Killing renfields with magic

[solbergb]

Yeah, and in Molly's case, it was a death sentence for both herself AND Dresden when she gave into it and invaded Anastasia's mind.  Only Morgan's death prevented that, since he's the kind of guy who would have turned them in once the kerfuffle was over.

[HumAnnoyd]

Molly never got corrupted, HD never got corrupted, EB never got corrupted.

(click to show/hide)

Molly has clearly been heavily impacted by her actions and the corruption that they caused.  In fact several other characters talked about her in quite fearful tones before she became the Winter Lady. Harry has been battling corruption internally the entire series.  And why would you even bring up Ebeneezer McCoy when you know that he is the exception because he is the Blackstaff.  Which is clearly stated in the books.  Several times.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but I feel like you are on a crusade to prove your point of view to everyone on the boards.  And I apologize but I just don't see it that way. 

As for the original question:  In my game I had a bunch of Cannibal Thralls that threatened the entire city, and ultimately the world, if they and their master, an Outsider tainted Red Cap Changeling who devoured the souls turning them into hollowed out cannibal monsters, weren't stopped.  The Warden in the group tried to Soulgaze one of the thralls (at incredible risk to himself) but it didn't work because they no longer had souls.  Once that was established I ruled that he was free to act with full magical force against them.   

If you determine that BCVs leave a soulless shell then I think that the Wardens would do their due diligence and make sure that they were indeed no longer human.  If that is the case then the PCs should be left alone.  Now the investigation itself might be a pain in the PC's ass.  And some of the Wardens might not share the belief that it is OK to act with magic against the thralls.  But that is just RPing gravy if you ask me.

[Wordmaker]

Absolutely. What's going to be great about this is seeing how the PCs react and how their attitude to it influences any potential investigation.

I think I'm inclined to rule that renfields are still human, much in the same way a changeling or lycanthrope is human. They're controlled, and physically boosted with magic, but the Wardens would view their death by mortal magic as a violation of the First Law.

[HumAnnoyd]

Absolutely. What's going to be great about this is seeing how the PCs react and how their attitude to it influences any potential investigation.

I think I'm inclined to rule that renfields are still human, much in the same way a changeling or lycanthrope is human. They're controlled, and physically boosted with magic, but the Wardens would view their death by mortal magic as a violation of the First Law.

(click to show/hide)

It has been a while but I seem to recall Harry using magic against the Renfields when he and Murphy faced Mavra.  I might be wrong about that though. 

Ultimately, it seems like it would all be case by case.  Which gives you a good excuse to have Wardens harass the crap out of your PCs.  Which is gold in my opinion. 

[wyvern]

I'm inclined to rule that renfields aren't human anymore - for the simple reason that I don't think you can soulgaze them, because there's nothing left there.  They don't have even a scrap of mind or free will left to them.  As such, I'd rule that killing, transforming, etc., a renfield is never a law of magic violation (though using necromancy on one could be, for the same reasons that a corpse isn't human anymore, but necromancy on human remains is still prohibited.)
(By contrast, I would rule that killing a human in self defense nets you a lawbreaker power - even if the Council decides not to punish you for it.  I'd also be strongly inclined to make such an event count as a major milestone, with +1 refresh all around.)

Of course, that's a separate thing from how the Council views it.  If the PCs can prove that those were renfields that attacked them - and that they knew at the time that's what was up - they should be on solid ground to avoid more than a warning.  If the PCs are relying on the "self defense is okay" argument, well, that seems to be a leniency that the Council only offers to its own - remember that Harry was almost executed for self-defense, and the only reason he skated out is that someone was willing to take up the Doom and take him on as an apprentice.

And in a case where the PCs already have a black mark against them... I can't see the Council reacting with anything other than kill first, ask questions never.  Unless, as someone suggested, somebody (either within the Council or a sufficiently powerful outside force like a Freeholding Lord) decides to stick their neck out and intercede on the PCs behalf.

