What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice

[Richard_Chilton]

Ghosts aren't people.

No, but it's a ramping up of his murderous tendencies.  Seriously, eating someone? I can't see the Dresden of Storm Front doing that.  Dresden isn't saying "it's only a ghost so technically it's all right" he's eating a ghost because it is the most advantageous way of dealing with the issue.

It's a part of his downward spiral.

Jim's said intent doesn't matter.
He hasn't said that knowledge doesn't matter.
It's the difference between not intending to kill people-who-you-knew-were-people and intending to kill people-you-were-sure-were-monsters.

Intent doesn't matter.  Belief does.

From that post something like "I didn't know I was using lethal force" doesn't matter.
Someone who attacks someone in what he believes is a non-lethal way stills starts the downward spiral.  Someone who takes an action that he doesn't believe will kill is still a killer.

Let's talk hunting and "hunting accidents".  I use those quotes there because every hunter will tell you that if you aren't 100% sure of what you're aiming at then you don't pull the trigger - yet each years there are dead hunters.  People in hunter orange who get mistaken for a deer or a bear or some other target.  Those people who shot them - they weren't aiming at people.  They were intending to shoot a deer and that deer turned out to be their buddy Frank.  They honestly believed that they were shooting at deer or whatever but the guy is still dead and there's still a criminal investigation.

If I aim at what I believe is a deer and it turns out to be my hunting buddy, then I've killed my hunting buddy and I'll have questions to answer (accidental shootings are one of the reasons that I don't hunt).

So let's compare:
Wizards have the Sight.  They can take a second See if someone is a person or a thing - which is a bit like pausing for half a second to be sure that you're aiming a real deer and not a person.  How is this different than shooting intending to hit a deer and hitting Frank instead?

Richard

[devonapple]

Wizards have the Sight.  They can take a second See if someone is a person or a thing - which is a bit like pausing for half a second to be sure that you're aiming a real deer and not a person.  How is this different than shooting intending to hit a deer and hitting Frank instead?

I agree that the Sight is the Wizard's best tool to avoid these things. And I would definitely ask a spellcaster if they really want to shoot without knowing for sure.

That said, they *do* make The Sight a source of trouble. Open your Third Eye on a powerful critter masquerading as your buddy Frank and you may end up on the losing end of a Mental challenge.

[Tedronai]

Pausing for a second to make sure it's actually a deer, for starters, doesn't run the risk of literally driving you insane.
Secondly, even the Sight is fallible.  It is subject to interpretation.  There are several instances in the novels where Harry, even using his Sight, just doesn't understand what he's looking at.
Thirdly, the entire basis for the gaining of a Lawbreaker stunt, and the represented 'corruption' is that somewhere, deep down inside, you believe that what you did was right.  For the First Law, that you believe using (perhaps even potentially) lethal magic against human targets is (even sometimes) the right thing to do.
But it's well established, in both the novels and the rpg books, that using the same kinds of magic against non-humans is A-OK from the perspective of the Laws.
And since the Laws reflect belief, and killing non-humans is indisputably not covered, it must follow that believing you're killing non-humans is similarly not covered.

[sinker]

If you read Jim's post however it becomes apparent that breaking the law actually causes that to change. It doesn't simply use what's existing. It doesn't require that you had a belief initially that you would kill. It changes you, creates a part of you that will kill. It is a physical law. It makes physical changes.

Withdrawn. But Your Story does make this claim.

Here is something Jim does say though.

The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.

It seems silly to assume that he meant your intentions only don't matter some of the time. That if your intentions are to kill a monster that this statement somehow doesn't apply.