ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Jack B on November 29, 2010, 05:54:54 PM

Title: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Jack B on November 29, 2010, 05:54:54 PM
Is it a violation of the First Law of magic (don't kill with magic) if someone dies from trying to break into your warded place?

I play a wizard and in our campaign there is a war going on between the red vampires and the white counsel.  My guy has some pretty heavy duty wards set up to keep intruders out but should I nerf them so that they can't (shouldn't) kill anybody?  It doesn't seem very health conscious on my part if I do that though.

Here are a couple ways that I thought might justify the wards:

- If I set up the basic ward that redirects energy so that the attacker's own energy kills him, it's the enemy's own attack and not my ward's that did him in.  Is that right?

- If I set up a booby trap ward to explode when only say red court vampires try to take it down then that's okay to because they are not human and the booby trap wouldn't spring on humans (unless the RCV had a human shield).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on November 29, 2010, 05:59:23 PM
That's an awesome question that I have little answer to. Dresden never seems to worry about it though, his wards could totally kill someone.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: MijRai on November 29, 2010, 06:00:06 PM
Yes, a ward would break a Law. Don't read this if you haven't read Changes yet, but
(click to show/hide)

You can tie a Ward to prevent certain things, if you have something of that kind of thing. Get some Red Court ichor (not sure if it is actually blood) and you could make a ward that stops them alone. I suggest going on a monster killing spree, gathering samples for your wards. Get some ghoul blood, Red ichor, etc. Tie them all to your ward, so that you don't have to worry about killing someone. Add a nerfed ward as well, that works on humans and whatever you missed in your uber-ward (immobilization could be good).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Belial666 on November 29, 2010, 06:04:13 PM
Actually, go entirely the other way around.

Get a human, and set "being human" as the key to pass through the ward unharmed. That way, every monster would trigger the ward but every human would not.


The obvious weakness here is that the Red Court could use hired/blackmailed/dominated human thugs to attack.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on November 29, 2010, 06:07:58 PM
Yes, a ward would break a Law. Don't read this if you haven't read Changes yet, but
(click to show/hide)

Right, forgot about that bit.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Jack B on November 29, 2010, 06:10:03 PM
That's exactly it.  I don't want thugs to get me either. 

I do remember that scene from Changes and I would think Harry would worry about his landlady as well.  You would think that she would have a key but Harry, as far as I know, never gave her a charm to pass his wards safely.

So it looks like the basic ward is the best.  That way it won't let anybody in but won't hurt them either unless they actually attack it.  And if they do that 'it's not my fault'
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Morfedel on November 29, 2010, 06:21:57 PM
Yes, a ward would break a Law. Don't read this if you haven't read Changes yet, but
(click to show/hide)

You can tie a Ward to prevent certain things, if you have something of that kind of thing. Get some Red Court ichor (not sure if it is actually blood) and you could make a ward that stops them alone. I suggest going on a monster killing spree, gathering samples for your wards. Get some ghoul blood, Red ichor, etc. Tie them all to your ward, so that you don't have to worry about killing someone. Add a nerfed ward as well, that works on humans and whatever you missed in your uber-ward (immobilization could be good).

Don't be so sure. Dresden may not have been thinking, "Oh crap, I'll be a lawbreaker for sure!" so much as, "Oh crap, I don't want some innocent FBI agent just doing his or her job getting flatlined for pulling the wrong straw on the wrong day!"

Harry's also a decent guy. Not every concern he has about someone dying is about his being afraid of losing his head. Sometimes it's because he's a decent guy.

Whether it's actually lawbreaking though? Hard to say. Although I'd argue on intent, here, the fact that the rulebook comments on blowing someone off a building with an airblast is lawbreaking. Then again, I don't think the rulebook said, whether it was commenting on the intent of blowing someone off the wall.

For example... if I kill someone with a fireblast, that's lawbreaking. If I blow someone off a building with an air blast, that's lawbreaking.

But if I set a building on fire, but the fire itself is nonmagical, and THAT ends up killing someone a few minutes down the road, is THAT lawbreaking?

For that matter, a rather aggressive ward designed for defense - if a particularly nasty defense - is that lawbreaking?

I'm torn either way, honestly. Jim Butcher's books don't address it in specific detail, and neither does the rulebook. I'd say, if you set it up knowing that mortals might be coming and triggering them, then yes, it's lawbreaking, but if it was an accidental and unintended side effect, then no... but Morgan might disagree :)

And frankly, I can see it either way, so I don't aggressively stand by my statement here :)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Scaramanga on November 29, 2010, 06:35:53 PM
For example... if I kill someone with a fireblast, that's lawbreaking. If I blow someone off a building with an air blast, that's lawbreaking.

But if I set a building on fire, but the fire itself is nonmagical, and THAT ends up killing someone a few minutes down the road, is THAT lawbreaking?
This is purely supposition, but I always thought this was why Wardens carried swords: mundane killing is A-OK, magical killing is not.


With regards to wards, couldn't the ward be keyed to intent or action? For example: if someone was trying to break down your door (as opposed to just knocking on it.) Otherwise wouldn't Harry have vaporized any door-to-door sales people or the like before now?
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Belial666 on November 29, 2010, 06:44:47 PM
Yes, it IS your fault Laws-wise. Making a ward is like making this huge Wall of Fire, only making it invisible and innocuous. Anyone trying to cross it or attack it with conventional weapons gets horribly burned the more they try to pass through. If they die, it's your magic that killed them according to the letter of the law and your magic that killed them according to the spirit of the law as well (not that it matters)


The way to get rid of all attaks is manifold;

Quote
1) Erect a Veil of strength 10 or so. No mortal could see through that even if they rolled a +4. So they can't find your house or they think your house is insignificant (if you get the "I am not here" version of veil). Monsters with high perception or sensory powers could still see it if they looked for it but that's just your first line of defense.

2) Use conjuration magic to conjure a dome of steel five feet thick over your house. I don't think even the main gun of a battleship could pierce that. When you want to enter or leave, use minor teleportation (more on that later).

3) Use another veil to make your fortified dome invisible. You don't want to draw attention.

4) Erect a Ward of significant strength under your dome of steel. Key the ward to a specific password or key, preferably one they can't find, but make it passable by mortals. Most mortals would be stopped by the invisible steel dome anyway.

5) Erect a Ward to prevent travel from the Nevernever except to those with a key.

