Author Topic: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"  (Read 22909 times)

Offline The Last Bean

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2007, 03:53:56 PM »
Wow, I hope all the Laws generate a discussion this good.

For the axe-wall situation it seems prety cut and dry when you look at it less in terms of legal and more in terms of the person's soul. The problem involved in using magic to kill someone is the creation of forces that are intended to take a life. Magic in Dresden is a matter of will, and seems to have a direct conduit to the mind and soul. And it is the opening of that conduit to death dealing that is the problem.

Sylvia did not kill that fellow with magic, she held him to a wall. An axe killed him, propelled by the muscles of another mortal. She didn't make the decision to end his life, and she didn't use her will to make it happen. If she had thrown him through a window instead, we'd get into that grey area.


On the subject of grey areas... The wardens. They use magic swords to kill people. Wouldn't that count as the use of magic to kill someone? If not, then there's a pretty big loophole in the "thall shalt not kill" rule, since just about anyone can enchant something and hand it to their friend, the same way the forger of that sword did for the wardens.

Thoughts?

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2007, 04:05:44 PM »
On the subject of grey areas... The wardens. They use magic swords to kill people. Wouldn't that count as the use of magic to kill someone? If not, then there's a pretty big loophole in the "thall shalt not kill" rule, since just about anyone can enchant something and hand it to their friend, the same way the forger of that sword did for the wardens.

I may have said this elsethread. :)

Jim's Official Word is that the reason the Wardens carry the swords is so that they don't have to use magic to kill.  Sure, it might be a loophole, but it's an official one. :)

(click to show/hide)

Warden Swords are all kinds of interesting, when it comes down to it, but I think that some of the non-Law-breaking-ness of it has to do with immediacy.  If you pin someone to a wall while your friend wields an axe, that's a lot greyer than creating a sword well in advance of being face to face with a living human target who you mean to do harm.
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2007, 04:06:19 PM »
Wow, I hope all the Laws generate a discussion this good.

I echo this sentiment, as well. :)
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline rayden54

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2007, 07:58:22 PM »
I don't know anything about role-playing, but these laws of magic intrigue me too much to let this opportunity pass by.

I have a few scenarios in mind, and I'm wondering how the Laws would apply to them.

First, picture this. Two wizards are battling a sorcerer. The sorcerer, being evil, doesn't really care about breaking the laws. He's too far gone. The two wizards, on the other hand, do.

It quickly becomes apparent that this difference gives the sorcerer an edge. He doesn't have to worry about his magical attacks being lethal.

In desperation, one of the two wizards prepares to kill the sorcerer by calling down fire, knowing that if he doesn't, the sorcerer will kill him, his friend, and others. He believes that stopping the sorcerer is worth his death.

However, just before the fire can incinerate the sorcerer, the other wizard kills the sorcerer with his own attack. Assume the two were not acting in concert, and the first wizard had actually intended to kill the sorcerer, not just distract him.

My question is: Is the first wizard still guilty of breaking the first law? If the second had killed the sorcerer with magic in order to prevent the first from doing so, did he succeed? Or will they both be executed? And what does this translate to in game terms?

Second, what if a person kills someone with magic, and it's truly accidental? Say someone's trying to burn their garbage and they accidentally light someone on fire.

Or, someone's fighting a Black Court Vampire on a deserted rooftop. Just as the wizard unleashes a wind attack meant to knock the Vampire off the roof, an unwitting bystander walks onto the roof and takes the brunt of the blast. The poor sap is knocked off the roof and falls to his death instead.

I'm sorry this is so long. I'm just really curious. I almost think that Jim should write a book series dealing with the grey areas of the laws. I'm sure there's enough there.

I have another question, but it fits better with the law against compulsion so I'll wait on it. See if you hang me for the long post. I'm also sorry all the wizards are male, but it's easier to write than he/she.

Offline mikeryan

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2007, 12:45:58 AM »
Warden Swords are all kinds of interesting, when it comes down to it, but I think that some of the non-Law-breaking-ness of it has to do with immediacy.  If you pin someone to a wall while your friend wields an axe, that's a lot greyer than creating a sword well in advance of being face to face with a living human target who you mean to do harm.

That works. Harry has mentioned the "self-defense" clause from time to time. With the swords, cutting someone down in the heat of battle is probably ok, but using it to cut through their house wards and stabbing them in their sleep would more likely be a violation.

