Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"

[iago]

The First Law: Never take a life.

Read the article here: http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/news/archives/2007/06/the_laws_of_mag_1.php

[finarvyn]

Good reading. I like the overall philosophy of writing articles first in theory and then in specific to the campaign. That style certainly combines the best of both worlds, as it gives a general Dresdenverse resource as well as campaign-specific thoughts and suggestions.

It's stuff like this that makes me certain that the DFRPG will be a big hit.

[Khayyin]

Something I'm not 100% on: Do the Laws of Magic only apply to human wizards, or do they have an effect on anything at all that uses magic? Obviously the Wardens are primarily concerned with policing the wizards, and protecting lives, so you won't hear them accusing a monster of breaking a law. My question is, does the monster take a lawbreaker stunt, if it breaks one of the laws?

I ask because, in my campaign of ~7 players, only one is a wizard. The rest are a varied array of beasts and fae. I'm interested to know if the corrupting influence of using magic wrong is fairly universal, or if it is something that only happens to humans.

[iago]

Something I'm not 100% on: Do the Laws of Magic only apply to human wizards, or do they have an effect on anything at all that uses magic? Obviously the Wardens are primarily concerned with policing the wizards, and protecting lives, so you won't hear them accusing a monster of breaking a law. My question is, does the monster take a lawbreaker stunt, if it breaks one of the laws?

Most times that won't really matter; most *true* monsters aren't PCs, and lawbreaker stunts are there more to make PC life interesting than they are otherwise.

But in terms of the *legality* of things, I would speculate that the Unseelie Accords protect most monsters from that sort of prosecution -- though honestly, since a lot of the actions covered by the laws are Bad Things Done to Humans, that doesn't mean a wizard won't come along and disintegrate a monster for doing a bad thing completely apart from the whole "is it a violation of the Laws or not".

*That* said, we're talking *monsters* here.  True, dyed-in-the-wool, full-damn monsters.  Not "supernatural humans".  Alpha-style werewolves don't count as monsters here, for example; neither do changelings who haven't made their Choice yet.

I ask because, in my campaign of ~7 players, only one is a wizard. The rest are a varied array of beasts and fae. I'm interested to know if the corrupting influence of using magic wrong is fairly universal, or if it is something that only happens to humans.

(Fae are almost certainly protected by the Accords from prosecution of the Laws.)

Well, let's just say that to the extent that it matters for non-player creatures, it's almost always going to be "baked into" their natures.  The Laws game rules function as they function because they're about *changing* a player character from what he is now, into what he's becoming.  It's a consequence of free will when you use the power of that free will to make a dark choice.

I'm not sure what you mean by "beasts" here, though, so I'm not sure where to go with the specifics of your game.

[Douglas]

How would you advise treating an attempt to make an opponent easier to kill using magic?

Example:
My friend's character, a witch named Sylvia Valois, and my character, a mortal named James Strand, are confronting a human villain named Phillip Burroughs.  Burroughs is powerful, influential, and in league with a group of vampires, but is still a free-willed human being.  He tries to call security when we burst into his office, but Sylvia pins him to the wall by projecting magical force.  He starts to scream threats at us and James buries a fire-axe in his skull.

Would this violate the First Law?  Sylvia was actively using magivc to pin our enemy in place, but she herself did not cause him any serious harm to him.  The harm was done by an axe-wielding mortal, a distinctly non-magical phenomena and not one under her direct control. 

Would it make a difference if Sylvia had acted alone and used an axe to kill Phillip after immobilizing him with magic?  I think it might, since you had the example of using magic to knock someone off a building as a no-no even though the cause of death was mundane.

[iago]

How would you advise treating an attempt to make an opponent easier to kill using magic?

Well, let's evaluate this question in the absence of specifics, first.

The way you phrase this, in *my* game, that's a violation of the First Law -- but I want to run a game where violations of the First Law are all too easy to make happen.  If your game crew doesn't dig on that idea, there's nothing saying you have to run it *my* way.

That said, the devil's in the details...

Example:
My friend's character, a witch named Sylvia Valois, and my character, a mortal named James Strand, are confronting a human villain named Phillip Burroughs.  Burroughs is powerful, influential, and in league with a group of vampires, but is still a free-willed human being.  He tries to call security when we burst into his office, but Sylvia pins him to the wall by projecting magical force.  He starts to scream threats at us and James buries a fire-axe in his skull.