6) Beneath the Wards erect several landmines. Landmines for monsters should blast them with whatever type of destructive energy you most like. Landmines for humans should be beefed up sleep spells or paralysis spells that disable them without violating the laws. Make as many landmines as you can afford the effort - landmines could be cast at your minimum complexity with 2-minute rituals but spending a few hours doing so could add dozens of them. Note that, unlike the Ward that reflects attacks until it fails, each landmine is single-use.

7) After the blasting/sleeping Landmines, create a circle of other "landmines" that open Gateways to the Nevernever when the other protections fail, forming a circle of gateways turned outwards. Basically, a wall of gateways. Because anything aimed at the gateways would simply be transported to the Nevernever instead of finding a barrier it can attack, the Wall of Gateways can only be overcome by dispelling, digging under it, flying over it, teleporting, or waiting for it to dissipate on its own. It is a way to give you more time to make your escape or prepare for battle.

8) Make several binding circles with controlled summoned creatures, animated objects/golems or the walking dead in them, with orders to get out and attack in case their circles are breached. That is yet another line of defense to give you more time to prepare for battle or flee while weakening the enemy.

9) This is the most important; make an enchanted item with a minor teleportation effect of only 1 zone or so but multiple uses/session. Because your own threshold and wards do not block you, you could use it to pass them and the steel dome is not going to stop that kind of journey. Essentially, you'll be using the item to eschew any need to "lower your shields" when you move in and out of the warded house; there would never be a time that the shields would be lowered and you would never have to stand still before your door to unlock it and lower the wards, which is a huge invite for sniper fire.


The above is a pretty comprehensive (but not complete) series of defenses. It will stop mild to moderate offenses but not any really serious efforts by strong opposition. It also lacks certain details such as a method to prevent being cut off with a big enough circle, defenses tailored to deal with magic-immune opponents, defenses tailored to deal with opponents completely immune to damage, counter-counterspells, a method to prevent The Sight from piercing the veils and several others.
The defenses in a serious wizarding stronghold (i.e. the tower at Archangel or the wards of Edinburg) are at least three times as extensive as the above in nature and dozens of times more extensive in both power and numbers of wardings.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on November 29, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Something just occurred to me. If you think about the laws as less laws of the physical universe and more laws of human behavior this makes a lot more sense. Think about it this way.

Your wizard's wards accidently fry some insurance salesman. Now you're upset and you try to rationalize it so that you don't have to deal with the harsh reality that you just took a valuable human life. So you think "It was the wards that did it. If he hadn't knocked extra hard on the door he would have been fine." So the next time you are in a fight you think "Well, maybe I can create an offensive shield. I'm still defending myself and they only die if they attack me." Now you're killing attackers on a regular basis and you still have to rationalize it, to make it ok. After a while of that maybe you start killing people before they attack you, when they start menacing you or pulling weapons, you're still defending yourself, so (in your mind) it's ok. More time passes and you see a lot of people die and maybe you start thinking "Well, clearly these mortals die so easily they can't be worth much, if one dies and it improves my life what's the big deal?" And then you're laughing maniacally while hundreds die before you.

This is the stuff Dresden stays up at night worrying about as he is a lawbreaker.
(click to show/hide)
It's subtle and insidious. As stated in side jobs there is no satellite that picks up black magic. A warlock could be practicing for a very long time before someone notices (Although not once he gets to the hundreds dieing part).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: MyNinjaH8sU on November 29, 2010, 07:53:58 PM
Something just occurred to me. If you think about the laws as less laws of the physical universe and more laws of human behavior this makes a lot more sense. Think about it this way.

Your wizard's wards accidently fry some insurance salesman. Now you're upset and you try to rationalize it so that you don't have to deal with the harsh reality that you just took a valuable human life. So you think "It was the wards that did it. If he hadn't knocked extra hard on the door he would have been fine." So the next time you are in a fight you think "Well, maybe I can create an offensive shield. I'm still defending myself and they only die if they attack me." Now you're killing attackers on a regular basis and you still have to rationalize it, to make it ok. After a while of that maybe you start killing people before they attack you, when they start menacing you or pulling weapons, you're still defending yourself, so (in your mind) it's ok. More time passes and you see a lot of people die and maybe you start thinking "Well, clearly these mortals die so easily they can't be worth much, if one dies and it improves my life what's the big deal?" And then you're laughing maniacally while hundreds die before you.

This is the stuff Dresden stays up at night worrying about as he is a lawbreaker.
(click to show/hide)
It's subtle and insidious. As stated in side jobs there is no satellite that picks up black magic. A warlock could be practicing for a very long time before someone notices (Although not once he gets to the hundreds dieing part).

And this, friends, is why the Wardens carry swords instead of executing with Magic. Magic is about belief and emotion. If you exercise your power over others to that degree, you are basically playing god, because your Will is directly violating a life.

The above is a perfect example of why, at least in my game, there would be no question that this violates the first law.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Scaramanga on November 29, 2010, 08:01:27 PM
And this, friends, is why the Wardens carry swords instead of executing with Magic. Magic is about belief and emotion. If you exercise your power over others to that degree, you are basically playing god, because your Will is directly violating a life.
I'd almost argue that a ward like that is worse, in that it's entirely indiscriminate. Which IMO shows a worse lack of regard for how ones magic effects others. It's like leaving a live grenade around for the neighborhood kids to pick up.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Belial666 on November 29, 2010, 09:03:40 PM
That is why a submerged wizard is better to have Lawbreaker 2 already. He's as twisted about the 1st Law as he would ever be. Kill away!
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Ranma1558 on November 29, 2010, 09:38:35 PM
Just my own two cents, a ward that did nothing but reflect any attack on it would be breaking the first law if it killed someone. Good news though, most beings (even in game) would have a nearly impossible chance of killing themselves with their own strength used against them, especially since they'd likely only be hit once before the lesson is learned. Put a human who tries to bust down a door (ward) he might hit with 4 or 5 shifts, but a moderate consequence will soak that right up. In the end he gets a broken nose and becomes very hesitant of doing anything to said wizard.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Kaldra on November 29, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
i agree with ranma on this one for the most part humans aint going to kill themselves with the stength they would be throwing at a ward, now an enemy spellcaster who is throwing a 15 shift fireball at your 16 shift ward is going to hate life on a whole difrent level since that fireball is bouncing back at him. now would the fireball bouncing back killing the caster give you lawbreaker or would it give the already dead guy law breaker?
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on November 30, 2010, 12:18:21 AM
Just my own two cents, a ward that did nothing but reflect any attack on it would be breaking the first law if it killed someone. Good news though, most beings (even in game) would have a nearly impossible chance of killing themselves with their own strength used against them, especially since they'd likely only be hit once before the lesson is learned. Put a human who tries to bust down a door (ward) he might hit with 4 or 5 shifts, but a moderate consequence will soak that right up. In the end he gets a broken nose and becomes very hesitant of doing anything to said wizard.