Offline mikeryan

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2007, 01:00:05 AM »

My question is: Is the first wizard still guilty of breaking the first law? If the second had killed the sorcerer with magic in order to prevent the first from doing so, did he succeed? Or will they both be executed? And what does this translate to in game terms?

This is a heat of battle scenario. I think that if they have friends on the council, they'd get off with a warning.

In game terms, I think the guy who "got the kill" would probably still get the Lawbreaker stunt. The other guy would probably get a pass from me. You can want to kill someone as much as you want. You just can't kill them. The player can still play up the emotional angle at coming that close to taking a life. The stunt isn't really needed for that.

Quote
Second, what if a person kills someone with magic, and it's truly accidental? Say someone's trying to burn their garbage and they accidentally light someone on fire.

Personally, I think that without intent, it doesn't count. It's still a good motivation to be cautious with your mighty powers.

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2007, 03:45:53 AM »
Mikeryan is speaking as the guy who'd be running the game, with answers of "this is how I'd play it".  This is exactly the way I want people to be looking at this material.

It's not my place to say "this is how you MUST interpret these situations".  In *your* games, it should be all in how *you* interpret it.  I'm just laying down fruitful material for thought!
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline Rel Fexive

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Shadow Sorcerer
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2007, 07:43:30 PM »
Any more fruitful and we'll be surrounded by trees or... somethin'...
THE DOCTOR: I'll do a thing.
RIVER SONG: What thing?
THE DOCTOR: I don't know. It's a thing in progress. Respect the thing!

Offline seiscat

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 708
  • Got cream?
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2007, 02:19:53 AM »
You know these arguments are virtually the same ones that come up with the "thou shall not kill" Commandment in the Bible.  How many thousands of years has that discussion been going on?  It seems likely that the WC would have come to the same conclusions that society has in general - the grey areas are covered under things like negligent homicide and manslaughter with gradational punishments going on up to premeditated murder and the death penalty.  A vote of the WC or SC is substituted for a jury and/or judge.  The final decision will be based on human instinct and probably, some politics.
There is no such thing as just a cat.

Offline Douglas

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2007, 03:30:15 PM »
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.

I definitely think that eventual aspect shift would be a good element to add to a character who had killed things that looked human.  However I don't think the loss of free will associated with the Refresh mechanic should be part of the equation.  Combat veterans can come home fairly screwed up, but they don't come home without free will.  I'm not quite sure how I'd approximate the short-term mental stress of killing for the first time, as a friend of mine in the Canadian military once told me everyone who kills for the first time either cries, vomits, or was majorly screwed up to begin with.  Given that the last of those categories is unlikely to make for good PCs some approximation of the short term pschological effects for individuals not used to violence might add something.  Aspect shift could reflect either a character becoming unhinged or a character coming to some kind of reconciliation with themself over what they have done.  Murphy doesn't show a lot of problems after shooting Denton in Fool Moon, or after shooting one Raith bodyguard and killing another while unarmed in Blood Rites.  Simplest explanation is she had already come to grips with this.

How a particualr GM and Player decide to handle the consequences of this kind of activity will be up to them.  Some groups may keep to strictly inhuman monsters to avoid even bringing up killing rules.  Others may prefer a game where this sort of thing comes up, and allow time for role-playing on how a character tries to come to grips with his own violent acts.

Offline Rel Fexive

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Shadow Sorcerer
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2007, 06:48:52 PM »
A non-combat character starts with an appropriate Aspect for it that can be compelled for 'weakness' and bullet-shyness... and, as one of their advancements later on they could, if appropriate, swap it out for a more combat-hardened Aspect.
THE DOCTOR: I'll do a thing.
RIVER SONG: What thing?
THE DOCTOR: I don't know. It's a thing in progress. Respect the thing!

Offline Khayyin

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2007, 12:52:03 AM »
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.

Thus far, we have:
-Teenage wizard, mostly a sensitive (precognition, psychometry). He's the creepy kid who wakes the party up in the middle of the night, saying "The monsters are coming".

-A Thunderbird. In my game, the Thunderbird are a race of Nevernever-types, who've been living in the physical world nearly as long as vampires. Their natural form is a huge bird, of course, but many of them use a trick similar to Tera West, and turn into a human for a period of time.

