1. I'd have to look at the situation. Sometimes it wold be appropriate (Pushed onto a freeway, and that kind of skirting) but if there is an unintended consequence then definitely not.

2. Case by case basis.

3. I'd have to say Yes. 100%.

4. The big thing I'm sure of is that for things like Denarians or other beings who are possessed it would be a huge cluster-cuss to adjudicate in play.

5. Things like the Warden Sword is a no. Force Rings, full on Love Potions? Yes.

6. I really am not sure...I'd say something like a Jedi Mind Trick would be ok, but nothing stronger.

7. The big thing for me is Intent. If you try to break a la and believe in it, then you get it. On the other side, if it's an accident then we might see mitigating factors.

8. Yes.

9. I really had never given it much thought.

It's something of a genre-savyness that makes players choose the 'kill' option. In almost every story a bad guy that doesn't get double-tapped comes back to wreak havoc again.
They most often aren't Batman who lock the Joker back in Arkham Asylum knowing very well it's a revolving door prison.

I've seen this start an escalation at table play. You get a rep for taking out everyone you fight then eventually the bad guys learn to do the same. They come at you hard and for blood. In one superhero game it got 4/6 of the party killed. I think in general letting people concede and coming up with something that's good for everyone is the way to go.

It might have come of stronger than I intended it to sound. Basically, ask yourself this: Is the concession appealing enough from an IC perspective? Do the PCs involved benefit more from letting the NPC live? If I can say yes to both, then I am likely to accept the concession.
[snip]

Or, as the books did it:

(click to show/hide)

There's a reason Harry broke Cassius' legs

Part of the problem is concession takes place OOC often. It's a matter of the players at the table coming to a reasonable consensus so that everyone continues to have fun. Otherwise why should bad guys in a fight ever let members of the Party concede? Like you said:

I will talk with the players involved to find a solution that is fun for all involved....

Emphasis mine obviously.

Our group handles it like this: we pick a timeline and a place. Anything that happened up till then is considered canon unless all involved agree on an alternative outcome. From that point on, the PCs actions may affect the storyline any way possible.

In my experience, those concessions need to offer substantial benefits or blackmail for the players to actually agree. Personally, I (as a player) prefer to kill off anyone who might be a potential recurring enemy later on.

That just seems like bad sportsmanship. Do your enemies do the same? If so your table sounds really intense.

I don't have the books on me, but I'm fairly sure you get a +1 rebate because you have channeling.

That is in fact incorrect. You only get the Rebate with Evocation or Thaumaturgy (Or Both!)

It's hard to argue if you have no head.

I've always wanted to make a Warden Character who was a Lawyer.
So he'd argue what the councils interruption of X, Y, and Z means, and thats why you SHOULD have your head cut off
Think Evil Lawful

It's LN if it's the letter of the Law. Now if he were exploiting the Laws for his own gain, then he'd be LE. And of course if the person deserves it, and they are dangerous, it's LG.

Peter is my mental Malcolm.

I was wandering youtube and came across you doing that monologue and now I'm going to have trouble finding another Molly. It'd be really convenient if you could become famous and do a bunch of TV so I have some clips to cut from.

Oh, you are doing it book by book basis rather than just a theme mashup? Sounds like a good time.

In my dream world each book is a 90 Minute HBO special.

Yeah. Hey if you do, you should definitely post it here.

How much work could it be?