"Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking

[blackstaff67]

I cannot argue with WoJ.  Hitting the "Concede" button.

[polkaneverdies]

Boo!  Only the phrase in quotes was Jim's. The next sentence was my supposition. Still plenty of grey area to play in there. :p

[Lavecki121]

Jim has referred to magic as "the power of creation". Killing with it apparently violates that essential nature of magic.

If that were the case though, wouldnt rampant destruction of a forest net you the same result?

[blackstaff67]

I bet if I went on a dolphin/porpoise killing spree, the Wardens would initially scratch their heads and then say, "He's Poseidon's problem, not ours."

[Lavecki121]

Yea, but Im not talking about the wardens "rules" as much as the magical truths. They only apply to humans, I can kill pretty much anything and not worry unless it is a human. It seems strange when you think about magic as a "creationary force"

[blackstaff67]

I know, I merely point out the minor(?) absurdity of killing creatures of the intelligence level of dolphin/porpoises deliberately vs humans.  AFAIK, it's the deliberate act of snuffing out a human life with magic that brings Lawbreaker.  Perhaps the implication is that all other critters (Vamps, Fae, etc) were either a byproduct of the act of creation and so are not off-limits OR are actually the result of the power of the human imagination causing them to coalesce.  If the latter, then due to the early strength of human imagination, these entities wield immense power which makes them hard to put down.

[Lavecki121]

True. But Im talking of more...natural? things. Like animals or plants. I can wrap my head around faries and undead. Other earthly creatures makes less sense to me, though the imagination bit might have something to do with it.

[Tedronai]

True. But Im talking of more...natural? things. Like animals or plants. I can wrap my head around faries and undead. Other earthly creatures makes less sense to me, though the imagination bit might have something to do with it.

If working under the assumption of blackstaff's theory, mundane non-humans would fall under the category of 'byproducts of creation'.
This theory is incredibly humanocentric, but hey, maybe that works for your game.

[blackstaff67]

If working under the assumption of blackstaff's theory, mundane non-humans would fall under the category of 'byproducts of creation'.
This theory is incredibly humanocentric, but hey, maybe that works for your game.

As a matter of fact, you're right: My theory IS incredibly humanocentric.  That is because it's only a Lawbreaker violation to kill humans, enthrall, transform, mentally invade them. 

Unless you want to slap Lawbreaker (1st) on wizards that also kill non-humans OR omit that Lawbreaker altogether, dunno what to tell you.  Barring further WoJ, playing the game as it's written is my only advice.  Love to hear about alternative rules/theories!   

[Tedronai]

By 'incredibly humanocentric', I mean that it is even more humanocentric that would otherwise seem to be the case.
It takes an impressively humanocentric cosmology, and makes it substantially more so.

[blackstaff67]

That's cos the monsters have humanocentric diets.

[Mr. Death]

It's probably got a lot to do with the human soul. A tree doesn't have a soul and free will. A human does. Magic comes from the soul.

[Lavecki121]

So Fae have souls? RCV too? They can use magic. (playing a little devils advocate here)

[Tedronai]

The Dresdenverse uses a different definition of 'soul' than most real-life people would readily recognize.
Angels are not protected under the Laws any more so than demons, and yet they are beings of (almost) entirely soul.

[Lavecki121]

The Dresdenverse uses a different definition of 'soul' than most real-life people would readily recognize.
Angels are not protected under the Laws any more so than demons, and yet they are beings of (almost) entirely soul.

Kind of my point.