The First Law Question.

[surarrin]

So, we have a PC. He's a magical bomb maker, and he's doing some work for the Fellowship.

He makes magical bombs for them to take out RC, now eventually some collateral will happen.

So, the question is, who here is responsible for breaking the First Law.

The Agent from the Fellowship, or the PC for making the bomb?

Another example is Harry's Kinetic ring, say someone stole it, and used it to kill a mortal.

Is he the one responsible, or the person who used it?

[KnightFerrous]

I'd say the person who stole the ring is responsible and would get the lawbreaker stunt...

However, your PC still has to avoid the wardens for essentially handing out First Law violations to the fellowship. He may not get the stunt but he is still being ethically irresponsible when it comes to the First Law.

[luminos]

This would be a dark, dark, dark, dark grey area of the law.  I'd think the warders are definitely going to try to snicker snack the PC if they find out about this, and the PC would need to have some good justification for not taking a lawbreaker stunt (i.e. they can honestly claim that they never expected their bombs to kill mortals)

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, the Laws are all about intent. He'd need to honestly believe it wasn't going to happen to not get one. So if there IS collateral damage, he should be likely be shocked and horrified, and if he keeps making bombs after that, I'd say he knows and give him Lawbreaker next time he builds one wheether there's a casualty or not...since he knows there could be.

And I don't think using an Item can result in a Lawbreaker stunt for a non-spellcaster. It just doesn't work that way. So I'd say in the second case, both Harry and the guy who stole the ring are clear of mystical consequences. Harry'd likely be in trouble with the Wardens if found out...and the guy'd be likely to wind up shot in the head if Harry found out. All of course assuming Harry's ring worked for other people (unlike the duster, it doesn't).

[srl51676]

The application of the "Law Breaker stunt" and enforcement of the laws are completely separate. You gain the stunt by using black magic that stains your soul. having knowledge of the indiscriminate nature of bombs and the fact that RCVs are often in the company of mortals then using the power of life that you believe in to create a bomb should be enough to get you the stunt even if you never kill a mortal. All these threads arguing if this or that breaks the law are pointless, its like cheating on your wife, if you have to ask then the answer is yes.

[Deadmanwalking]

Clearly not. At least, based on Harry not getting Lawbreaker for the thing with Sue in Dead Beat, or the potential human casualties in Grave Peril. There is clearly a grey area in the laws, or Harry would've been an NPC ages ago.

[srl51676]

I would argue that as of Grave Peril Harry should have his second violation. He agonizes and rationalizes considerably about the possible mortal casualties in the fire. Sue on the other hand was under his control and there were few mortals left in the area. Unless someone was sitting in a car she stepped on which is a danger that could not be directly assumed from the nature of the spell. A bomb is an uncontrolled device meant to kill anyone in the area regardless of status since RCVs feed on mortals it can be assumed that any gathering of them worthy of a bomb will contain some mortals. Calling them "acceptable" losses does not make them unintentional. Anyone whose soul would not be stained by their deaths is already a sociopath and should be an NPC anyway.

[Moriden]

Clearly not. At least, based on Harry not getting Lawbreaker for the thing with Sue in Dead Beat, or the potential human casualties in Grave Peril. There is clearly a grey area in the laws, or Harry would've been an NPC ages ago

To be completly fair. its entirely possible that harry is an npc.

[Korwin]

Sue on the other hand was under his control and there were few mortals left in the area. Unless someone was sitting in a car she stepped on which is a danger that could not be directly assumed from the nature of the spell.

Sue would'nt be a violation of the first law, but of the one against Necromancy.
He get to keep his head, because of an technically in the White Council Law, its not so clear (in the books) if his soul should be tainted by his actions.
But since there is an Lawbreaker-Power for Necromancy, in Game terms he should have gotten it.

[Deadmanwalking]

No, he shouldn't, because Sue wasn't human. If he gets Lawbreaker-Fifth for that then he'd need to get Lawbreaker-First for all the Red Court and Ghouls he's slain with magic, and have all his Aspects vtwisted by that by this point. As will every PC wizard ever. Which is my point, there are grey areas.

As for the dead folks in Grave Peril, I'd say that's it's intent that matters, and Harry had no intention of killing them. He doesn't even know if he did, and a the time he wasn't thinking of the possibility of their survival. And his guilt means nothing, he felt guilty after killing people in Dead Beat...but he hadn't technically broken any of the Laws.

And the game is predicated on the assumption that Harry could be a PC, so saying that his actions do make him an NPC is just odd. If we can't play people like Harry, what's the point of it being the Dresden Files RPG?

[Sebastian]

I would argue that as of Grave Peril Harry should have his second violation. He agonizes and rationalizes considerably about the possible mortal casualties in the fire. Sue on the other hand was under his control and there were few mortals left in the area. Unless someone was sitting in a car she stepped on which is a danger that could not be directly assumed from the nature of the spell. A bomb is an uncontrolled device meant to kill anyone in the area regardless of status since RCVs feed on mortals it can be assumed that any gathering of them worthy of a bomb will contain some mortals. Calling them "acceptable" losses does not make them unintentional. Anyone whose soul would not be stained by their deaths is already a sociopath and should be an NPC anyway.