-Valkyrie. This character is the reincarnation of a powerful Valkyrie, who is just coming into her abilities. For now, she struggles with the Valkyrie alter-ego, which takes over in times of stress in a Jessica Sanders (Heroes) sort of way. She blacks out, and when she wakes up, the battle is over, and she's left with the corpse of a mugger with a spear-wound.

-In the 13th century, as the Inquisition worked it's way to an end, the Pope established an organization of hunters, all men of the cloth, who answer directly to the Pope. One of the PCs is such an undercover hunter-for-the-Lord. Sort of Father Forthill meets Supernatural (tv show).

-A wyldfae pixie, with a knack for working the rumor-mill.

-A wyldfae changeling, child of a Sidhe and a mortal.


Any of the fae or fae-like creatures would be protected by the accords as far as persecution goes. What I'm wondering is if doing something that would break one of the Laws of Magic would have a corrupting influence on the PC, resulting in a Lawbreaker stunt and loss of refresh rate (still getting used to that idea). From what you've said, that sort of thing (particularly the refresh rate reduction) represents being warped by your use of magic, by doing something against your nature.

I think what I'll implement is this: A being is either a) under the effects Laws of Magic, b) under the effects of the Unseelie Accords, or c) Non-magical, so not worried about it.

The Unseelie Accords will be a set of similar rules, based on the rules the fae must abide by (Cannot speak a false statement - if forced to make a statement 3 times, they must  abide by it, etc.). Breaking the Accords will have the consequence of an Accordbreaker stunt (you see where I'm going with this). The way I see the Accords, there are a million addenda, laying out the variations on the rules that each variety of creature must abide by. This covers most anything that might come out of the woodwork; as long as you abide by the rules of what you are, you're fine.

Will need some tweaking, but what do you all think?

Offline taralon

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2007, 01:11:52 AM »
This is a heat of battle scenario. I think that if they have friends on the council, they'd get off with a warning.

In game terms, I think the guy who "got the kill" would probably still get the Lawbreaker stunt. The other guy would probably get a pass from me. You can want to kill someone as much as you want. You just can't kill them. The player can still play up the emotional angle at coming that close to taking a life. The stunt isn't really needed for that.

Personally, I think that without intent, it doesn't count. It's still a good motivation to be cautious with your mighty powers.


Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass.  Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another.  Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt.  Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself.  I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences. 

As far as a truly accidental effect.  Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves.  If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent. 




Offline mikeryan

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2007, 04:05:33 AM »
Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass.  Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another.  Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt.  Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself.  I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences. 

I see your point, and I'm seeing errors in my own logic.

I'm an easy-going GM though. Ultimately, I'd probably leave it up to the player. If he had wanted the kill for character or story reasons, and felt the stunt fit  with his character, I'd allow him to take it. Forcing it on him if he didn't want it might be a little mean.

Ultimately, it comes down to two (or more) story paths. In one, the character becomes tougher and darker. In the other, maybe the naive character keeps skating around the edges of danger. It could work in the right hands.

Quote
As far as a truly accidental effect.  Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves.  If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent. 

Thinking about this one more, I'm wondering how this would come about around the table.

I wouldn't come up with a complication like that on a new player just to spice things up. That would just be mean gming.

I would throw a complication like that at a seasoned player, who I had a good bond of trust with. And I would take the players ideas about his character into consideration. In that case, maybe giving out the stunt would be appropriate. For a reason, sometimes intent doesn't matter. Case in point, Molly Carpenter. (the book is in softcover, so it's not a spoiler, right?)

And there's always a chance that the player could suggest a situation like that, between sessions.

So what happens to the character really depends on why the situation was created by the various players (including the gm).

Offline taralon

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2007, 12:09:34 PM »
Not springing it on a seasoned player is a good idea. 

Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't jump right on throwing the "Doom" on someone.  We know that the wardens (especially post the start of the War) are stretched very thin.  Harry's in Chicago, the next nearest is in LA.  Having one of them come in to investigate and find guilty would probably be just a little too Deus Ex.  Now having it happen as a reason to have the council begin poking around in the affairs of a group, now that would be plausible.  Instead of facing a trail, instead they have an interfering type like Morgan popping up every time something is going down, and complicating things as now everything has to be white washed.