Mortal wizards are still mortal and could easily kill someone their own caliber. On top of that what happens if a mortal fires a fully automatic weapon at it? That much force would (and does) rip a human to shreds.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Samael on November 30, 2010, 12:30:04 AM
I am of the opinion Wards do not break the First Law as while a wizard sets the magic up true, its not their fault if some idiot tries to break into their apartment and subsequently gets fried. To me the First Law involves intent, and then intent to me for a Ward is to repel or stop an attack not to kill generally so unless you are making a Ward specifically so it will be fatal to anyone or anything that tries your in the clear. Their is a very large difference between blasting someone with a fireball knowingly trying to burn them to ashes and them running head first into your Ward. One is an act of free will on your part (the fireball) the other is action on theirs. Its like a heavy duty alarm system really, once you set it, anything that happens beyond that is not your fault as its their own stupidity that brought it upon them.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Raiden333 on November 30, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
I'm of the opinion that wards only count if they were designed with the intent to kill. That's what magic is about anyway, intent.

I mean, one somewhat related example I noticed while rereading Changes today:

(click to show/hide)

So basically, I would only count defensive magic as breaking the first law if it's being employed with full intention of lethal consequences.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: MijRai on November 30, 2010, 02:08:55 AM
If a ward does harm on its own, it is a Lawbreaker. If it only reflects what another did back to them, I think it does not break the Laws. Blood Rites and Proven Guilty are two cases of Harry trying to redirect magic back to who it came from, whatever the consequences of that action would be. He even justifies it quite nicely.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Kaldra on November 30, 2010, 02:16:53 AM
i agree otherwise any wizard pc who wards there house with the standard ward is going to rack up the law breakers really quickly.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Ranma1558 on November 30, 2010, 03:51:50 AM
A spell tossed at the ward is the spell that comes back, the intent is squarely on the caster not the maker of the ward, you reap what you sow, I go as far to say bullets and weapons rebounding are the fault of the user more then anything. If you throw a baseball at a rubber wall and it bounces back to hit you who's at fault? But, if you add a bit of top spin to your wards all damage is on your head.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Todjaeger on November 30, 2010, 06:43:50 AM
Something else to consider.  Wards in and of themselves just reflect the amount of force projected against them, back at whoever/whatever was exerting it.  Unless of course there are more shifts of force than shifts of Ward.  Now 'landminds' can also be built into Wards, with Harry having done so some time prior to Dead Beat.

My theory on Changes:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Vryce on November 30, 2010, 06:41:37 PM
From what I read in the books and games books, if anyone uses magic and it kills, accident or not it breaks the first law.  The Example went something like this:  you use a gust of wind to push someone back, they fall(long ways down) or just fall and break there neck.  You did not mean to kill but y ou still broke the laws for magic.
I see wards as no different.  And most wizards are sure to put multiple wards up to effect different things.  The Go away sales men Ward, a Ghoul touches my door and a nuke goes of ward, Veils to discourage , hide, and forget(maybe not forget another Law of magic). 
But im sure if you set up a ward to blow up a tactical nuke if someone breaks down your door and some human die…. It’s the Chopping Block for you….
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: easl on November 30, 2010, 11:17:53 PM
This is the second posting on the 1st law.  Are YW235-236 that hard to understand?  I thought they provided reasonable guidance for games.  Intent matters, accidental killing counts, wizards using mundane force don't count, and every gaming group should discuss it.  Good advice.

In terms of booby-trapped wards, I think its pretty clear that both the intent and accident part would make it a violation.  If the wizard is intending to create a ward that can take out a red court vamp (for instance), that's a pretty clear intent of lethal force. If a mortal gets caught in it, you've broken the law.  If you create a ward with the power of a bug zapper and it happens to trip someone's pacemaker, that is like a conjured wind accidentally sweeping someone off a roof - you didn't intend it, the force wasn't lethal, but the accident was still killing with magic.  But I would also say that the fourth part of my summary trumps the other three - discuss it with your group and come to some decision about it.  If you all decide that for your game it doesn't apply, that's fine too.

Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Fiordhraoi on December 02, 2010, 04:31:57 AM
I'd argue there's a component of magnitude and a component of free will on the part of the presumably dead party.  To make a ridiculously extreme example to illustrate the point:

I create spirit-based force ward that essentially punches someone with a normal punch (1 stress).  Some mortal walks up to my door and tries to open it.  He gets lightly punched in the nose.  He tries again.  Gets punched again.  Tries again...  Several minutes (at least) and consequences later, he tries for the last time, and has essentially gotten himself beaten to death.

Sure, there's such a thing as accidents that would count as unintentionally violating the first law - negligent homicide/manslaughter, to use the analogous US legal terms.  But if I put a reinforced steel door on my house and someone beats his head against it until he's dead...yeah, totally not my fault.  If Harry used his "Flickum Bicus" spell to light a candle, and some guy with TNT strapped to his chest looked at the candle, pondered for a moment, and then threw himself onto it, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a first law violation either.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Wyrdrune on December 02, 2010, 08:35:53 AM
i think i remember a line in the wards section of thaumaturgy about landmines that says something like "beware of breaking the first law if you overdo it". can't tell the page as i have no books with me at the moment.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on December 02, 2010, 06:41:04 PM
I create spirit-based force ward that essentially punches someone with a normal punch (1 stress).  Some mortal walks up to my door and tries to open it.  He gets lightly punched in the nose.  He tries again.  Gets punched again.  Tries again...  Several minutes (at least) and consequences later, he tries for the last time, and has essentially gotten himself beaten to death.

Sure, there's such a thing as accidents that would count as unintentionally violating the first law - negligent homicide/manslaughter, to use the analogous US legal terms.  But if I put a reinforced steel door on my house and someone beats his head against it until he's dead...yeah, totally not my fault.  If Harry used his "Flickum Bicus" spell to light a candle, and some guy with TNT strapped to his chest looked at the candle, pondered for a moment, and then threw himself onto it, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a first law violation either.