[jstomel]

I figure I will put in my two cents. This answer specifically applies to how the wardens and white council might view the situation, not the greater universal nature of the laws.

First question is, is there any sign that somebody was a renfield after they are dead? If it isn't obvious to the WC that these were renfields then the point is moot, or the players may have a plot adventure collecting enough evidence to put forward a good defense.

Second question is, the WC knows that renfields are essentially unsalvageable. Would they be more likely to view them as mortals under the control of black magic who deserve protection from the council, or as zombies, animated corpses who are merely an extension of the will of their master? I think that they would come down on the side of renfields being human, barely. OTOH, wardens have fought against BCV before and may be sympathetic to a bunch of newbs using their powers to take out some renfields. Doesn't mean they won't kill you, but they may not high-five each other afterwards. They may even be inclined to look the other way. Vamp dead and a bunch of renfields taken out? Who is to say they were killed with magic if no one looks into it too hard? Some wardens do have a heart, 

(click to show/hide)

Carlos didn't look too hard for Molly in Cold Days, even though she was suspected of going vigilante on a bunch of mortals.

[Wordmaker]

So I checked Blood Rites, and

(click to show/hide)

yeah, Harry effectively killed two renfields with magic. Specifically, he pushed his shield, which was covered in burning napalm, back at the renfields and they were commanded to hold their ground, so they were covered in the stuff and burned to death. Pretty horrible stuff. We know the Wardens either didn't find out about that, or chose to overlook it, but it's worth noting that Harry only did this because it was literally this, or he, Kincaid, and Murphy would have been killed and the abducted children and medical staff would have been vamp-food. That said, Harry does note, despite the pain he's in, that their remains would not be easily identifiable as human, after the damage from the fire, which might be seen as the author reassuring the reader that Harry won't have to deal with any consequences.

Still, I also need to consider that my players do have that black mark against them, and this is a potent display, not only of power, but a willingness to use that power destructively.

[solbergb]

After DuMorne, Harry has two instances I can think of.

1.  Fuego, Pyrofuego, BURN!  at Bianca's party.   Maybe everybody was dead, maybe not.  Harry isn't sure and no warden's tested his soul since then.  Given that the entire red court is now dead, Harry's likely to have been at least somewhat affected.

2.  The Renfield incident - another borderline case.  They died of mundane fire, but Harry pushed it to them.  Harry was being messed with via Lash by then, and it's hard to untangle his psychic trauma from his burned hand, Lash's influence and any dark-side-points he might have picked up.   But a strict GM might have him up to Lawbreaker 3 (first law) by now.   He's gotten better at killing via indirect means involving magic (dropping ceiling on both the Ick monster and various things we saw in the most recent book).   

I can't think of any others.  Once he switched over to mostly using Force the bystanders-at-risk from fallout has gone way down.

Getting a +3 to kill anything is certainly handy given how many monsters he's killed over the years.   Or to quote Marcone "I've seen what happens to your enemies."

[jstomel]

So I checked Blood Rites, and

(click to show/hide)

yeah, Harry effectively killed two renfields with magic. Specifically, he pushed his shield, which was covered in burning napalm, back at the renfields and they were commanded to hold their ground, so they were covered in the stuff and burned to death. Pretty horrible stuff. We know the Wardens either didn't find out about that, or chose to overlook it, but it's worth noting that Harry only did this because it was literally this, or he, Kincaid, and Murphy would have been killed and the abducted children and medical staff would have been vamp-food. That said, Harry does note, despite the pain he's in, that their remains would not be easily identifiable as human, after the damage from the fire, which might be seen as the author reassuring the reader that Harry won't have to deal with any consequences.

Still, I also need to consider that my players do have that black mark against them, and this is a potent display, not only of power, but a willingness to use that power destructively.

I don't think that this counts. The shield didn't kill them, the napalm did, and it was just normal napalm. If a bullet bounces off your shield and kills someone, I don't think it would violate the first law. If I recall, in SK harry douses the chlorofiend in gas and lights it up with a match. This mundane fire burns in in a way that magic fire wouldn't. This may establish that if the source of the fire is mundane then is doesn't count as using "magic". This definitely allows for abuses, but remember that the laws are not about right and wrong.

