The Laws of Magic and non-mortal casters

[wyvern]

Ok, I was wrong - I do have something more to say.

Smoore: Whether the lawbreaker stunts are "too cheap" depends entirely on your perspective.  If you're looking purely at the mechanics of building a powerful spellcaster, then yes, they're too cheap.  But if you look at it from a perspective of making a character, from the perspective of what your aspects are and *who* you are, they're absurdly expensive, and all too capable of turning a player character into an insane NPC monster - even if the White Council is for whatever reason unable to hunt you down.

JustinS: Lawbreaker is a +1 per point... but that +1 stacks with refinement bonuses.  They're scary powers in terms of, well, raw power.

[Slife]

i dunno; it almost seems as if kemmlrite necromancy should get its own laws, based on how the books describe it; maybe even a lawbreaker whenever you don't kill someone with it.

[JustinS]

Ok, I was wrong - I do have something more to say.

Smoore: Whether the lawbreaker stunts are "too cheap" depends entirely on your perspective.  If you're looking purely at the mechanics of building a powerful spellcaster, then yes, they're too cheap.  But if you look at it from a perspective of making a character, from the perspective of what your aspects are and *who* you are, they're absurdly expensive, and all too capable of turning a player character into an insane NPC monster - even if the White Council is for whatever reason unable to hunt you down.

JustinS: Lawbreaker is a +1 per point... but that +1 stacks with refinement bonuses.  They're scary powers in terms of, well, raw power.

But it is a power, not a stunt, so gets a little bonus.
The other big thing is that while it is raw power, it does have the 'makes everything look like a nail' effect.

[Drachasor]

Overall I'd say the Laws of Magic in the Dresden-verse are a little over-the-top in a "it's a bit artificial" kind of way.

That said, I think as far as the game is concerned they are meant to be there more to balance the game than anything else.  Altering and reading minds is insanely powerful, heck even Mind Tricks in Star Wars games are pretty darn awesome and the D-verse allows much larger effects.  I don't think anyone can argue that messing with undead isn't also very potent.  Same goes with time travel.  The Outer Gates bit is, I think, largely meant to be on a plot level (though personally I feel that the "researching" bit should just be a legal measure and not a game mechanic, depends on how heavy the GM wants the plot device).  So Lawbreaker for all that makes sense from a purely game balance and plot perspective.

That leaves transforming and killing.  Now, some transforming seems a bit silly to count as a lawbreaker, to me.  If you are repairing tissue damage, removing scares, or a little cosmetic surgery, then that seems rather silly to slap lawbreaker on it (certainly over the top from a game balance perspective).  If you are doing something that alters/destroys the mind, then that goes largely into the area of the first law.  (Augmentation beyond a normal human could be considered similarly, or just on a game balance level as OP if you don't restrict it in some way).  That brings us to the first law, which is a bit murky.  Killing someone with magic.  Now, from a purely RP perspective, killing someone with magic and normally seems about the same to me.  If you purposefully incinerate someone with magic, you have to BELIEVE magic can be used to kill and that they should die.  If you knowingly shoot to kill someone, then that's really no different, honestly.  Seems a bit odd for the game to make a difference though.  On the other hand, magic can be crazy-powerful, hitting huge areas and killing people from far, far away that couldn't otherwise be killed.  Lawbreaker helps keep it under control if humans or sufficiently human-like creatures are around.

Of course, to go to the OP's original concern, I think there is something more interesting afoot from a different perspective.  Presumably, if a non-mortal kills someone with magic, they don't change because they don't have any choice in the matter; it is merely part of their nature.  On the other hand, I find it more odd the other way around.  Harry can kill talking things with magic, things that can think and learn (yet can't change their nature somehow), and that's OK.  Seems a bit screwed up to me if killing people is problematic.  Something is really off with those ethics.

In the end, I think you have to take the power of magic and the universe and just consider magic to have very special rules.  Magic alters you more easily and changes you more easily.  These changes are overreactions to what you are doing compared to how it would work if you did it any other way.  That's why you can't be a wizard-psychiatrist or bring a recently dead loved one back to life whereas if you could do it with science it would be OK (you don't see behavioral therapists or doctors turning into monsters)*.