The only issue I have with your first example is that your magic still killed him. I agree on your second example because they chose to do it AND your magic didn't kill him, the TNT did. However to expand that same example, what say you lit a magic campfire, completely magic flames that didn't use fuel and someone jumps in it and burns to death. Same basic concept, someone else is choosing to burn to death, however it's your magic, the inner core of you that's burning him (Or in the above example beating him to death).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Ranma1558 on December 03, 2010, 09:13:38 PM
For the most part intent should be considered for the supernatural power at least (the council might think otherwise). You make a ward that no reasonable person should be able to kill themselves on and someone does, you don't become a "law breaker".
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Belial666 on December 04, 2010, 09:44:43 AM
Or, you know, cast 2 wards both keyed with human blood. One is keyed to only affect humans and is crafted not to reflect anything, and the other affects everything but humans and is crafted to be very lethal.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Raiden333 on December 04, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Or, you know, cast 2 wards both keyed with human blood. One is keyed to only affect humans and is crafted not to reflect anything, and the other affects everything but humans and is crafted to be very lethal.

Sir, I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 26, 2011, 05:01:04 PM
Fifth Law Violation: Resurrect Thread

Let's say you want to build a ward based on "social stress." One obvious method would be flashing lights and sirens - the ward breaker would certainly be more stressed out about such a thing. Perhaps you build a crazy-complex ward with "divinations" built in: You want to start calling out the name of the ward breaker - certainly, another level of stress. You fill the stress track and the attacker wants to take a "moderate consequence: paranoia" in response. Later, this gets paranoia gets the guy killed in another situation. Or if your "social" stress creates a "don't bother coming in" feel that is eventually absorbed as a "depression" consequence. Well, you can easily see where that could lead.

I'm running this as a first law violation, but the Wardens are not quite as quick to "off-with-your-head" for defensive-based violations. Essentially, you'll get a warning, but doing it again will definitely make you hunted. Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice ... well, you don't get twice.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: wyvern on January 26, 2011, 05:38:59 PM
Hm.  While that could be considered a (very) iffy first (or fourth) law violation, I'd say it's actually a zeroth law violation: A violation of the trust between player and GM.  If the player is going that far out of their way to make certain their wards aren't going to violate the laws of magic, and the GM decides that "oh, oops, you killed someone anyway!" - well, that's just not right.  It'd be like telling a PC "Here, have a fate point for hexing your friend's radio" - and then, once they accept it, adding "Oh, and that also hexed the pacemaker of the guy you were trying to save.  Too bad."

For the record, I wouldn't consider that a first law violation anyway.  There were multiple acts of free will involved (from the victim if nothing else) between spell effect and death.  For an example, suppose you used magic to light a campfire.  The fire, once lit, is nonmagical, and then some idiot trips over the firepit, falls in, and gets himself burned to death.  Is that your fault?  No.  You'll probably feel horrible about it, sure, and it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't lit that fire, and the wardens will investigate because you could have been using an entropy curse... but in the end, the wardens will pack up their bags and go home, because there wasn't an entropy curse, there wasn't any direct cause and effect between your action and the death, there wasn't any intent to kill, etc.

Now, on the other hand, you could make a very interesting story out of having what you described happen, and then requiring your PCs to figure out what was really going on and track down the warlock who put an entropy curse on the victim, all before the wardens showed up and started killing off PC wizards...
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 26, 2011, 06:08:47 PM
Both.  He's a Lawbreaker (not that it matters) because his intent was murderous; you're a Lawbreaker because you had wards that would kill someone.

This becomes a grey area/make the decision for your game kind of question.  Does setting up Wards that might kill someone constitute intent?  (The Wardens are apt to say yes in any event...)

Probably the best approach (assuming you don't WANT mortal visitors...better have a PO Box!) is to set up a Veil affecting mortals, and have an interior Ward with nastier effects for supernaturals.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sjksprocket on January 26, 2011, 07:08:32 PM
I want to through my spin on the whole conjured fire/tripped first law interpretation. Now if the fire is lit by magic, but isn't sustained by magic (sustained by normal means) then absolutely not. He was killed by mundane fire. If he was tripped by magic then yes, the law violator is the tripper due to intent. If the magic is sustained by magic and the victim is tripped by mundane means (like his own feet) then it's a gray area. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you could have stopped the fire saving the persons life and didn't, law breaker. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you weren't around then you would have probably be accused of lawbreaking due to negligence. If you were sustaining the fire and someone tripped into it and you stopped the fire and tried to save the person but failed to, I'd say that it might be an adventure hook to try to save your wizards life and possibly resulting in the doom of Damocles.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Kommisar on January 26, 2011, 07:48:32 PM
**Spoiler tags on things relating to the novels up through Changes**

The way I look at this is that it IS complicated and full of gray areas.  Not just in terms of rules mechanics but also for the in-universe characters themselves.  This is probably one of those topics that you could hear a room full of Wardens in Edinburgh discussing/arguing over late at night over drinks.  I suspect this is also why you do not see very many wizards living in close proximity with mortals.  Especially the more powerful ones.

From the novels, we don't know a whole lot about where other wizards actually live.  We know McCoy lives on a farm in a very rural area. 
(click to show/hide)
  In fact, my impression was always that Harry was a bit unusual for living in a basement apartment in the middle of Chicago.  Remember, he also advertised himself as a wizard in the phone book.  This could also be a matter of level of power.  If you are a young, neophyte wizard you either A) don't have big nasties looking to beat down your doors or B) if you have gotten yourself in the situation where big nasties are out for you... your wards are rather immaterial to your existence and will not come into play.  They are to weak to present a big danger of collateral damage to civilians and are not going to really hinder the big nasty.

(click to show/hide)

The common myth and legends of wizards have them living as mysterious hermits in far removed places surrounded by folk stories of bad things happening to those that wander to close.  Perhaps for a good reason.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 26, 2011, 07:59:00 PM
@Wyvern: I very much agree with your interpretation and have tried to let this player know that I am not actively trying screw the party (at this point, at least).

I view having big wards that call down death or probable death on mortals is 'involuntary manslaughter' when it comes to the First Law. Trying really hard to avoid this and still protecting your own stuff (i.e., possible psyche changes as opposed to fire damage) just makes the Wardens' job a bit harder. If a person dies as a result of your wards, you may get a pass once, but you won't get it a second time. My advice to this player was "Word carefully how this works."

I view this as being involved in a death. If this person would not have died had they not run across your wards, that goes on your spiritual tab. From a "common sense" perspective, the Wardens are likely to watch you very carefully from that point forward, but it seems this is a "forgivable" if not "forgettable" offense. I don't actually give a lot of leeway to mundane killing, either, frankly. Something I use at my game are white and black glass stone markers. When the players do something particularly unseemly, I toss them a black stone. If they do something "nice," which can be relative, I toss them a white one. In this way, I have a mobster who is trying to use a "blessed weapon," which basically has no additional power in his hands. While killing with magic has special properties, killing with a mundane weapon over and over again is likely to have similar long-term ramifications on your psyche. If you want to become a Denarian, that may be an advantage. If you want to take up a Sword of the Cross, you might want to exercise some restraint.

