"Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking

[Mr. Death]

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

I did specify that it has to do with the human soul, and free will.

[Lavecki121]

Yea, but you also said magic comes from the soul. Souless creatures, therefor, would not be able to do magic.

[Tedronai]

I think he's saying that human SOULS are special snowflakes, rather than merely humans in general being special snowflakes.
It's not really any less arbitrary, though.

[Lavecki121]

Right. I guess its in the wording. I would see the distinction of human souls being affected by the magics that they use.

[Emperor Tippy]

So which of the following violates the first law of magic (please differentiate between metaphysical violations and White Council Law violations):

1: You cast a fire evocation that burns a human to death.

2: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a fire evocation.

3: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a lighter that has been conjured.

4: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a torch that has been lit with a fire evocation.

5: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a torch that has been previously lit with a fire evocation for the purpose of providing illumination.

6: You use a fire evocation to incinerate a building that you honestly believe to be empty.

7: You tie your enemy to a wooden pillar, pile wood all around him, and then light the fire with a regular lighter.


-----
One is obviously a violation (both on a metaphysical level and on a WC justice level) while seven is obviously legal (on both levels). At which point though does the violation occur on both levels.

For example (Cold Days spoilers)

(click to show/hide)

when Dresden kills the Wild Hunt dog with magic and it then reverts to human. I would rule that no metaphysical violation occurred as he had no intent to kill a human (although the idea of mantles and it being Halloween complicates things greatly) but that a White Council violation occurred that is grounds for his head to be lopped off if the WC knew about it (he killed a human with magic).

[Tedronai]

From my interpretations, the following would violate the Law:
1, 2, 3, and 6

I typically leave Council interpretation in the hands of the local Warden unless more senior individuals are called in, and thus depend on the personal aspects of such NPCs to answer the question of whether the Council considers an action to be a violation of the Law.

[blackstaff67]

I might omit 6 for Lawbreaker purposes as it seems to be accident.  See Dresden's 'Only you can prevent RCV's from living' approach in Grave Peril.  They found human skeletons in the wreckage that may or may not have been dead when he threw the fire.  Reckless, but not deliberate.  No Lawbreaker.   

[Tedronai]

The novels are not actually incompatible with the 'vampire barbecue incident' being a Law violation.
The effects of violations on the perpetrator are not obvious each and every time.
We simply do not have sufficient evidence to definitively say one way or another

[Emperor Tippy]

My take:

1: Clear cut violation both legally and metaphysically (take Lawbreaker, White Council will lop off your head if they find out/catch you).
2: Clear cut violation both legally and metaphysically (take Lawbreaker, White Council will lop off your head if they find out/catch you).

In both cases you cast the magic with the intent to kill another human (hence the metaphysically level) and the proximate cause of death is magic (hence the legal level).

3: Unless you specifically conjured the lighter with intent to start a deadly fire with it, not a metaphysical violation (no Lawbreaker); whether it is a legal violation depends on the mood of the White Council and the Warden who catches you.

4: Metaphysical violation (you cast the evocation with the intention of killing another human), take Lawbreaker, not a White Council violation (magic was not the proximate cause of death). The White Council might still kill you depending on their mood.

5: No metaphysical violation (no intent to kill when the magic was performed), no Lawbreaker, not a White Council violation (magic was not the proximate cause of death). The White Council might still kill you depending on their mood.

6: No metaphysical violation (no intent to kill when magic was performed), no Lawbreaker, may or may not be a White Council violation (reckless use of magic resulting in mortal death). Whether the White Council shortens you a foot or not depends on how many favors the Senior Council owes you.

7: No violation.

Thoughts?

[Mr. Death]

Yea, but you also said magic comes from the soul. Souless creatures, therefor, would not be able to do magic.

I think it has to do with the human soul and its potential to change--in both ways.

A Fae's soul, if it has one, is static--it has no free will, it can't choose what to be. That's why they don't foul up technology. Same with vampires. With pretty much anything that isn't at least part human still.

Likewise, if a Fae kills a human with magic, that's not going to change it, because it means it's already in that Fae's nature to kill with magic.

But a human soul has free will, and the potential to change. A human being might start without a soul whose nature it is to kill--but in killing, that soul changes, becomes someone whose nature is to kill, bit by bit. Even taking magic out of the equation, it's fairly common knowledge, at least in fiction, that it gets easier to kill the more you do it. Magic is like that, only exaggerated, because the murder weapon is you--not you holding a gun, not you holding a knife, but you, the part of you that is the most you. You're killing with your own personal essence--saying that that essence, your soul, is meant to kill.

So when a human kills with magic, it changes them--just like killing without magic changes you, only moreso.

And also, when you kill a human with magic, you're snuffing out not only a person, but all the potential people that person could ever be. A Fae or a Vampire isn't going to change his spots--but the person who mugs you today might be the person who saves your life five years from now.

By killing with magic, with your own essence, the human mage is taking his soul, and destroying another life.

That's the best way I can explain it, I think.

[Mrmdubois]

Off topic slightly but some supernatural critters still foul up technology.  It's one of the signs that Murphy checks for first.  There was also the flickering lights in that short story with the Grendelkin.

Point being, it might only mostly be a mortal thing to mess up tech.

[Troy]

I think recklessness with magic counts.

I think that's why some people, Morgan for example, are so hardcore when it comes to the Law.

If you let people be reckless with their magic and use excuses to worm their way out of the consequences, then what's the point of the Law? Incinerating a building that you believe to be empty... but you don't know for sure? That's reckless and claiming ignorance or accident if someone gets killed by that recklessness is practically begging to be killed. "Kill me now because I'm too stupid for magic."

