Law Talk

[Deadmanwalking]

Where do you think his mad fanaticism came from if not magic?

Having been raised in a Fomorian Cult? I mean, they have children they raise...raising them to worship them is logical, and a lot less effort (after the first generation) than magical mind control. I mean, where does any mad fanaticism come from?

This is the model Nicodemus uses, after all.

[Theonlyspiral]

So if they had been Magically purged it would be all good, but if it was raised in the cult then it would be a lawbreaker situation?

[Deadmanwalking]

So if they had been Magically purged it would be all good, but if it was raised in the cult then it would be a lawbreaker situation?

Depends on how 'magically purged' we're talking. If they're Renfield-level mindless and unreachable, then they don't count. If it's subtler than that ala Peabody's stuff, they'd probably still count as Human even if magicked somewhat. Being raised in a cult they'd definitely qualify as human, though.

[blackstaff67]

So here's another question for everyone: The Formor. Now the Formor use augmented servitors, modified by magic and (likely) alchemy to become less like Human Beings, and more like the Formor themselves. In Ghost Story

(click to show/hide)

When Molly is attacked and Harry roasts some of them

neither seems very concerned. Would you slap lawbreaker on someone who hit a Formor servitor with a gout of fire? Or would they be in the clear?

I suggest a re-read of pages 207-8, I believe that technically speaking you may be in error, with respect.  And that's why they're off the hook, because the bad guys exercised Free Will; to be honest, if a player pulled that in my game and the NPC's did that, I'd hesitate to slap Lawbreaker on the player.  Free Will gives the ability to choose and sometimes, we choose to make the wrong decision or choice.

And yeah, what Deadmanwalking said about Free Will and stuff like that.

[Mrmdubois]

I hadn't considered them being raised in a cult, that actually sounds pretty likely and means they probably qualify as mortal.

In that specific instance though, yeah I think the servitor that stepped into the fire suicides by magic.  He didn't have to step into the flames, and they were not purposefully set up to kill or Harry would have just hit them with it instead of setting up a barrier.

[Lavecki121]

Msn. I didn't even think of that, mostly because I forgot, but yea that's totally suicide on that guys part

[Mrmdubois]

As the dao of Terry Pratchett tells us, there's a lot of ways to commit suicide.  Like walking in the Shades, or picking a fight in the Broken Drum, threatening Vimes family, etc.  Same holds true in the Dresdenverse.

[vultur]

My take on enchanted items and the Laws:

If you aim it with Discipline, like Harry's force ring, it's using your will to control the effect, so it counts as magic for the First Law.

If you use Weapons (or Guns... or Fists), like a Warden Sword, you're using your mundane weapon skill to control a weapon that just happens to be magically deadly, so it doesn't count.

What do you think?

[blackstaff67]

Yeah, using magic in any form to kill is A Bad Thing.  Mind you, using it to misdirect, distort, warp or misinform or mislead is perfectly okay.  Which is why I have no problem making a construct for my wizard, filling it with nitroglycerin, then possessing it after putting my features on it to take to a drug deal or the like is perfectly okay.  If the other guy chooses to exercise Free Will and shoot at me, too bad for him.  Mind you, I make sure there aren't any innocents nearby and I make sure it takes place at night so my spirit won't be fried by the sun, but it's perfectly 1st Law legal.

Come to think of it, speaking of ways around the laws, pretty sure it's okay for vanilla mortals to research information of the Outsiders without violating the 7th Law. 

[Mrmdubois]

It's not, but it's more likely to go unnoticed.

Reason being that the 7th Law is the only one that can be broken just by doing the research.

I wouldn't bother forcing Lawbreaker on someone for that though, especially non-casters since it would do nothing for them.  An Aspect change at most, or no change at all depending.

[Crazy Wilhelm]

Not sure if this is precisely the proper place to ask, but what's the Fourth Law say about a simulated reality scenario? Creating a false life and false experiences for a child, for instance, to create a fictitious "past" for the subject in question? Questions of magical viability aside, how illegal is something like this? No direct mental coercion or force, just the dynamic deception of the senses into perceiving a series of places and events that are entirely imaginary as true and visceral.

[blackstaff67]

If you mean generating illusions via Spirit that anyone can see, then simulated reality is fine.  A wee bit unethical (I know the movie you're thinking of  ) especially when applied to children, but probably not an out-and-out 4th Law violation...though the Wardens would probably be watching you and making a dossier.

[Tedronai]

Even 'beaming' the illusion directly to the sensory aparatus of a specific individual such that only that person experiences the false stimuli shouldn't likely be lawbreaking, so long as you don't skip the sensory organs and jump straight to inserting the illusion into the mind (which really would be much easier, and who's to say those Wardens will ever find out, or are even right when they say it's a bad idea...*evil-grin*).

[Crazy Wilhelm]

Cool, thanks for the input. I kinda thought that it might be okay, albeit veering pretty hard into the dubious realm of questionable pursuits. I figured if there was nothing invasive or coercive about it, heads wouldn't necessarily have to roll.

[Tedronai]

Do keep in mind that it is entirely plausible for the point at which 'heads need to roll' to be entirely distinct from the point at which souls begin to be corrupted, and that either one of them might plausibly precede the other.