@Kommisar: This wizard in my game lives in "Missouri wine country," which is almost as out-of-the-way as where Ebenezar lives (the Ozarks). I have no intention of having a homeless guy break in for a bottle of wine and fry himself as I consider that being a pretty evil GM.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Kommisar on January 26, 2011, 08:18:53 PM
Which is exactly the point.  Your game's wizard lives in a relatively out of the way location.  Makes it much safer to put up some bigger wards with more potential lethality.  Nothing is ever 100% of course.  You could still have a brother and sister wandering through the woods looking for candy break in or some such.  ;)  But it is FAR removed from having an exploding fire ward around apartment 5B in the heart of Manhattan.  No worries about you building super or landlord causing a mass causality event by letting a repairman into your apartment to fix a pipe while your out for the day.

Again, my opinion here, but I see most Wardens viewing things in a similar light.  They will much more lenient if your wards are set up in a place that common sense would tell someone that it is not likely someone would just accidentally run across them.  Less lenient if your 20 shift water-entropic disintegration ward melts a cop executing a legal warrant to search your home/apartment in response to you being sighting running away from the scene of a multiple homicide in a burning building late last night.  At that point, the Warden is going to look at you and say, "And what did you expect would happen?"

I also do not see the above example as being an out-of-line event for the GM to have in a game.  Having a hobo break into your Yukon fortress of solitude looking for beer while a Warden was walking up the steps to deliver your latest issue of White Council Quarterly?  Yea, that's just being spiteful.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 26, 2011, 08:25:35 PM
@Kommisar: I also assume most Wardens have "Common Sense: Good +3" ...
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 26, 2011, 09:12:49 PM
I'm not sure that the Wardens should be viewed as having common sense.  From the books, it seems a lot of Wardens have been infected with the 'letter of the law' thinking of the Accords.

Of course, political pull may also have something to do with it.  A powerful, well-connected wizard with allies in the Senior Council might get more leniency than, say, a wiseass apprentice involved in shady dealings with a respected Warden.  Just a thought...
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 26, 2011, 09:37:44 PM
Certainly, not ALL of them do. However, since this is really the beginning of the campaign, most things "are as they appear." My intention is to turn the wheels of conspiracy slowly: Oh, the White Council really is bad ... Oh, yeah, and the Catholic Church is too busy to help ... Oh, and the Government really has Men in Black ... etc. When everything starts out as untrustworthy, it doesn't mean as much when you lose faith in it.  8)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 26, 2011, 10:20:39 PM
Being 'letter of the law' doesn't necessarily equate to 'evil' (although it often equates to 'unjust').  Having wardens (rank and file) be Sgt Fridays; by the book, no exceptions, the Law applies to everyone can lead to some interesting issues; but by the same token, if you have the Wardens always apply the Laws strictly, at least the PCs will know where they stand.

And later, if the PCs begin to find that the Law isn't always being applied equally, then perhaps a local Warden, who's been a hard-ass on the PCs the whole time, might begin to change...
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 27, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If you are setting up multiple wards, seems like the first one you have anyone encounter is just a simple block.  If they can get by a shift 10 block, then they certainly aren't a random bystander.  Now, the police or military could probably due this and then get to the lethal stuff, though even then a very large block (15+) probably means they'll have to go grab specialized gear after they arrive (in other words it will take a lot of time).  As long as you are a bit careful, this isn't going to be a concern though and you should have some idea if it will happen ahead of time so you can remove the more lethal stuff.

So pretty much anyone who gets by your significant block is not going to be a regular mortal.  I don't think you get lawbreaker at this point.  If you make a wall of fire and a wizard jumps into it of his own volition, then you don't get Lawbreaker for someone acting crazy (unless you made them crazy, but that's different).  If you are setting up wards so that initial contact is lethal, then you deserve anything you get for being so vicious.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 27, 2011, 07:16:29 PM
Maybe I'll just set up wards that push them into the Nevernever and see if they can get "back" ... Muah ha haa!
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sjksprocket on January 27, 2011, 07:18:05 PM
So pretty much anyone who gets by your significant block is not going to be a regular mortal.  I don't think you get lawbreaker at this point.  If you make a wall of fire and a wizard jumps into it of his own volition, then you don't get Lawbreaker for someone acting crazy (unless you made them crazy, but that's different).  If you are setting up wards so that initial contact is lethal, then you deserve anything you get for being so vicious.

But you can prove that the wizard jumped in on his own volition?  ;D
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 27, 2011, 07:37:13 PM
But you can prove that the wizard jumped in on his own volition?  ;D

Council is a bit overly jumpy, they might decide you are a law breaker (though a soulgaze could change their mind, I think).  In game terms, you don't get lawbreaker though, and that's far more important than such petty issues such as whether you get killed over a misunderstanding or not.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: devonapple on January 27, 2011, 07:50:10 PM
Council is a bit overly jumpy, they might decide you are a law breaker (though a soulgaze could change their mind, I think).  In game terms, you don't get lawbreaker though, and that's far more important than such petty issues such as whether you get killed over a misunderstanding or not.

Dresden's insistence on
(click to show/hide)
has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: zaq.hack on January 27, 2011, 07:56:47 PM
Wards = Your will ...

You may not desire to kill anyone, but there clearly is a reason why killing with magic is different than killing with a big rock. As mentioned above, if your wards kill someone, that goes on "your tab." You may not be considered a huge threat (the first time) and it may be pretty explainable as "self defense," but it's your magic that killed them in most cases. YS277 makes it pretty clear that "landmines" in your wards are your responsibility.

I've come around to thinking of this as "The Wardens will want to have a talk with you" and they better like what they hear if you don't want separation anxiety with your cranium.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Tbora on January 27, 2011, 08:04:46 PM
Wards = non sentient.So long as you don't make a ward with "instant death to Mr.NotInTheKnow VanillaMortal" your clear. And suppose someone/something disappears the body before the wizard in question gets back? Then how would he know someone died in the first place, ergo how would it twist his soul?

Dresden's insistence on
(click to show/hide)
has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.

I have agree with this.