*Worst case you get surgeons who are egotistical jerks, really, well, beyond the people who are monsters for other reasons.

[Deadmanwalking]

The theory is:

Most people who kill someone with a gun do it on reflex, or because they were under orders, or to save their own life, or even in pursuit of righteous vengeance. They do it without focusing their entire will and being onto the idea that this guy needs to die and nothing else. by believing in his death so hard it happens. The only people who approach that level of focus on the death itself and not anything else are seial killers and those truly focused on revenge...and both of them should be pretty fucked up in just about the same ways as those who get Lawbreakeer (First).

The same applies to the surgeon/magician comparison. It's flawed because the surgeon doesn't need to believe, with all the certainty of a megalomaniacal narcissist, that he has not only the ability, but the right to change who and what people are physically. He  might think so, but he doesn't need to believe it into working so it's unlikely to be the same depth of belief.

And a Wizard doesn't need to become a horrible monster just because he has Lawbreaker, or even because it changes his Aspects. Many do but one who goes in with the best of intentions into Second, Fifth, Sixth, and possibly even Fourth law territory might simply become arrogant and obsessive to a dangerous degree.

[Drachasor]

The theory is:

Most people who kill someone with a gun do it on reflex, or because they were under orders, or to save their own life, or even in pursuit of righteous vengeance. They do it without focusing their entire will and being onto the idea that this guy needs to die and nothing else. by believing in his death so hard it happens

Even one of the books mentions how this isn't the case.  Green soldiers can hit targets well, but they almost always suck at hitting people.  They unconsciously avoid it.  It takes will and a decision to do it most times.

I don't see how it is all that different with magic anyhow.  You toss a fireball at someone you aren't thinking "kill, kill, kill" necessarily.  You could just be thinking "fire, fire fire" or "get him away" or "make him stop" or any number of things (maybe even that he isn't human).  Even thoughts like that will come as a reflex in time.

[Deadmanwalking]

Even one of the books mentions how this isn't the case.  Green soldiers can hit targets well, but they almost always suck at hitting people.  They unconsciously avoid it.  It takes will and a decision to do it most times.

That's not precisely what's said, nor is it true. It used to be true, but current military training has mostly gotten rid of the problem by sheer reflex training, so they litrally fire at targets in a combat situation without thinking about it.

But that's neither here nor there, even someone who cold-bloodedly tortures and kills a man for money is (on some level) partially thinking about the money, not the death itself. Think about the focus required for that, the belief required to, for that moment, be thinking of nothing but his death. That's not something anyone else usually has to deal with, and it changes you, deeply and profoundly.

I don't see how it is all that different with magic anyhow.  You toss a fireball at someone you aren't thinking "kill, kill, kill" necessarily.  You could just be thinking "fire, fire fire" or "get him away" or "make him stop" or any number of things (maybe even that he isn't human).  Even thoughts like that will come as a reflex in time.

No, you're not. If you were only thinking those things then you couldn't kill the man. You have to visualize what's going to happen exactly in order to make it occur...and that includes what damage you want your spell to do.

[Drachasor]

You have to visualize what's going to happen exactly in order to make it occur...and that includes what damage you want your spell to do.

Then avoiding lawbreaking is super-easy.  Hostage situations are also easy.  Just don't imagine the fire/whatever hurting anyone you don't want it to.  Being a bit facetious here, as obviously Harry has demonstrated in the books that magic can have unforeseen consequences that you didn't imagine (like burnt b it iuildings).  Once you make fire, then it is fire and acts like fire.

[luminos]

Its not a case of imagination, its a case of will.  If you will it not hurt anyone, then you can't perform a magic effect designed to hurt people. 

[Drachasor]

Its not a case of imagination, its a case of will.  If you will it not hurt anyone, then you can't perform a magic effect designed to hurt people. 

That's blatantly not the case.  Many, many times Harry talks about how fire and other natural effects will behave naturally once created.  Will allows you to control them better.  Clearly if they behave naturally (and we see this all over the place), a lack of control could easily cause a death by magic.  The characters just luck out since the D-verse doesn't seem to have friendly fire.