Would this violate the First Law?

Ahhh, I see what you mean.  Well, Sylvia's intentions there weren't about killing him -- or were they?  Does she agree with what James did? Did she keep that magical force going so she could make that easier -- or did it just happen to work out that way?

Remember, part (but not all) of the reason a First Law violation is a violation is because, in bringing up her magic, Sylvia intended a deadly result.  That's half of it.  If she didn't, then there's some wiggle room, and it becomes a "grey area" judgment call.  If she did it so she could help James get his axe into Phil's head, well -- that's calling up magic with the intent to kill, now isn't it?

Would it make a difference if Sylvia had acted alone and used an axe to kill Phillip after immobilizing him with magic?  I think it might, since you had the example of using magic to knock someone off a building as a no-no even though the cause of death was mundane.

The way I'd play it, that'd make a difference, since it would show a certain unity between the purpose of the spell and its ultimate result.

[Douglas]

Ahhh, I see what you mean.  Well, Sylvia's intentions there weren't about killing him -- or were they?  Does she agree with what James did? Did she keep that magical force going so she could make that easier -- or did it just happen to work out that way?

Remember, part (but not all) of the reason a First Law violation is a violation is because, in bringing up her magic, Sylvia intended a deadly result.  That's half of it.  If she didn't, then there's some wiggle room, and it becomes a "grey area" judgment call.  If she did it so she could help James get his axe into Phil's head, well -- that's calling up magic with the intent to kill, now isn't it?

Ironically enough that was eseentially the other "would it make a difference" scenario I was thinking of adding to my original post.  In the one I posted Sylvia and James both go in with the understanding that Burroughs has to die in order to save lives.  James direct involvement in killing him was a means to avoid the wardens, Sylvia wouldn't have used magic to restrain Burroughs unless tried to call security or draw a gun.  As things turned out Sylvia did end up using magic.

The other scenario is that they go in with the intention to interrogate Burroughs; Sylvia pins him to the wall and James gets all threatening with an axe and a pretty good intimidation skill.  Problem is Burroughs starts spitting threats about the cops and what he's going to make happen to our Heroes' families and James...kinda loses it.  Sylvia hadn't dropped the spell yet when James attacked Burroughs but she hadn't planned to kill him.  Neither had James but I suppose that's what you get when one of your aspects is "Impulsive".

Though I suppose the Wardens might see things differently if they saw a crime-scene with signs of magic use and a blood splatter that required the corpse to be suspended against the wall several inches off the ground.  So while that the last scenario might not be a spiritual violation of the laws it could still result in council-related entaglements.

Speaking of Wardens, I guess this means that they can't use magic to immobilize you while they kill you.  Good to know.

[iago]

Yep.  As always, we're talking about two styles of violation here -- the ones that matter for your soul (and your character sheet), and the ones that the Wardens become aware of and prosecute.  There's a lot of overlap between 'em, but it's not total.

Which, from my perspective, is an awful lot of (entertaining) grist for the story-mill!

[Rel Fexive]

Loving this stuff!

I think the only problem with similar situations to the one above could be players who say "of course I never intended for them to be killed!" after said person is killed, when before it happened it certainly looked like they meant it to happen.

But then, "decision backtrack" players are a problem in any game.

[finarvyn]

Of course, there are a couple of things to consider.

1. The magic pinned-to-the-wall effect contributed to a person's death. As Iago said, it's a gray area in terms of the First Law and might be subject to Warden investigation. In my campaign I think I would at least let the wizard sweat a little and then have the Wardens grudgingly let her off the hook ... this time. Keep in mind that death is death, no matter what the intent. The difference of murder versus manslaughter might not matter to the Wardens.

2. Thunking someone in the head with an axe is also an event that should bring in traditional civil authorities ... the police. Too many times in RPGs players get into the pattern of see a critter, kill the critter, take its loot and move on. That's not really true role playing, it's a video game mentality. The Dresden world is supposed to be essentially our world, only with the twist that magic works. Harry gets some slack because he's friends with Murph, but that doesn't always stop her from cuffing him and running him into the station. The PCs probably don't have such connections, or if they do probably haven't built up enough of a white-hat reputation to allow an axe-murder to slide off so that they can just walk away clean. If nothing else, some "Dark Side" points might be in order... 

Just my two cents.