And here is my Ward idea, in the presence of an offensive attack the ward is tripped and anything within a 10 square foot radius outside of the door is immediately Banished into a random part of the Nevernever that is far from the place the Ward is located both physically from a crossing point in the real world and metaphysically in the Nevernever.Leaves no trace evidence of the victim setting it off so no no mess to clean up.Also, no First Law as you did not kill them, in fact because its completely random its up to the GM where they appear (so long as it follows the Far away from ward placement requirement).And if GM decides "oh they appeared over a bottomless pit of darkness" and asks you take a First Law violation that is a dick move, and as stated previously Zeroth Lawbreaker.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Sanctaphrax on January 27, 2011, 08:19:12 PM
That's a bit sketchy. I'd say that the GM can call that Lawbreaking as long as he's upfront about it in advance.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 27, 2011, 08:25:12 PM
Dresden's insistence on
(click to show/hide)
has been touted as evidence that it would be a Lawbreaking violation if they did die against his Wards. I think it... may be evidence that he's a human being and doesn't want to be responsible for killing a bunch of people doing their jobs. Plus, it would make it so much harder for him to ever cooperate with the police later if he was "That Jerk Whose House Killed Fifty Agents."

Though someone could still explain that the guilt of causing such deaths would be sufficient motivation to give ranks of Lawbreaker.

I concur.  I also think Dresden has his place set up so that it wouldn't inadvertently kill anyone just passing through.  I think that IF you setup your wards to be trigger-happy about killing people, then that could get you Lawbreaker if they killed someone.  So if hitting the door kinda hard results in an explosion that kills whomever did that, then that's probably grounds for giving them lawbreaker as that goes even beyond reckless disregard for others.  I admit this point is arguable, but it seems about right as designing a system with casual lethality seems to imply a certain ugliness in your intents.

While the book emphasizes intent as a huge factor, and that makes sense from how the system works.  I think a GM in a game also has to be wary about how reckless disregard for lives can also be an intent of its own.  Obviously this gets a bit tricky if we are extremely concerned about replicating what is in the book (Dresden torching the Bianca's mansion and not getting Lawbreaker).  One might allow extremely dire straights without alternatives beyond uncontrolled magic leading to some inadvertent deaths to be an excuse to not get Lawbreaker.  Or one could say the GM forgot about the innocents in the mansion until way after the fact (next session or something) and decided to handwave the lawbreaker bit away.  Honestly, I think the mansion bit is the trickiest bit in the books to adapt to the rules in a way that doesn't open up abuses.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 27, 2011, 10:21:19 PM
In the mansion, Harry was facing a dire situation; the deaths of his friends, and himself.  His intent was to save his life, by empowering the only force available to him.  The idea that there might have been mortals also trapped in the mansion didn't even occur to Harry until sometime after the event was over.

In that case, the intent (save my ass and kill vampires) was clear.  Not only did Harry not intend to kill mortals, he didn't even have time to think or consider whether any mortals were actually present.

Any interpretation is open to abuses; but there's a world of difference between making a split-second decision to save lives (including your own) and crafting a ward which has potentially lethal effects.  With a ward, you have plenty of time to make decisions as to how the ward will operate, and what it will do when triggered.  This is where intent (or reckless disregard) comes in.  If you have time to consider the full ramifications of your actions, and still do something that may lead to Lawbreaker...you voluntarily took that risk.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: devonapple on January 27, 2011, 10:24:59 PM
I wonder if there could be some Community Code for "There is no wrong answer - discuss with your GM in light of the points discussed here - but there will never be a right answer on X topic."
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sjksprocket on January 28, 2011, 01:26:32 PM
I wonder if there could be some Community Code for "There is no wrong answer - discuss with your GM in light of the points discussed here - but there will never be a right answer on X topic."

I like discussions like this. We might not come up with a set rule, but it can still be a good discussion because someone might come up with something for themselves that other wise they wouldn't. Plus it's interesting to see other peoples thoughts on this matter.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Kommisar on January 28, 2011, 02:21:04 PM
I already thought that was the point of this (and similar threads).   :D

One of the things I really like about this RPG is that it doesn't feel the need to try and codify every single thing that may come up!  Perhaps this love comes from having spent the last 8 years or so running various GURPS games.  Nothing better than having a player spending hours combing through a stack of supplemental books, errata, and printed FAQs to prove that he was right about some obscure call.

But on something like this, everyone is going to have to find their own answer with their group.  This is just a great method of exposing yourself to different view points. 
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: devonapple on January 28, 2011, 04:10:54 PM
I like discussions like this. We might not come up with a set rule, but it can still be a good discussion because someone might come up with something for themselves that other wise they wouldn't. Plus it's interesting to see other peoples thoughts on this matter.

Of course! I enjoy them as well. But some threads die down to a stalemate, and then get resurrected by a new member of the hobby, only to flare up, die down to another stalemate, and... well, it's like the Summer and Winter Courts. And maybe I'm being Aurora. ;)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sjksprocket on January 28, 2011, 04:19:58 PM
LOL. Too true, too true. But that's human nature. It's interesting that sometimes the differences between us and the Fae can be so close. Maybe that's why they show such interest in us.  :)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 28, 2011, 04:34:33 PM
In the mansion, Harry was facing a dire situation; the deaths of his friends, and himself.  His intent was to save his life, by empowering the only force available to him.  The idea that there might have been mortals also trapped in the mansion didn't even occur to Harry until sometime after the event was over.

I just don't think that not considering the consequences of your actions really is all that valid of an excuse.  Especially in a game it encourages people to not think.  And as far as story goes, I really doubt the Wardens would take "well I didn't even remember there were a dozen innocent bystanders around when I filled the place with magical fire" as a valid defense.  Heck, they don't even take self-defense as justification (Harry barely managed to survive killing someone who was utterly evil when his life was on the line).

In that case, the intent (save my ass and kill vampires) was clear.  Not only did Harry not intend to kill mortals, he didn't even have time to think or consider whether any mortals were actually present.

Which is a really dangerous and even scary way to use one's immense power.

Any interpretation is open to abuses; but there's a world of difference between making a split-second decision to save lives (including your own) and crafting a ward which has potentially lethal effects.  With a ward, you have plenty of time to make decisions as to how the ward will operate, and what it will do when triggered.  This is where intent (or reckless disregard) comes in.  If you have time to consider the full ramifications of your actions, and still do something that may lead to Lawbreaker...you voluntarily took that risk.

It isn't like Harry didn't have time to realize there were innocent people around.  On some level he most definitely knew it, he had been at that gathering for an hour or more.  He had dealt with the fact Michael was completely pissed off about the innocents there.  Heck, he didn't even like it.  What you are saying here is not that different from someone saying they didn't even consider what would happen if a human came in contact with a ward.  It's the same sort of thoughtlessness, the same lack of clear intent to kill a human, the same reckless disregard.  Heck, at least with a ward you didn't see the people moving in and out of the warded area in the last few moments (or perhaps ever).

