didnt delete those stunts powers).

true. i meant, if someone (warden) saw you, you maybe lucky and avoid getting the power/stunt by getting executed.

people in my gaming rounds tend to avoid killing because the mundane consequences alone make a lot of trouble. it's not alway possible, but most of the time they self-defence others to death.

[Richard_Chilton]

So I tracked down Strange Brew, a collection with a Dresden story in it.  It might not show how Wardens act, but it shows how they are believed to act.

(click to show/hide)

"That’s the upside of working with the gray cloaks now, Burt," I said. "I don’t need proof. I just need an excuse."

Seeing that, and Mac's "Was it you?" question in Proven Guilty, says a lot about how much evidence the Wardens seem to need.

Richrd

[BigMrE]

That's why my characters tend to banish people instead of killing them. Don't like someone? Send them through a temporal rift a year or two ahead in time. Technically YOU aren not swimming against the current; somebody else is. And technically he is not swimming against; only forward.

But you are technically messing with the time stream, which is also a no-no.

[JosephKell]

But you are technically messing with the time stream, which is also a no-no.

Going backwards is a no-no.  Pushing an annoying gun in San Diego through a Nevernever portal that drops him in T.J. a week later (to him it takes a few seconds) is hilarious.

That is what Belial meant.  Not sending back in time, just getting them out of the way for a bit.

[Becq]

Regarding the question of "Does using a magic weapon to kill a human count as a 1st Law violation", I think the fact that Wardens routinely use magic swords to kill without breaking the Law to be proof positive that it doesn't -- or at least doesn't always.  I think that I would rule that it depends on the type of magic used.  Passive magic (like a Warden's blade) does not require the Will of the wielder to operate, and therefore is not a 1st Law violation.  Active magic, such as casting a fireball from an enchanted item does require the Will of the wielder to perform (Discipline roll required).

Hm.  I'm trying to recall whether Harry uses his kinetic rings against humans, and if he does so with care when he does.  I can think of all sorts of occasions in which he uses multi-ring salvos against monsters or inanimate objects, can anyone cite a case where he lays a major smack-down on a human, or considers whether or not he should?

[Wyrdrune]

just looked the swords up in YS - they have 2 powers:

- The Sword casts a counterspell of Fantastic (+6) strength, provided the effect being countered can be physically attacked or touched by a sword (ethereal chains, good; a mental binding, not so much).
- The Sword may be treated as a Weapon:6 item for one attack.

in my reckoning and my game world, a warden would be in trouble if he uses the second power to kill a human. he does not have to use it. (again it's the intentional will to risk killing a human with magic.)

[Leofwyn]

Problem is that is exactly why the swords have the Weapon:6 ability, to deliver a killing blow to a warlock quickly and prevent (hopefully) the "death curse." We also know that a warlock is still human for the laws of magic as Harry killed a Warlock in self-defense and still got "law breaker" and placed under the "doom."

Personally, I think Harry overstates the case of violating the laws as poisoning the soul.  Every evil a person does marks the soul and should be seen with the sight.  Every time a person crosses the line . . . it becomes a little easier the next time to cross that line again.

[Bellum]

As far as actual dresdenverse goes, I don't think the laws of magic are hard and fast metaphysical realities. The laws aren't even there to promote "good" wizards. They are just there to limit a wizards effect on the world in the interest of protecting the entire supernatural community.

It isn't breaking the law the effects the soul, I think. In the RPG, it seems very hard-and-fast, but in the books, it seems much more subtle. Losing yourself is often a slow process spanning years. And it isn't so much about the magic twisting you, but you twisting yourself, and taking your magic with you (it's what you believe, after all).

It's probably better to leave that to role-play. In fact, reading the RPG, the entire zero-refresh thing was a little jarring to me at first. I was like "I don't know if I like this explanation; it's a little simplistic". In the end, I think it's a good abstraction of that theme in the book, but it is what it is.

[tymire]

Actually in the first book or two he does mention that you can see (or feel) the taint on someone when they have broken a law.  This is one of the few things that has not been consistent about in the books or black council, sorcerers, etc.. would be obvious once you get close enough to them.   

Though really even if you are SUPER EVIL INCARNATE that doesn't mean that you have to break any laws.  In fact the extremely dangerous ones (i.e. the sane ones) probably avoid breaking the laws as much as possible.  Cowl would probably be a good example.

(click to show/hide)

Another thing after seeing the effect that the blackstaff has wouldn't be surprised if we find out that it is actually alive and is actually a part of the "original owner".

[Richard_Chilton]

One thing to think about.

If the Laws of Magic were just things that people had written then you wouldn't be able to See lawbreakers.  I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly when Dresden and others viewed Molly in Proven Guilty they could see that she had broken the law.  They needed to Soul Gaze her to know how bad she had broken it, but they could look and See that she had tampered with others.

Also

(click to show/hide)

Molly was twisted to the point where in Turn Coat it was second nature to her to try to mettle with an unconscious wizard - after years of apprenticeship and knowing that if she was caught she and Dresden would both die she did it anyway.  That's an important point - Dresden had drilled and drilled and drilled "Do that and we both die" into her and she still tried to do it because of that lawbreaker taint.

Richard

[Bellum]

I see it less as the magic changing her explicitly, and more her perspective changing over time. It's the same with anything you do, and any sort of crime. If you do it once, it's going to be easier to do it again and all that. After awhile, it has an effect on how you view things, and it changes who you are. Of course you'd be able to See that.

[Richard_Chilton]

(click to show/hide)

She did it twice - twice in total,  Years later, after training and daily reinforcement not to do it (or we both die) she does it again.  How is that changing over time? If anything she should have changed into someone who would never used magic that way.

Every place in the books when they talk about the Laws of Magic they refer to the damage done to the person breaking the law.  In the gaming books they do the same.  Even in OW under thralls there's a note that says: "If you change others you change yourself".

Now if a group wants to change things then that's fine, but the baseline given in the books and the game is clear - breaking the laws of magic twist the law breaker.  They leave a mark on the law breaker.  Break the law once and you're always fighting temptation to break it again (even Dresden has to deal with that over killing his first teacher).  Break the law enough and you become a monster who must abuse your power.

Richard

[Bellum]

Every place in the books when they talk about the Laws of Magic they refer to the damage done to the person breaking the law. 

More specifically with the overtly damaging ones. Mind control and murder and the like. And as someone else said, these are Harry's interpretations of the laws. It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I explicitly remember necromancy being used positively, and Harry was baffled.

Though I do feel like Molly's mind control magic effected her a lot more than Harry's murder, specifically. :| Though as tymire said, it hasn't been entirely consistent.

[Richard_Chilton]

In the books they are Harry's interpretations.  In the game they are the rules as listed.

Richard