[luminos]

I don't think any is arguing that you get a lawbreaker for summoning fire, which then kills someone after acting outside of your influence.  You get lawbreaker when, through pure force of will, you propel that fire at someone and kill them.

[Drachasor]

I don't think any is arguing that you get a lawbreaker for summoning fire, which then kills someone after acting outside of your influence.  You get lawbreaker when, through pure force of will, you propel that fire at someone and kill them.

Backtracking a bit.  This line of conversation started because I was talking about how purposefully killing someone with a gun or the like (which many people in the books do and they WANT that outcome), isn't any different that willing it to happen with magic.  Unless, of course, you tack on special "magic is extra corrupting 'n stuff" to bolster the justification for the laws and how they work in the book and in the game.  The slippery slope fallacy seems to largely NOT be a fallacy with regards to magic, which forces one to conclude magic must be special in that way.

That point got side-tracked a bit, I think into involuntary deaths through various means, but I think you have a point and we can steer this back to my original thoughts on willful killing.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm not sure what I can say to make my point more clear: Magic requires a psychological commitment to the act on a level that nobody sane would ever do without magic, and that kind of commitment to killing or acts of hubris changes somebody.

I'm a Psych major, and this makes perfect sense to me based on the way magic is described (must focus one's entire being and will on the magic to make it work). Almost nobody believes things that deeply, and those that do are seen as fanatics or madmen. So in a way, all Wizards are mad by society's standards (and not just for believing in the existence of magic), megalomaniacs of a sort. Those who break the Laws twist that pre-existing madness into the kind that is focused on the Laws they broke.


Think of it like a religious fanatic suddenly converting, it's that big a change of focus in the Wizard's thought processes, because it has to be to make it work.

[JustinS]

While I disagree with DMW on the laws and pure sponsored magic. I totally agree with what he said about mortal magic and the law. It is drawn from what you are. Your aspects affect how and what you do. It is fed by your identity and desires.

'I want to get away' is different from 'I want to get away at all costs'

The example of Molly shows the path of good intentions, and how easy it is to justify expediency.
Look at The Sight, and how interacting with magic stays with you for the rest of your life...

[Drachasor]

I'm not sure what I can say to make my point more clear: Magic requires a psychological commitment to the act on a level that nobody sane would ever do without magic, and that kind of commitment to killing or acts of hubris changes somebody.

I'm a Psych major, and this makes perfect sense to me based on the way magic is described (must focus one's entire being and will on the magic to make it work). Almost nobody believes things that deeply, and those that do are seen as fanatics or madmen. So in a way, all Wizards are mad by society's standards (and not just for believing in the existence of magic), megalomaniacs of a sort. Those who break the Laws twist that pre-existing madness into the kind that is focused on the Laws they broke.


Think of it like a religious fanatic suddenly converting, it's that big a change of focus in the Wizard's thought processes, because it has to be to make it work.

Killing someone with magic, for example, only requires that you truly, really want that person dead and believe you can do it.  THAT level of commitment is entirely possible with a gun, especially for someone trained to fully commit to things (as all Wizards are).  Heck, we see Harry purposefully kill people quite a bit and he has no doubts or reservations at the time, and he even remarks upon this (once or twice doubts later, but that's 100% allowable even with magic).

Further, the laws ARE overdone from a point of realism.  They are kinda of like the Categorical Imperative on steroids (where the rules are arbitrarily overgeneralized).  Just because you 100% believe person X should die, doesn't mean that desire stands in a vacuum, there can be very, very good reasons for that such as "people who rape children should die" or "killing someone to prevent the death of loved ones is ok".  Obviously killing people isn't necessarily bad (though it often is), but this is highly dependent on the reasons.  Fully believing those reasons is not as rare as you think, especially for people trained to be able to fully commit to something (at least in the short term while the act is being done).  Heck, a good way to do that is just to not think about the fully ramifications of what you are doing until after it's done.  You file that away and devote your will to the task at hand...that's not THAT hard a skill, even if many people aren't capable of that level of focus.