Why couldn't people play sociopathic villains if they want to?

[Korwin]

No, he shouldn't, because Sue wasn't human. If he gets Lawbreaker-Fifth for that then he'd need to get Lawbreaker-First for all the Red Court and Ghouls he's slain with magic, and have all his Aspects vtwisted by that by this point. As will every PC wizard ever. Which is my point, there are grey areas.

But we dont know,
if what causes the Taint of the Lawbreaker-Power is the same as what gets the Warden to separate your head from the rest of the body.

I'd say that's it's intent that matters,

By my reading of the books: Intent doesnt matter (at least in some if not most cases).
(example: Healing people from an addiction with mind magic.)

But as I was saying, its not clear in the source material.
So every GM needs to think about how it works in his world and stick to it...

[Deadmanwalking]

But we dont know,
if what causes the Taint of the Lawbreaker-Power is the same as what gets the Warden to separate your head from the rest of the body.

True. They're almost certainly not, which is why I'm primarily only arguing the Lawbreaker powers, not what the Wardens will punish you for.

By my reading of the books: Intent doesnt matter (at least in some if not most cases).
(example: Healing people from an addiction with mind magic.)

Ah, we're using slightly different definitions of intent here. I'm not talking about motivation or good intentions here, I'm talking about intending or choosing to do X with magic. For the xample you use, the motivation was to get them off drugs, but there was still the intent to use Mind Magic. It wasn't an accident.

I'm not arguing he shouldn't get Lawbreaker if he's willing to accept collateral damage in the War with the Red Court (debatably 'good intentions'), I'm arguing that if he honestly believes his bombs will never kill people (easier said than done), the magic won't be able to change him, since it's what he intends for them to do that shapes his mind and could thus result in Lawbreaker.

I do it this way primarily for setting reasons (it fits Harry's descriptions of why Black Magic is bad), but it also keeps characters from suddenly getting Lawbreaker for killing what they were sure was a vampire...and wasn't (though the Wardens might be unhappy). That can go the other way, of course. If you kill a Red Court Vampire with magic while believing it human I'd rule you get Lawbreaker since the intent was there

But as I was saying, its not clear in the source material.
So every GM needs to think about how it works in his world and stick to it...

True to a large extent, but I still think intent is key, and firmly believe that if you look through the books for Harry's explanations of why Black Magic is evil, they'll back me up that it's vital. I could quote Proven Guilty a bit if people like.

[srl51676]

First off how many threads do we need on ways to weasel out of the Laws of Magic?  

In character The Law Breaker stunt is about your soul not some legal mumbo-jumbo it is about the kind of person you become if you use the force of your life and your will to do terrible things. In game terms the stunt is meant to illustrate and quantify the danger of the left-hand path. If you are the kind of person who builds magic bombs for people who do not fear harming the innocent to achieve their goals then the damage is done because you believe that that bomb "should" be made deep in your soul. Good or evil motivations do not matter. Look and Molly's character sheet. however I agree Intent vs Accident does, at least for the stunt. The bomb maker is just about the worst example in the world however.

For a real world example many terrorist groups are angry about very legitimate things this does not make the people who sell them bombs to blow up night clubs good people. Neither does the fact that the bomb maker has plausible deniability. Arms dealers and drug pushers use that argument all the time. "hey man its not my responsibility what people do with my product."  

Again in game terms the Law are meant to create a framework that both provides tension and creates a dividing line between the good guys and the bad guys. If you want to run and evil campaign that's one thing. they can be tons of fun but in that case i would chuck the NPC rule and only Restrict refresh in order to maintain game balance. On the other hand if you want to play a hero then play a freaking hero why the hell does everyone have to be the Punisher its so tired. The Laws of magic and other moral codes are what make you different from the vampires if all you do is try to dodge them you are no better than the monsters that is why the stunt cost you a piece of your humanity.

Finally on one last real world note IEDs, Landmines, Car bombs, and other indiscriminate traps are just plain wrong. Just ask the kids in Vietnam that get their legs blown off by 40 year old land mines.

[Deadmanwalking]

I agree that bomb-making is very likely to get innocents killed. I also agree that setting IED style traps anywhere in public areas will get you Lawbreaker-First right then and there. But that's honestly not what I was envisioning.

I was envisioning some poor kid who's new to this whole "fighting for survival" thing making magic bombs for these nice folks who saved his life, so they can go blow up monsters and take out generators. Like in the movies, y'know? Nobody will get hurt, right?

Somene like that.

He's wrong, and if he ever finds out there were civilian casualties, and keeps making the bombs, well, then he's tainted himself. But before then, is his soul really twisted by what he's doing?