[wyvern]

There's actually one more possibly-important question here: When this battle came up, did you, as the GM, hold up a pile of fate points and say "By the way, since you're Under Investigation by the Wardens, it'd be a really bad plan to kill using magic here..."

If so, and if they took those fate points and then went gung-ho anyway, then go right ahead and complicate their lives.  If they bought off the compel, then maybe the Warden investigating knows about the local vampires and Renfields, or maybe there's some other power in the area that decides to claim responsibility for destruction of tools of the vampires...

[PirateJack]

I don't think that this counts. The shield didn't kill them, the napalm did, and it was just normal napalm. If a bullet bounces off your shield and kills someone, I don't think it would violate the first law. If I recall, in SK harry douses the chlorofiend in gas and lights it up with a match. This mundane fire burns in in a way that magic fire wouldn't. This may establish that if the source of the fire is mundane then is doesn't count as using "magic". This definitely allows for abuses, but remember that the laws are not about right and wrong.

It still breaks the Law in that situation (ignoring the Renfield discussion for a moment) because Harry is the one to throw the napalm back at them. If he had shot the tank or one of them had malfunctioned (not because of hexing) then Harry would have been in the clear, but as he was the one to take the offensive and throw the napalm back his magic is directly involved and thus opens him up to Lawbreaking. There is little to no difference, cosmically speaking, between using choking a person to death with air magic and throwing them off a building, after all.

[Dougansf]

I think this has been a great discussion so far.  It focuses on a thin line of the metaphysics, and what should be a common tactic of any bad guy going up against a wizard.

I just reread the Blood Rites chapter in question.

(click to show/hide)

Harry drops the shield covered in napalm, and uses an air spell to blow it onto the Renfields.  The extra air seems to make it burn even hotter.
(It's possible that this is also his first time tapping into Lash for power, because of the burning wood of his staff, and later the glowing runes).  If that is the case, then it might be Sponsored Magic, and not care about the Laws. 
But let's pretend that it's all mortal magic.

I don't think that's a first law violation.  As the napalm was not magic, much less his magic, directly doing the killing.  This is further supported in Skin Game

(click to show/hide)

Harry against the Genosqua.  He gets around the magic immunity by conjuring an ice ball from winter, then launching it with Fozare.
Game mechanically speaking, I don't see a reason for these to not be one evocation roll, but narrated in an important way to avoid Law violation.

I do agree that the Law doesn't care if you kill in self defense, you get tainted either way. 
The White Council might be more lenient about their enforcement of the Law.

(click to show/hide)

In Turn Coat, Luccio told Harry about his mother's views on the Laws and how she wanted to change how the White Council dealt with them.  I hope to hear more about her points of view in the future.  I think it'll be very enlightening to these conversations.

As for the actual topic of killing Renfields with magic is okay or not, I'm not sure.  Even OW is vague about it.  I'm inclined to say that with no mind left for free will, there's nothing for a wizard to further steal from them.  So the Law might not taint the wizard, but the White Council might have different opinions, especially if they already have a bad reputation.

[PirateJack]

I just reread the Blood Rites chapter in question.

(click to show/hide)

Harry drops the shield covered in napalm, and uses an air spell to blow it onto the Renfields.  The extra air seems to make it burn even hotter.
(It's possible that this is also his first time tapping into Lash for power, because of the burning wood of his staff, and later the glowing runes).  If that is the case, then it might be Sponsored Magic, and not care about the Laws. 
But let's pretend that it's all mortal magic.

I don't think that's a first law violation.  As the napalm was not magic, much less his magic, directly doing the killing.

The Laws aren't built like that, I'm afraid. We have Word of Jim that pushing a person off a building with magic is still breaking the Law, because your magic is still involved. It's not a matter of 'this spell isn't meant to be lethal'. It's a matter of 'this spell caused someone to die'.

