The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[luminos]

In one of the books, I forget which one exactly, but Harry uses his force rings on some pure mortals, and he is extremely careful to make sure that he uses them non-lethally, to avoid breaking the 1st law.  This clearly indicates that using enchantments is still a violation potential.  Activating an enchantment on an item brings just as much responsibility as casting the magic directly.

[Becq]

In one of the books, I forget which one exactly, but Harry uses his force rings on some pure mortals, and he is extremely careful to make sure that he uses them non-lethally, to avoid breaking the 1st law.  This clearly indicates that using enchantments is still a violation potential.  Activating an enchantment on an item brings just as much responsibility as casting the magic directly.

Well, my theory could still hold if in your example, Harry was actually casting the spell (complete with Discipline roll to affect the target) but that the power for the spell was being supplied by the rings rather than his own reserves.  Could a non-spellcaster have activated the rings?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  (As opposed to the more passive impact of his duster's enchantment or of a magic sword.)

[vultur]

Well, my theory could still hold if in your example, Harry was actually casting the spell (complete with Discipline roll to affect the target) but that the power for the spell was being supplied by the rings rather than his own reserves.  Could a non-spellcaster have activated the rings?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  (As opposed to the more passive impact of his duster's enchantment or of a magic sword.)

I agree here. If you use Thaumaturgy Crafting to make a preternaturally sharp sword, using that to kill a mortal isn't a Law violation (but if you crafted the sword with the *intent* to kill mortals with it, that might be); but 'active' magic always is, even if it's from an item.