Frankly, it is kind of hard to believe Harry didn't get a lot of flak from the council over the burnt human bodies in Bianca's mansion.  It doesn't really make any sense given how the Council was portrayed before and after that incident.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 28, 2011, 04:54:32 PM
The way the scene is described, Harry has tunnel vision (which is not uncommon in combat situations) and probably tunnel thought.  So, his thoughts were strictly focused on survival.

There's also the possibility that Harry didn't kill anyone.  The RCV may have fed up in anticipation of the battle; or they may have killed the mortals in a desperate attempt to get the energy to flee and survive.

And there's the political angle.  Either Harry is going to be handed over to the Red Court for violation of the Accords (in which case prosecution of him as a Lawbreaker is not only moot, but possibly a violation of the Accords) or the White Council is at war, in which case killing off your own membership is a bad idea.

There's also the key fact that Harry did not command or order anything.  He gave the ghosts power, but not orders.  He did not summon them, nor even speak to them except to send power to them.  Yeah, it's a loophole; but it required the presence of a group who would attack.  Had Bianca decided to have her soiree in a brand new hotel, without any ghosts, it wouldn't have worked.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on January 28, 2011, 05:56:26 PM
I would like to point out that mechanically the events of Grave Peril are a poor example. Harry already has the lawbreaker(first) power, therefore breaking the first law again would have no mechanical consequences. Although Harry's player Jim did a really good job of playing the conflict that would have resulted. ;D

Also you're confusing two different events, Bruce. There was the party that Dresden was invited to (that he burned down, possibly with living mortals inside) that Bianca escaped. Then there was the failed assault on Bianca's house afterward where Harry called up and empowered the ghosts of the dead to kill her (and am I the only one who's wondering why he doesn't have Lawbreaker(fifth) now?).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Bruce Coulson on January 28, 2011, 06:06:04 PM
He was still acting instinctively, without thinking.  (btw, the only way I'd let a player get away with that defense is if they blurted out what they were doing without hesitation, during a very intense scene with build-up to a climax.)

I would think that Harry would have Lawbreaker (2) for killing a second time, mechanically.  (Although Harry and Billy would probably argue that a game gets to break down events into neat little boxes, whereas real life tends to be untidy, messy, and with occasional conundrums.  Then Bob would chime in with 'I'm all in favor of occasional condoms, if Harry actually needed them.')

The Fifth Law isn't very clear.  Harry didn't seek power; he gave power.  Again, this could have been a Warden issue if there wasn't a war brewing.  (I see this as a group decision on interpretation.)
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 28, 2011, 08:29:23 PM
He was still acting instinctively, without thinking.  (btw, the only way I'd let a player get away with that defense is if they blurted out what they were doing without hesitation, during a very intense scene with build-up to a climax.)

Players aren't characters.  If a player has to spend a bit of thought to realize his character would do something without thinking, I'm alright with that.  In any case, acting without thinking doesn't mean you can break the laws of magic.  If a burgler attacks you and you incinerate them without considering it because you didn't have time, then that doesn't mean it is ok as far as the Laws of Magic go.  (This isn't an ethical evaluation, btw).

I would think that Harry would have Lawbreaker (2) for killing a second time, mechanically.  (Although Harry and Billy would probably argue that a game gets to break down events into neat little boxes, whereas real life tends to be untidy, messy, and with occasional conundrums.  Then Bob would chime in with 'I'm all in favor of occasional condoms, if Harry actually needed them.')

Like Sinker said, you have to break it 3 times to get a second stack.  "Trouble comes in threes" I think is the comment on that under Lawbreaker.

Then there was the failed assault on Bianca's house afterward where Harry called up and empowered the ghosts of the dead to kill her (and am I the only one who's wondering why he doesn't have Lawbreaker(fifth) now?).

Ghosts aren't people or their souls.  They are afterimages of them, echoes as the book said.  All Harry did was amplify the echo.  That doesn't cross the border between life and death.  (Zombies are somehow an exception here.  It isn't very clear how they violate the border, imho.  Sure, making a corpse move around is unseemly, but it doesn't seem like it is reaching beyond the border of life and death.  The books don't seem to explain it very well either).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Peteman on January 28, 2011, 11:08:16 PM
Ghosts aren't people or their souls.  They are afterimages of them, echoes as the book said.  All Harry did was amplify the echo.  That doesn't cross the border between life and death.  (Zombies are somehow an exception here.  It isn't very clear how they violate the border, imho.  Sure, making a corpse move around is unseemly, but it doesn't seem like it is reaching beyond the border of life and death.  The books don't seem to explain it very well either).

My guess is that it likely involves someone using the body as a connection to the soul (the whole sympathetic magic thing), while the ghost is something that has detached and has no real connection anymore.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: jadecourtflunky on January 29, 2011, 12:13:18 AM
Like you said, a ghost is an echo of a person, but for zombies, you are literally bringing someone back to life. They still have their minds, but they are near-destroyed and only instinct remains (the need for the heartbeat).
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: jybil178 on January 29, 2011, 12:16:00 AM
Well, very interesting thread so far.. Enjoyed reading into it, and admittedly,  was painful to read at other times.. I just wanted to basically add another little thing thats been on my mind..  But before I go into it, I'm just going to clarify a few things, that I'll be mentioning.

First, when I say ward, I mean the basic ward described in the core book.  A basic, souped up block spell, that bounces back all force directed at it.  It doesn't go into any elements or flavors, it is simply a magically reinforced threshold.

Second, when I say landmine, I'm refering to the traps set into a ward, when it is either breached, or under heavy duress.  These are the fireballs, sleep spells, and general extra defenses of a ward.

Now, I'm normally for the heavy interpretation of law-breaking.  It is not something that the wardens call you into court for, and slap onto you because you did something bad. It is a true, spiritual stain that is left on your soul, whenever your magic is used to break one of the laws.  It is something that doesn't require your intent to effect you, nor will your noble actions protect you from it.  When you use magic, and it breaks one of the laws, it becomes black magic, and it will leave a stain on your soul, whether you realize it or not.

