The First Law of Magic In-Play: Semi-Official Advice

[Tedronai]

The metaphysical truths ARE the Laws.  The Laws are pertinent to themselves.

[Mrmdubois]

No, the Laws are boundaries on behavior.  They are given weight by the metaphysics, the metaphysics are -an- explanation for the existence of the Laws.  That is the extent of the relation between the Laws and truth.

[Tedronai]

The rules imposed by the Council are boundaries on behaviour.  The rules imposed by the Council are not the only Laws.

[Mrmdubois]

So you would argue that you could take a Power that functions similarly to Lawbreaker for other types of magic you might perform?

Or are you saying something more abstract?  I didn't really understand your post.

[polkaneverdies]

The only laws violated by robbing a bank would be mortal government ones. unless you were using no creativity you wouldn't need to violate either the council laws or the metaphysical "rules of magic"

[Tedronai]

So you would argue that you could take a Power that functions similarly to Lawbreaker for other types of magic you might perform?

Or are you saying something more abstract?  I didn't really understand your post.

The Laws of physics are no less accurately termed Laws for their lack of a police force, trials, and executions.
The metaphysical laws represented by the Lawbreaker power are The Laws upon which the White Council of Wizardry based its Laws.

There is no Law for heating a cup of tea.  There is no Law for veiling a blade of grass on a lark.  There is no Law for transforming the caster's own self.
The Laws make a special case of a small set of actions.  We are not told why.  I do not care to guess.

Houserule as you will.

[Mrmdubois]

Wasn't really planning to house rule anything.

The only laws violated by robbing a bank would be mortal government ones. unless you were using no creativity you wouldn't need to violate either the council laws or the metaphysical "rules of magic"

The use of magic, or lack thereof, leads to behavioral and mental adjustment.  So I think you misunderstand me, it's more of a following of the metaphysical laws than breaking of them.  Do X and you will be more likely to do X again.  That is the metaphysical law.  The Laws of the Council exist to make sure there are certain X's you don't commit, they interact with the metaphysical law, but they aren't metaphysical in the least.  That isn't metaphysical at all.  One of the reason the Council Laws exist is supposedly because of the corruptive nature of the actions outlined therein, indicating a moral agenda.  However there are a lot of possible actions which are morally suspect or condemnable that the Laws don't address.  Like theft, or torture, which impose on, ignore or negate the free will of others and the fact that the Council doesn't bother to regulate that along with the quote from Luccio and the consideration that using magic like doing anything leads to behavioral and mental adjustments, thus theft and torture can be just as corruptive as breaking Council Law.  All of that means when considered together that the Laws are not in place to prevent corruption, but to limit power.  They just happen to happily prevent some of the corruptive magics one can perform as well.

[Tedronai]

It's good you've begun to reference them as 'The Laws of the Council'.  It is an important distinction from 'The Laws of Magic' which you seemed to have been referencing previously.
That clarification being in place, the corrections I would insist upon are minor enough that I no longer care to continue beyond this last restatement:

The Laws [of Magic] make a special case of a small set of actions.  We are not told why.  I do not care to guess.

(clarification added)

[Mrmdubois]

The Laws of the Council I am referencing are the big 7 and are also called the Laws of Magic.  They do nothing to describe magic itself, just a bunch of things the Council doesn't allow.  So I don't see the point of your distinction.

[Tedronai]

You still haven't gotten this?

Lawbreaker exists for 'the big 7'.  No such mechanism exists for other activities, nor is justification for such a mechanism applied to other activities referenced in the fiction.
The Laws of Magic exist both as metaphysical truths and as the Laws of the Council.

[Mrmdubois]

No the Laws of Magic aren't Laws in the physics sense at all.  You shall not kill is a commandment, it's a restriction on behavior created by the Council, the working of magic in itself has no prohibition against it being used to kill.  So there is definitely a distinction that you're not getting.

[Tedronai]

The commandments and prohibitions of the Laws are creations of the Council.  The Truth of the Laws exists independently of any mortal agency.
Phrased as their metaphysical Truths, the Laws might appear as 'Will not [these results] by magic, lest you be tainted in your soul'.
Or, without the judgement that such tainting is a thing to avoid, 'Will [these results] by magic and be tainted in your soul'.
(this phrasing obviously doesn't cover the 7th law, but that is a special case among special cases)

[Mrmdubois]

Yeah that's what I've said this entire time, so thanks for reinforcing my point.

I mean, maybe I wasn't clarifying enough, I don't know.

The only thing I'd add to that is that there are many behaviors including some uses of magic not addresses by the Council's Laws which can corrupt the individual.  Since those corrupting behaviors aren't addressed by the Council's Laws, despite the metaphysical law or truth that they do corrupt, the Laws of the Council cannot be considered to be wholly or even mostly concerned with the corruption of the soul.

[Tedronai]

The only thing I'd add to that is that there are many behaviors including some uses of magic not addresses by the Council's Laws which can corrupt the individual.

Source for this corruption being anything on par with that addressed by the Laws?
Or happening at all in any meaningful way?

More than just personal theorycrafting, here, please, as I've already seen that on this (and related) thread(s) with regards to this subject.

[Mrmdubois]

No, corruption is a synonym for change, although with connotations for the worse.  Any behavior or use of magic that is repeatable is capable of changing or corrupting that individual to varying degrees.

As for whether or not this is a personal theory, well my evidence for my arguments come straight from the books.  For instance, Harry's anger problems which Murphy confronts him about.  Ok, sure he was influenced with mind mojo to start making his anger more of a problem, but he also realized that it was a problem he had and it was affecting his use of magic and whether or not he used that magic appropriately.  A small corruption, but if it hadn't been some kind of corruption it wouldn't have been worthwhile to Lasciel, and it was self maintaining, and could become worse without further influence on her part once she started the ball rolling.  Another instance, without mind mojo possibly confusing matters, Harry's fear of losing his fire magic, if he failed to use it once it would become harder to use in the future and slowly become impossible altogether. 

An example Harry has noted about wizards in general, if you have magic you tend to start trying to solve problems with magic.  It's behavioral reinforcement.  Using magic is a behavior.  Using magic for destructive ends creates reinforcement for that sort of destructive behavior.  Which is just like saying that killing someone with magic is going to reinforce the behavior of killing with magic.

Or, without the judgement that such tainting is a thing to avoid, 'Will [these results] by magic and be tainted in your soul'.

. This quote applies to -any- repeatable action.  That applies in game or out, it's simply a matter of degrees and whether or not "taint" is the right word.