This is further supported in Skin Game

(click to show/hide)

Harry against the Genosqua.  He gets around the magic immunity by conjuring an ice ball from winter, then launching it with Fozare.
Game mechanically speaking, I don't see a reason for these to not be one evocation roll, but narrated in an important way to avoid Law violation.

(click to show/hide)

I haven't read the Bigfoot trilogy, so forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but the Genoskwa isn't human and doesn't have a soul. That leaves him fair game from a Lawbreaking point of view, same as any other non-White Court non-human. The mechanics don't matter when it comes to this because this is a setting specific aspect.

I do agree that the Law doesn't care if you kill in self defense, you get tainted either way. 
The White Council might be more lenient about their enforcement of the Law.

They are, but not much. Harry only got around it by having the Blackstaff as his grandfather while Molly got very lucky that the Gatekeeper showed up at her trial.

(click to show/hide)

In Turn Coat, Luccio told Harry about his mother's views on the Laws and how she wanted to change how the White Council dealt with them.  I hope to hear more about her points of view in the future.  I think it'll be very enlightening to these conversations.

As for the actual topic of killing Renfields with magic is okay or not, I'm not sure.  Even OW is vague about it.  I'm inclined to say that with no mind left for free will, there's nothing for a wizard to further steal from them.  So the Law might not taint the wizard, but the White Council might have different opinions, especially if they already have a bad reputation.

I could go either way on this myself too, because I see Renfields as being little more than the shattered remains of a human being. That said, Rasmussen still had a soul despite being tortured into insanity by Ursiel, so insanity/mental trauma may not be enough.

So I'd probably adjudicate it based on the type of game being played. If you're going for a less serious adventure where the players kick ass and take names, I'd say no Lawbreaker. If it's a more serious game or one focused on horror, I'd say put it out there as an option. If you're a dick, do it and only tell them afterwards.

[potestas]

The Laws aren't built like that, I'm afraid. We have Word of Jim that pushing a person off a building with magic is still breaking the Law, because your magic is still involved. It's not a matter of 'this spell isn't meant to be lethal'. It's a matter of 'this spell caused someone to die'.

(click to show/hide)

I haven't read the Bigfoot trilogy, so forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but the Genoskwa isn't human and doesn't have a soul. That leaves him fair game from a Lawbreaking point of view, same as any other non-White Court non-human. The mechanics don't matter when it comes to this because this is a setting specific aspect.

They are, but not much. Harry only got around it by having the Blackstaff as his grandfather while Molly got very lucky that the Gatekeeper showed up at her trial.

I could go either way on this myself too, because I see Renfields as being little more than the shattered remains of a human being. That said, Rasmussen still had a soul despite being tortured into insanity by Ursiel, so insanity/mental trauma may not be enough.

So I'd probably adjudicate it based on the type of game being played. If you're going for a less serious adventure where the players kick ass and take names, I'd say no Lawbreaker. If it's a more serious game or one focused on horror, I'd say put it out there as an option. If you're a dick, do it and only tell them afterwards.

there in lies the problem intent, if your intent is to cause harm with magic its enough to break the laws whether you end up using magic or to do it directly or indirectly. As with most moral issues intent is a part of the equation. Intent to defend oneself isnt the same as intent to murder. hence no law breaking.

[PirateJack]

there in lies the problem intent, if your intent is to cause harm with magic its enough to break the laws whether you end up using magic or to do it directly or indirectly. As with most moral issues intent is a part of the equation. Intent to defend oneself isnt the same as intent to murder. hence no law breaking.

And we have Word of Jim that intent matters less than the consequences. He compares it to someone shooting a person accidentally, killing them. A person has died so the consequences are much more severe for the killer. In contrast, a person shooting a gun at a person with the full intent to kill that person until they are dead, but instead missing and shooting them in the hand would face more lenient charges than the person who killed a man. After all, nobody died.