Something that is driving me insane, because it's about the only part of this system that doesn't seem to make sense: Why is it considered wrong to kill with magic even when it would be not only acceptable but mandatory to kill any other way? To give a specific example, suppose we have Warden Jason Knight fighting some sort of warlock and in the course of the battle Jason blows the warlock's head off his shoulders with a fireball spell. As the system stands now, that would earn him a Lawbreaker stunt, but doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason, except with his sword instead of magic, has no effect on him.
At its core, my problem stems from how Lawbreaking corrupts. Everything I've read indicates that Lawbreaking corrupts because of how magic comes from belief, so breaking the First Law means that you believe killing is right. My question, though, is what if you kill for a good reason, like to protect others or to enforce Justice? Wouldn't that only reinforce your belief that you should kill for, and only for, the right reasons?
The fact that the White Council has a self-defense exemption seems to support this position, and yet more importantly, we see Harry kill dozens of humans with magic in Grave Peril without meaning to, but there doesn't seem to be any negative effects on his soul, which would imply that it's the intent to kill that corrupts. But clearly not all killing is wrong, ergo, intent to kill is not always wrong.
In short, it seems that doing something good for good reasons can still make you evil. Please explain?
