A few questions on Lawbreaker

[Walker_Blade]

these were just a couple of questions that I came up with while rereading the series.

In grave Peril Harry summons a large number of ghosts/specters into existence and directs them at Bianca to kill her.  How is this different from corpstaker's spectral soldiers and how does it not earn him a lawbreaker stunt?

and a more general question:  do you get lawbreaker if you use magic to guarantee that someone will be killed but not actually kill them with the magic? (binding someone into paralysis and then letting them drown or just shooting them)

[Trobon]

For the first thing they actually address that in the book on page 299 of YW. The ghosts were all there already. Harry didn't summon them or bind them, he just directed them a little.

As for the other part of your question. From my personal reading the first would definitely be a violation of the First Law and I guess there's no logical reason to not include the second example if I counted the first. for some reason I feel the second would be less likely to break the rules, but as I said I have no logical reason for thinking that way. So in my opinion, and how I would rule it at my table, would be yes they would break the Law.

[PirateJack]

Firstly, Harry didn't really control the ghosts to attack Bianca, he just gave them a bit of a push and let them do what they wanted from there, so I'd call it a light grey area that is at the very opposite end of the necromantic spectrum to Corpsetaker's magic (closer to Morty's ectomancy than true necromancy, I'd expect).

The second one I'd definitely call Lawbreaker on. Its your magic that is allowing the death to take place, no matter that it was a mundane method that ended it. I'd especially call it on the drowning example, since otherwise the person would likely be able to escape.

[Walker_Blade]

so where is the line drawn in the use of magic in a murder?  Loyde Slate doesn't have the lawbreaker stunt, but after incapacitating Reuel (With Winter Ice) he threw him down some stairs and broke his neck.  That doesn't seem any different to me than paralyzing him with magic and slitting his throat.

[Victim]

Subduing someone magically then killing them can't be a Lawbreaker because that's how Warden's operate.

[Moriden]

Subduing someone magically then killing them can't be a Lawbreaker because that's how Warden's operate.

this is flawed logic

[JustinS]

these were just a couple of questions that I came up with while rereading the series.

In grave Peril Harry summons a large number of ghosts/specters into existence and directs them at Bianca to kill her.  How is this different from corpstaker's spectral soldiers and how does it not earn him a lawbreaker stunt?

and a more general question:  do you get lawbreaker if you use magic to guarantee that someone will be killed but not actually kill them with the magic? (binding someone into paralysis and then letting them drown or just shooting them)

Honestly, I suspect that Wardens do the 2nd all the time when they execute someone.
If you have the sorcerer captive, and are giving them a hearing, you do make sure to bind them so they don't try to kill you and escape.

Your deciding to stick a sword into them, even when they are helpless is not a direct consequence of use of magic, or involve a use of magic.

It still makes you someone who killed a person...

[Ghsdkgb]

this is flawed logic

It's Warden logic.

[Moriden]

this is flawed logic
It's Warden logic.

To expand, the logic holds true for weather or not you have to face social sanctions, but not weather or not you get the stunt. personally i would have given warden Morgan the lawbreaker ;first stunt probably at -2. Im rather certain half the reason he was so fixed in his ways , overly judgmental, and obsessed with killing harry was because of how this stunt had warped his mind over the years.

[paul_Harkonen]

My understanding of the Lawbreaker stunt is whether your intention in using the magic is to kill, or restrain.

In the case of drowning, the goal of the spell is to kill, the decision to cast and kill are simultaneous.

In the case of the Wardens, the goal of the spell is to restrain only, the killing is a separate decision.

That said, I'm not even certain that the drowning example is a violation of the first law.  The issue is that the process of spell casting requires that you truly believe in the effect.  It's a dark dark gray area to be sure, but the distinction between deeply and intimately believing in the immediate death of a human being, and restraining a human being so they can be allowed to die.

[Walker_Blade]

My read on the laws as stated would be that if the intent is to do X to end up at the target's death then the law is broken.  That being said a number of people do things like that who do not have the Lawbreaker stunt.

As pointed out above, Morgan is a good example of this, I'm sure in his fanatical qest to root out warlocks that he has used magic to incapacitate and then killed the person in question.  That being said, he doesn't have the stunt which is part of what triggered this question.

Just to clarify: In my game I would give the lawbreaker stunt to anyone who tied someone up with magic and then killed them.

[Moriden]

There are several npcs who arguably[ imo very strongly] should have the lawbreaker stunt but don't. just make the decision for your game and make sure you apply it evenly to pcs and npcs.

[PirateJack]

I see it basically as the GM's decision. You have the choice to play the Lawbreaker stunt through a Cosmic Eye view or through a White Council view. In the first you get the stunt if magic reacts to it (a very black and white view, to be sure). The second though gives you a few shades of grey to work with, since the WC allows Wardens to use some very specific breaches of the Laws to happen (such as counter-psychomancy and biomancy as a distilled version of transformation). Personally, I prefer the latter approach but I would imagine the first can be used for some very good introspective games where the very nature of magic is an important part of it.

[Deadmanwalking]

In my opinion:

Firstly, ghosts are not the actual dead, and Necromancy is thus not necessary to deal with them (though it can certainly be used to do so, ala Corpsetaker). Secondly, Harry didn't actually compel the ghosts to do anything, he just sorta pointed out their murderers and helped break said murderers protections.

Secondly, in regards to paralysis then murder. In my opinion, the reason that Lawbreaking corrupts is the level of pure belief that has to go into a spell. To work magic you must believe it to be right. Completely. No shadow of a doubt. Believing it is right to physically restrain someone, not so much a problem. Killing someone mundanely? Still no problem. Believing in the rightness of their death enough to kill them with magic (which would include releasing them over a 10 story fall, because you know what will happen, and you need to believe in it to release them)? Problem.

[surarrin]

Here is a thought

Does a wardens sword negate deathcurses? maybe that's why they use them as well!