The letter not the spirit of the Law

[Bruce Coulson]

OH, people's reactions to a traumatic event can go all over the map.  But normal people have some reaction, at some point.

Consider that we're taught, from a fairly early age, what is not acceptable in polite society.  Killing ranks pretty high on that list.  Now, suddenly, you've just broken that big rule.  Some people react immediately; others seem to be fine and then react days, months, even years later.

It was a police officer, btw, who mentioned that there is no such thing as a 'good shooting'.  There are shootings that are within policy, directives, and the law; but that doesn't make the shooting good, only sanctioned.  All shootings are 'bad', from a certain point of view.

[BumblingBear]

you in the army or something otherwise that sounds very ominious.

Airborne infantry - but that is not the only place I've seen violence.  It doesn't really matter.

I guess without trying to be an elitist here (if that is even possible given the circumstances), I think that those who have actually lived a bit more life or seem some truly terrible things can understand the spirit of the first law a bit better than those who have not.

Just like law in real life, law and morality actually don't mix all that well.  Morality is something that is ever changing and highly relative from person to person.  Law is not.

The idea that just the act of killing is going to make someone a lawbreaker and twist their soul is ludicrous.  This is carebear talk.  We talk freely about killing in the DV when monsters are mentioned.  I would argue that a wizard (especially one chasing down a sorcerer) may come across the worst monsters he's ever seen in the form of humans.

I'm trying to relay my thoughts in such a way as to stay away from TT, but consider this.  Most characters would feel no regret or remorse for killing a ghoul.  They hurt people because it is in their nature - they are hungry all the time.  What about a sorcerer who is abusing children in every possible way to fuel dark magic?  What if the PCs enter a warehouse and discover the aspect "Children in Cages"?

I guess the point I am trying to get at is perhaps those who have seen real darkness in humanity have an easier time differentiating the first law from just "killing" because we understand that some people need to be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

Those who have not seen that darkness in humanity probably think of a teacher, a friend, or a neighbor when people talk about wizards killing "people".

It's a sticky issue for me because in the books, Thomas is more "human" than many actual humans I've known.  First of all, Thomas has a soul.  Also, how many other people have the strength of character to absolutely deny their nature like Thomas has?  The obesity rate in the US is crazy high simply because the US (and the rest of the world) is becoming a world of excess.

How does the "average" person stack against Thomas?  Pretty badly I'd think.  Sure, the average person may not have killed anyone with sexual feeding, but the average person hasn't done anything to make a difference either.  Thomas is a hero.

And yet killing him with magic would be completely a-ok.  Killing the sorcerer down the street with magic who's been using thaumatergy to carve out people's hearts is a no-no, though.

Does that help anyone out there?  The first law is not about fairness.  It is not about morality.  It's about the fact that if someone kills a /human/ with magic enough times, killing people, souled humans with magic will become nature - not a choice.

[toturi]

Uhm such people are called Psychotics and thats not a good thing!     Well I suppose i can't talk I support the State of Israel.  

Actually such people could be called heroes and that's a good thing, especially when you find yourself needing one.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=27100

[bitterpill]

Edit ( you don't want to hear me preaching) so delete

[BumblingBear]

The article you listed I read it the man is a hero but he dosen't sound like a sadist he killed the people because he believed it was the right thing to do not for any joy he would get out of it. He made the choice to become a killer though and I have no doubt his nature has been changed by his lifestyle choice and his years in the army.  

Undoubtably, but it does not necessarily make him a "bad" person.  It depends on why someone is killing.  If it's for a job or to protect themselves or others, that is a whole other animal than someone who does it for kicks.

Regardless of why they do it, it's not a lawbreaker stunt as long as they don't use magic, though.

If Melvin the wizard likes to knock people out and then strap them down and carve them up, that is not breaking a law of magic.  If Mook the wizard likes to immobilize people with magic before raping them, that is not against the laws of magic either.

If I end up running a game, I want to explore this idea - not to be cliche here, but who watches the watchmen?  There may be a wizard out there who is technically not breaking the laws so the council won't get involved, but is still hurting a lot of people.  The police are not equipped to deal with a person like this, it is up to the supernatural community to police its own.

I think the idea that with power comes responsibility should be explored more in the DV.  It is definitely a part of the books that Harry cannot just turn away from what is going on.  I know that every wizard out there isn't going to be a sheepdog, but in a world where magic exists, already dark parts of humanity can potentially do what they do a lot easier.