Side Note: Are there White Council Law experts? Lawyer types that have these sorts of debates when issues like this come up? If not... I'm putting them in my game! Maybe they are a special class of Warden... or retired Wardens. Or Wardens like Harry that refuse to kill people. What would be a good title for someone like that? Marshal? Intercessor? Arbiter? I kind of like Marshal because it has that same feel as the Warden title... but I also like Intercessor because the person is a Wizard that intervenes on behalf of the accused/offender. Hm...

[Emperor Tippy]

I think recklessness with magic counts.

I think that's why some people, Morgan for example, are so hardcore when it comes to the Law.

If you let people be reckless with their magic and use excuses to worm their way out of the consequences, then what's the point of the Law? Incinerating a building that you believe to be empty... but you don't know for sure? That's reckless and claiming ignorance or accident if someone gets killed by that recklessness is practically begging to be killed. "Kill me now because I'm too stupid for magic."

The White Council will just take off your head but that doesn't decide whether or not you get Lawbreak (the metaphysical punishment for breaking the Laws). If there is no intent to kill then there should be no Lawbreaker (and especially if there is no intent to do harm to another human); but the White Council will still take off your head if you kill with magic regardless of circumstances or any extenuating information.

Cause the death of another human with magic and don't have someone willing to take on the Doom for you and a sympathetic Senior Council? Then you are a head shorter. Self Defense (and anything else you want to try) is no defense at all.

Or Wardens like Harry that refuse to kill people.

Um Harry has no problem with killing people. He doesn't like it (and even less likes killing kids who have gone Warlock pretty much just out of ignorance and might be salvageable) and it grateful that the warden commander generally doesn't assign him to anti-warlock duty but he doesn't refuse to kill people.

Even Warlocks.

[Mr. Death]

I think recklessness with magic counts.

I think that's why some people, Morgan for example, are so hardcore when it comes to the Law.

If you let people be reckless with their magic and use excuses to worm their way out of the consequences, then what's the point of the Law? Incinerating a building that you believe to be empty... but you don't know for sure? That's reckless and claiming ignorance or accident if someone gets killed by that recklessness is practically begging to be killed. "Kill me now because I'm too stupid for magic."

I've seen Jim say something similar--that the results matter as much as the intent, because even if you intend not to, ending someone else's life is a big thing.

Um Harry has no problem with killing people. He doesn't like it (and even less likes killing kids who have gone Warlock pretty much just out of ignorance and might be salvageable) and it grateful that the warden commander generally doesn't assign him to anti-warlock duty but he doesn't refuse to kill people.

Even Warlocks.

What Harry objects to isn't so much killing people, but executing people.

[polkaneverdies]

This is a Woj that seems relevant to the discussion of "intent".


 jimbutcher
Friendly Neighborhood Writer-Man
Conversationalist

 
Posts: 346
 

Re: DF: Theories on who Cowl and Kumori really are.
« Reply #56 on: July 16, 2006, 11:50:26 AM »
Quote from: GraevD on July 09, 2006, 03:40:44 PM
  Likewise, you are attracted by a smell of pie, that's normal.  But, someone manipulates the timestream to guarantee that pie isn't the nice fresh cherry pie it was supposed to be, that's just wrong!   Heh, pies aside, my focus is on the controlling of the free will of another person, not on just changes in the environment using magic. 

Man.  The existential morality of using PIE to shape the course of reality.  GOOD or EVIL?  That's . . . one of those discussions I never really thought I'd listen in on.

Quote
"Actually, Molly's intentions when she broke that particular law twisted her."  Here's where I think you hit the nail on the head Lightsabre.  It's the intentions of the caster that matter.  Time Travel, Nercomancy, and Mind Control are all tools that can be used to do *bad* things.  I'm fairly sure what we see in the laws of magic is a sort of wizard gun control, trying to limit the existence of these problematic classes of spells.

But if the substance of the consequences of the act itself does not have its own inherent quality of good or evil, then how can the /intentions/ behind it determine a similar quality?  "Really, I was only trying to provide a better quality of life for my family and my employees.  It wasn't my intention to destroy that particular species of flower in the rain forest that cures cancer."  "I was just trying to give those Injuns some blankets.  It wasn't my intention to expose them to smallpox and wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people."  "I just wanted to get that book finished while working two jobs and finishing a brutal semester of grad school.  It wasn't my intention to screw up the name of Bianca's personal assistant whose death had motivated her to go all power hungry to get revenge on Harry."

There's some old chestnut about good itentions serving as base level gradiant on an expressway that goes somewhere, but I can't remember the specifics right now.    While I agree that the /intentions/ of the person taking action are not without significance, they carry far less weight than the /consequences/ of that action. 

"I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder," is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation.  You had the weapon.  You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion.  (Or if you DIDN'T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people's lives, something really no less excuseable.)  But you chose to employ the weapon anyway.  The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.

Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions.  You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn't like anyone *died* or anything.  He's fine (at least in the long term), you're fine, and there are fewer repercussions--regardless of your hideous intentions.

The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn't something limited to wizards and gods.  Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.

As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well.    There's something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other.  But it's going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there's no sense in ruining the fun.

Jim

(PS--Murphy can't be Kumori, obviously.  Kumori is a powerful and dangerous necromancer with the personal will to hold a knife to a wizard's throat.  And more to the point, she was TALL ENOUGH to do it.  If she was 5' 0" Murphy, she'd have had to be wearing freaking STILTS to hold a knife at 6' 7" Harry's throat from behind.  To say nothing of the fact that Harry has touched Murphy's skin on multiple occasions and never picked up a ripple of /any/ of the aura of a practitioner, much less the utterly obvious one of a fellow heavyweight.  I try to follow my own rules, guys.  )