[Douglas]

2. Thunking someone in the head with an axe is also an event that should bring in traditional civil authorities ... the police. Too many times in RPGs players get into the pattern of see a critter, kill the critter, take its loot and move on. That's not really true role playing, it's a video game mentality. The Dresden world is supposed to be essentially our world, only with the twist that magic works. Harry gets some slack because he's friends with Murph, but that doesn't always stop her from cuffing him and running him into the station. The PCs probably don't have such connections, or if they do probably haven't built up enough of a white-hat reputation to allow an axe-murder to slide off so that they can just walk away clean. If nothing else, some "Dark Side" points might be in order... 

Just my two cents.

Well I did a fair amount of roleplaying in the World of Darkness Campaign settings, and I think that in my group's games mortal law enforcement was definitely a factor.  In the previous Laws of Magic thread I pointed out to Iago that use of a handgunr in place of magic would make you vulnerable to the tools of mortal law-enforcement.  But that will occur if you use mortal weaponry regardless of whether or not a given opponent qualifies as a free-willed human.  Challenge a Black Court vamp and pump some bullets into some Renfields and it will look like murder.  Heck, even the bones of Red Court vampires look human enough that everyone at the morgue except Butters was willing to go along.  If you want to battle the forces of darkness learn basic precautions to keep from leaving fingerprints, hair follicles, and other forms of incriminating evidence.  You don't even need the nightmare of the Justice System in Hunter: The Reckoning, where vampires can mind-control the judge, jury, cops and prison guards with near impunity.  Lets be thankful that using mortal law-enforcement in supernatural quarrels is a no-no in this setting.

As for "Dark Side" points, we are talking about four different modes of reasoning here:  Firstly there are the actual laws of Magic as they are enforced by individual wardens, and while those do not directly affect your character sheet the consequences can be dire.  Secondly there are the Laws of Magic as they exist as spiritual principles, which might be broken without drawing down the wrath of the Wardens but will still change you even if you hide your sins from the world.  Thirdly there are the laws of the mortal world, as enforced by the police and governed by courts and legislatures.  Fourthly there are the moral principles on which the laws of mortal society are (hopefully) based.  The degree to which the laws and principles of mortal society are similar or dissimilar is another argument entirely, but I think that we still have to think of them as distinct though related categories.

But the mechanic here seems only to apply to the 2nd category, though it is linked to the 1st.  There has been evidence from the series where the first and second have been violated without violating the 3rd; for there are no laws against mind control.  By the same token mortal laws can be broken without breaking the Laws of Magic.  Killing without magic means no violation of the 1st and 2nd, absolutely means a violation of the 3rd, and the 4th?  I don't know; people are still arguing the morality of killing to save lives, or comiting crimes in pursuit of a just cause.  I would certainly agree that a character who routinely killed things that looked human or actually were human should show some psychological impact.  Anyone who isn't a sociopath will be affected by killing anyone or anything that looks human, whether it's a White Court vamp or a Reinfield or just some garden variety human thug trying to shoot you.  But I don't think the mechanic described in the rules for the Laws of Magic would make any sense whatsoever applied to mortal law and mortal offenses.

[iago]

Yep, you're on to something; someone could certainly take the Laws of Magic rules system presented here and apply it to non-supernatural activities too, if they cared to... I doubt we'll actually explicitly support that in the game, but I'd love to see a few local games "drift" things that way.

[mikeryan]

How would you advise treating an attempt to make an opponent easier to kill using magic?

Along the same lines as your question, what about enchantments?

Harry's duster and shield bracelet have saved his skin countless times. I can see myself coming up with villains with similar defenses. I think I remember reading that Warden swords can cut through such defenses. If holding an enemy immobile while sticking an axe in his skull is a violation of the First Law, I'd think that using a magical sword to pierce his force field would also apply.

[Rel Fexive]

I guess the simple fact that Wardens use them to do just that means the First Law doesn't apply... presumably because a) the magical portion of the attack cancels out the magical defence so that everything is equal after that, and b) because Wardens would be pretty damn useless otherwise.

[iago]

Harry's duster and shield bracelet have saved his skin countless times. I can see myself coming up with villains with similar defenses. I think I remember reading that Warden swords can cut through such defenses. If holding an enemy immobile while sticking an axe in his skull is a violation of the First Law, I'd think that using a magical sword to pierce his force field would also apply.

Nope -- in this case, we have an official word.  Jim has explicitly said that the reason the Wardens carry the swords is so that they can kill without having to resort to magic to do so.