[bitterpill]

The Law breaker mechanics pretty simple and easy to avoid as it is based around laws rather than morality as I showed with my manipulate ghosts to kill everyone gambit. I think being a killer should be in your aspects somewhere as its a big character point. Then again DF series is based around a sort of Christian Morality so saveing people rather than executing them is more in line with the text.

[Drachasor]

Undoubtably, but it does not necessarily make him a "bad" person.  It depends on why someone is killing.  If it's for a job or to protect themselves or others, that is a who other animal than someone who does it for kicks.

Regardless of why they do it, it's not a lawbreaker stunt as long as they don't use magic, though.

If Melvin the wizard likes to knock people out and then strap them down and carve them up, that is not breaking a law of magic.  If Mook the wizard likes to immobilize people with magic before raping them, that is not against the laws of magic either.

If I end up running a game, I want to explore this idea - not to be cliche here, but who watches the watchmen?  There may be a wizard out there who is technically not breaking the laws so the council won't get involved, but is still hurting a lot of people.  The police are not equipped to deal with a person like this, it is up to the supernatural community to police its own.

I think the idea that with power comes responsibility should be explored more in the DV.  It is definitely a part of the books that Harry cannot just turn away from what is going on.  I know that every wizard out there isn't going to be a sheepdog, but in a world where magic exists, already dark parts of humanity can potentially do what they do a lot easier.

Aye, and let's not forget that doing nasty things to supernatural creatures isn't nice either.  Ethically speaking, torturing, killing, and enthralling humans and torturing faeries are just as bad.  Both are sentient beings.

The laws are objective statements on specific things, when done with magic, that twist the human psyche.  They restrict things that are good (reading a villain's mind to find out where the hostages are so they can be rescued, or killing someone with magic to stop them from killing a whole bunch of other people, or just using magic to fix a physical deformity), and they allow things that are evil (killing fey for no good reason, making monsters by combining various supernatural creatures together against their will, torture in many forms, etc).  Heck, they even disallow finding information out about the enemies of reality (outsiders).  Where they coincide with ethics is happenstance.

[Moriden]

Undoubtably, but it does not necessarily make him a "bad" person.  It depends on why someone is killing.

breaking any of the laws does not make you a bad person, doing it habitually does not make a bad person, say it with me people *The laws have nothing to do with good or evil*

[bitterpill]

Are the laws beyond good and evil?

[BumblingBear]

breaking any of the laws does not make you a bad person, doing it habitually does not make a bad person, say it with me people *The laws have nothing to do with good or evil*

I agree with you and I was not talking about breaking the laws of magic. I was speaking of killing in general. :/

[BumblingBear]

Are the laws beyond good and evil?

I would say yes - just as nature is.

Mechanically, the best way to put it is that the laws are not to make magic users better people, but to ensure they keep their free will.

[Sanctaphrax]

As I see it, there are at least three ways to look at the laws.

1. As moral principles.
2. As oddities of magical reality.
3. As mechanical limitations on the power of magic.

It seems to me that this discussion would go better if people were to state their view of the laws clearly. Because "cheating" the laws is unnacceptable under the first interpretation and bad gaming under the third, but pretty much expected under the second.

Hope this helps.

[Drachasor]

breaking any of the laws does not make you a bad person, doing it habitually does not make a bad person, say it with me people *The laws have nothing to do with good or evil*

Well, breaking them habitually in the Dresden Universe does make you a bad person in the sense you are likely to do evil in the future.  Each time you broke it could have been good, but it inherently twists your soul in a bad way (hence changing your aspects).  It's possible to not do anything bad even so, but supremely difficult (better horde those fate points when you can to resist compels).

[toturi]

Well, breaking them habitually in the Dresden Universe does make you a bad person in the sense you are likely to do evil in the future.  Each time you broke it could have been good, but it inherently twists your soul in a bad way (hence changing your aspects).  It's possible to not do anything bad even so, but supremely difficult (better horde those fate points when you can to resist compels).

Breaking them habitually twists the character's Aspects to reflect the Law that was broken. It doesn't mean that the change has to be towards evil. Furthermore, remember that you can switch out an Aspect every minor milestone.

[Peteman]

The rules say that it changes your Aspects - but it does not specify that it has to change in a bad way.

Considering it uses terminology like "a new version that is twisted by the violation of that Law of Magic" and "replace another different aspect until all your character's aspects have been subverted by his descent into dark magic." (emphasis mine), I don't think it's supposed to imply sunshine and happiness (unless it's the "chuck you into the sun" sunshine and "happiness in mandatory, Citizen" happiness)