Now, the thing is, is whenever I first read the thread, I immediately began thinking on the Archangel fortress, before its fall.  ((btw, i haven't read past Small Favor yet, just to let you know))  It was stated that it was one of the greatest fortresses of mortal making every designed.  And I'm not going to get into how its magical defenses where layered, prepared or anything like that.  I'm just imagining to myself, a certain set of events.  One doesn't really make a fortress to sit and look pretty in.  They make it to protect themselves and their interests.  Now the thing is, is they also don't make it, if they have no enemies.  So, I would assume the Archangel would have come under assault under many occasions, from many different enemies.  And, I would assume that the basic wards where among the most powerful ever crafted.  Therefore, I would guess, that a decent number of would-be besiegers, many of which were probably fellow wizards, warlocks and or sorcerers, would have quite easily died at the hands of their own failed attempts to breach said wards.  I mean, regardless of all the supernatural enemies out in the dresdenverse, or in any other supernatural setting, humanities own greatest enemy, will be others of it's own race.  Simple as that.. So.. One would assume that the leader of the Archangel (whose name escapes me at the moment) would have technically fell very easily into lawbreaker status at one point, or another, in time...

Now, as I said before, I do believe strongly in a more stern interpretation of the laws.  I won't be too much of a hard-ass on them to my players, but the point I'm making is this... I would normally consider the death of another by my own wards, regardless of whether the force that killed them was their own or mine, would be a breach of the first law of magic.  But... with the idea of the Archangel and other magical fortresses in place, and the idea of how many people could have died upon them.. I really can't say for certain..  This, to me then, would have to fall under a very greyish kind of area in the law, something I really don't like to say... Whats for certain, is it DOES go into a very hard to pin down area on the law.  So, in all honesty, I'd probably, in my own game, rule any death-by-ward on a case by case basis... Now, if the death isn't caused by the ward itself, but a landmine placed into the ward, well... That is a far easier matter in my own mind, and in the rules.. So... This is what I thought when I looked at the thread... Anyone who doesn't go TLDR, go ahead and give me your own input.. I'd like to see what other's think of, and how they may expand upon my own line of thinking...
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 29, 2011, 12:27:03 AM
Like you said, a ghost is an echo of a person, but for zombies, you are literally bringing someone back to life. They still have their minds, but they are near-destroyed and only instinct remains (the need for the heartbeat).

Zombies in the books don't seem to be bringing someone back to life.  Overall they don't seem to have much intelligence (and remember constructs have intelligence).  I think we can come up with a lot of ways a zombie MIGHT be breaking the 5th law, but my point was that the books (novels or RPG) don't really clarify how they do this.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 29, 2011, 12:30:13 AM
Now, as I said before, I do believe strongly in a more stern interpretation of the laws.  I won't be too much of a hard-ass on them to my players, but the point I'm making is this... I would normally consider the death of another by my own wards, regardless of whether the force that killed them was their own or mine, would be a breach of the first law of magic.  But... with the idea of the Archangel and other magical fortresses in place, and the idea of how many people could have died upon them.. I really can't say for certain..  This, to me then, would have to fall under a very greyish kind of area in the law, something I really don't like to say... Whats for certain, is it DOES go into a very hard to pin down area on the law.  So, in all honesty, I'd probably, in my own game, rule any death-by-ward on a case by case basis... Now, if the death isn't caused by the ward itself, but a landmine placed into the ward, well... That is a far easier matter in my own mind, and in the rules.. So... This is what I thought when I looked at the thread... Anyone who doesn't go TLDR, go ahead and give me your own input.. I'd like to see what other's think of, and how they may expand upon my own line of thinking...

That's why, imho, I think if the warder took good precautions to make sure no human would be killed by them accidentally, then they are ok.  Same way if someone makes a wall of fire and a human decides to commit suicide by jumping into it, then the caster didn't break a law.  If you make your wards so easily fired off that someone can unknowingly get themselves killed, then if it kills someone you should be treated as a lawbreaker.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on January 29, 2011, 01:33:28 AM
Zombies in the books don't seem to be bringing someone back to life.  Overall they don't seem to have much intelligence (and remember constructs have intelligence).  I think we can come up with a lot of ways a zombie MIGHT be breaking the 5th law, but my point was that the books (novels or RPG) don't really clarify how they do this.

They do state in the books why zombies are against the fifth law. Because you are actually bringing someone back to life. That's why they need a heart beat.

Now, the thing is, is whenever I first read the thread, I immediately began thinking on the Archangel fortress, before its fall.  ((btw, i haven't read past Small Favor yet, just to let you know))  It was stated that it was one of the greatest fortresses of mortal making every designed.  And I'm not going to get into how its magical defenses where layered, prepared or anything like that.  I'm just imagining to myself, a certain set of events.  One doesn't really make a fortress to sit and look pretty in.  They make it to protect themselves and their interests.  Now the thing is, is they also don't make it, if they have no enemies.  So, I would assume the Archangel would have come under assault under many occasions, from many different enemies.  And, I would assume that the basic wards where among the most powerful ever crafted.  Therefore, I would guess, that a decent number of would-be besiegers, many of which were probably fellow wizards, warlocks and or sorcerers, would have quite easily died at the hands of their own failed attempts to breach said wards.  I mean, regardless of all the supernatural enemies out in the dresdenverse, or in any other supernatural setting, humanities own greatest enemy, will be others of it's own race.  Simple as that.. So.. One would assume that the leader of the Archangel (whose name escapes me at the moment) would have technically fell very easily into lawbreaker status at one point, or another, in time...

As for Archangel I can think of one possibility but it involves post Death Masks spoilers.
(click to show/hide)
Seems a little paranoid to me, but the white council has been around for a long time so I wouldn't put it past em.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 29, 2011, 02:20:09 AM
They do state in the books why zombies are against the fifth law. Because you are actually bringing someone back to life. That's why they need a heart beat.

There's a distinction between the mechanical processes of a being (e.g. the heart beating) and metaphysical processes.  It isn't like zombies are actually alive....it's a simulated state and as described in the books doesn't seem much different from attaching some strings to the corpse to make it do what you want it to.  The books don't present a clear argument for how ghosts are ok, but zombies aren't.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: sinker on January 29, 2011, 02:30:53 AM
Yes but there is no reason for constructs to need a heartbeat. The reason zombies need a heartbeat is because they were once living and need that to simulate a state of life.
Title: Re: Wards and the First Law
Post by: Drachasor on January 29, 2011, 02:56:12 AM
Yes but there is no reason for constructs to need a heartbeat. The reason zombies need a heartbeat is because they were once living and need that to simulate a state of life.

Aye, but if we took a human corpse and animated it using minimalistic robotics (including a heart and so forth)...it would be disgusting perhaps but not necromancy.  The description in the books doesn't sound like necromancy anymore than healing a bullet wound or implementing a magic pacemaker would be necromancy (since wizards can't use a technological pacemaker, we'll assume they needed the magic version because of an extreme consequence).