Duels between mortal Practitioners and the Law of Magic

[flymolo]

If it exists pc's will find a way to get it, and use it.

Then they will have the converse problem.  They won't have the lawbreaker stunt but WILL have wardens on their ass.
Alternatively, there may be locations that have these properties, which would be somewhat less abusable.

[meh]

Have any of your wizards figured out how to animate golems yet?

[Deadmanwalking]

Have any of your wizards figured out how to animate golems yet?

What does that have to do with anything?

[meh]

What does that have to do with anything?

Everything.   

 Killing someone with a mundane artifact that's had magic applied to it doesn't count as a violation of the First Law if there's no magic being applied at kill time.

Heck, the principle applies to entropy curses, too.   If you can figure out how to power one without  Outsider backing, there's nothing in the Laws to stop you.

[Deadmanwalking]

Everything.   

 Killing someone with a mundane artifact that's had magic applied to it doesn't count as a violation of the First Law if there's no magic being applied at kill time.

Firstly, that's debatable, since creating Golems almost always involves summoning a spirit to possess them, and using summoned entities to kill does break the Laws.

And secondly, and not debatably, we're talking about a formal duel using energy as a weapon, where golems are certainly not going to be allowed.

Heck, the principle applies to entropy curses, too.   If you can figure out how to power one without  Outsider backing, there's nothing in the Laws to stop you.

And this is just flat-out wrong. The Laws are about intent, if you intend to kill someone it doesn't matter how indirectly you do it, you get Lawbreaker, and the Wardens will kill you if they catch you. Re-read the section on the Laws in YS, ditto the section on Thaumaturgy.

[jhosmer1]

Given the existence of the First Law, I don't think that White Council Wizards would ever duel each other to the death with magic.  It just wouldn't be part of their culture.  

Now, I could see all sorts of duels that don't involve killing to settle things between wizards, and of course they can always duel with swords or weapons.  

(Now I'm reminded of Big Trouble in Little China... "You never could beat me, Egg Chen.")

[meh]

Firstly, that's debatable, since creating Golems almost always involves summoning a spirit to possess them, and using summoned entities to kill does break the Laws.

Then figure out how to change that 'almost'.   Advance your magic tech. 

And secondly, and not debatably, we're talking about a formal duel using energy as a weapon, where golems are certainly not going to be allowed.

And if non-spirit golems are built then  formal duels are obsolete, so you see the point of debate, I'm sure.

And this is just flat-out wrong. The Laws are about intent, if you intend to kill someone it doesn't matter how indirectly you do it, you get Lawbreaker, and the Wardens will kill you if they catch you. Re-read the section on the Laws in YS, ditto the section on Thaumaturgy.

 If the Laws are about intent, then why was Molly ever brought to trial? 

If the Laws work the way you say they work, then there is a huge logical flaw in the concept of Blackstaff.

Witness:

Time A:   I use Blackstaff to zorch a section of railroad over a bridge, leaving it looking ok but fundamentally weak, intending to kill someone on train.

Time A+30minutes:   I lose Blackstaff to someone else.

Time A+2hrs:   Train hits bridge, peeps die.

Do the Laws apply or do they not?

[Falar]

... Because she intended to screw up someone's mind? I mean. It's not like she accidentally compelled him to do something. She looked at both their brains and said, "Aw, to hell with what they're brains are going to do, I'm going to make them do what I want them to do." Oh, yeah, you can say it was for their own good and all that jazz, but when you get it down to brass tacks, she invaded their minds (that's Law 3 for you) and then enthralled them to her decision of what is right and good and just (that's Law 4 for you).

[meh]

So all I need to do is mindream a magical critter like Arianna and then use /her/ magic against your dueling wizard and there's nothing the Laws can do about it.     


That's a reasonable way to create golems, sure, thanks.

[Deadmanwalking]

Then figure out how to change that 'almost'.   Advance your magic tech. 

Possible, but not easy. And I think the only way you can do that is probably by building what amounts to a magical AI...which means it might not be willing to kill for you.

And if non-spirit golems are built then  formal duels are obsolete, so you see the point of debate, I'm sure.

No, they aren't. And even if they were, look at the title of this thread. If it's not a valid part of dueling, then why are you even bringing it up?

If the Laws are about intent, then why was Molly ever brought to trial? 

See YS p. 232-234. In short, I'm not talking about intentions (why you do something), I'm talking about intent (choosing to do it). Molly chose to violate a man's mind, just like someone using a weapon's grade Entropy Curse chooses to kill, neither of their motives matter.

And read p. 296 as well, the Weapon's Grade Entropy Curse breaks both the First AND Seventh Laws, so even with a different power source, it would clearly break the First. Also note that Harry warned those using it that they were breaking the Laws of Magic long before he knew how they were powering it.

[Deadmanwalking]

So all I need to do is mindream a magical critter like Arianna and then use /her/ magic against your dueling wizard and there's nothing the Laws can do about it.     


That's a reasonable way to create golems, sure, thanks.

Yes, because it's not like you need to absolutely believe in whatever you do with magic...oh, wait, you do.

So forcing someone to kill with mind control absolutely breaks the First Law as well as the Fourth. You can get around the Fourth by using a non-human monster, but not the First.

[Deadmanwalking]

If the Laws work the way you say they work, then there is a huge logical flaw in the concept of Blackstaff.

Witness:

Time A:   I use Blackstaff to zorch a section of railroad over a bridge, leaving it looking ok but fundamentally weak, intending to kill someone on train.

Time A+30minutes:   I lose Blackstaff to someone else.

Time A+2hrs:   Train hits bridge, peeps die.

Do the Laws apply or do they not?

We have no idea how the Blackstaff works (beyond it somehow helping to shield it's bearer from the internal price of breaking the Laws). Using it as an example is thus silly.

[meh]

Yes, because it's not like you need to absolutely believe in whatever you do with magic...oh, wait, you do.

mindream can install complete belief /easy/.    And the originating practitioner completely believes in mindreaming nonhuman monsters.

[meh]

We have no idea how the Blackstaff works (beyond it somehow helping to shield it's bearer from the internal price of breaking the Laws).

The possibilty of existence of an item that can mask intent from consequence negates the following:

Using it as an example is thus silly.

[KOFFEYKID]

Meh is right, all you have to do is Mindrape some supernat critter, and make it utterly devoted to you, and your protection. Then just have it guard you. No 4th lawbreaker since its not a human, and you can give it commands verbally (without magic) to kill and avoid a 1st lawbreaker.