Ethics, Wizards, and the Laws of Magic

[Ophidimancer]

I know you guys are probably all sick of Lawbreaking topics, but I thought I would ask a new question as well as give us a general thread for all such questions in the future.

Q: If a spell was the only thing preventing a person from dying and the caster canceled the spell, does this constitute breaking the First Law?

E.G. - Let's say someone was falling to their death, but an aeromancer caught them midair, would it count as Lawbreaking if he later dropped that person?

[Morgan]

A good way to think about it is to take magic out of the equation. If someone were hanging off a high ledge and someone else grabbed their arm at the last second, then let them go later, would you consider that murder?

[Ophidimancer]

A good way to think about it is to take magic out of the equation. If someone were hanging off a high ledge and someone else grabbed their arm at the last second, then let them go later, would you consider that murder?

Yes if it was done on purpose, but no if it was accidental.  Does that work for First Law violations, though?

[wyvern]

The problem with that, Morgan, is that taking magic out of the equation explicitly doesn't work for Lawbreaker.  If you shoot someone with a gun, it's murder - but not lawbreaker.  If you use magic to accelerate a bullet to lethal velocities, it's also murder - but is lawbreaker.  (Assuming you're a mortal, your victim is a mortal, and you're using mortal magic.  If any of those assumptions don't hold, then whether or not lawbreaker is appropriate will vary depending on your gaming group.)

I'd also be interested in whether counterspelling someone's flight spell would count as lawbreaker.

And, for a slightly different lawbreaker question: Transforming someone else, body or mind, is against the Laws of Magic.  Transforming yourself is not.  But what about giving someone else the ability to transform themselves?  Is giving someone a hexenwulf belt you made a violation of the laws of magic?  What about a potion of turn into a wolf 'till the next dawn (that, presumably, doesn't have the demonic possession drawback of a hexenwulf belt)?

[Morgan]

If it was an accident in the situation you described the aeromancer would have simply failed to catch the falling victim or at least failed to hold onto them so it's not Lawbreaking. Taking it back to the non magical version. The person desperately grabs the falling person and only brushes their fingers with his as the fall, or even worse grabs the person and just can't keep the grip and hold on and the victim literally slips through his fingers, is that murder? Or is it a tragic rescue attempt, that will probably haunt the failed rescuer forever?

What is the intent of the magic is always an important thing to consider, when thinking about Lawbreaking just remember the path to hell, good intentions and all that.

[Bruce Coulson]

This is a different look at the Laws; basically, "Do the Laws require you to use magic to save people?"

I would argue "No."  It's probably wrong from an ethical and moral point of view, but failing to act does not constitute a violation.  This goes back to Free Will.  Using magic against a person, in many cases, robs them of their free will via magic.  (Yes, even the 1st falls under this.)  But requiring someone to act robs the caster of their free will; which isn't allowed.

However, once having made the choice to act, revoking that choice does carry consequences.  So, if you fail to use a spell to save someone's life, you're not a Lawbreaker.  But, if you cast the spell, and then let it drop, knowing that cancelling that spell  will cause that person's demise...then you've used magic to kill.  (Now, if you're in the middle of svaing someone and you fail to control the magic, or are interupted, and the person dies...you aren't a Lawbreaker, because you didn't INTEND for the spell not to work.)

That's my view on the subject.  Free Will must be allowed to work, even if exercising that free will leads to tragedy.  Of course, it can work positively as well; you're not obligated to try and save the Denarian

(click to show/hide)

tumbling out of an helicopter, for instance...

[Morgan]

The problem with that, Morgan, is that taking magic out of the equation explicitly doesn't work for Lawbreaker.  If you shoot someone with a gun, it's murder - but not lawbreaker.  If you use magic to accelerate a bullet to lethal velocities, it's also murder - but is lawbreaker.  (Assuming you're a mortal, your victim is a mortal, and you're using mortal magic.  If any of those assumptions don't hold, then whether or not lawbreaker is appropriate will vary depending on your gaming group.)

Right, but my point wasn't about whether or not the person who deliberately caught a person by hand and then let the person fall would pick up the Lawbreaker power. My point was that the intent behind the action was exactly the same, murder pretty much plain an simple. And that is one of the Laws of Magic that you can pick up Lawbreaker if you happen to break it.

Looking at your two bullet examples, gun and magic. If you kill another human being by firing a bullet out of a gun at them, that is murder. Did you break a Law of Magic to do it and should you pick up the Lawbreaker power for doing that? No clearly not. If you kill another human being by magically gathering your will then use that will to fire a bullet at them, that is also murder. But this time you did used magic to do it, you broke a Law of Magic, and you are for damned sure going to pick up the Lawbreaker power.

But in either example the intent, action, and the outcome are the important things to look at. If you intend to kill or murder someone, take an action on that intent, and then if the outcome of that action is that someone dead. You can usually find your answer to any sort of Lawbreaker question. The action should be the determining factor for whether or not it is a Lawbreaker issue, if that action had anything to do with you working magic, guess what you broke one of the Laws, and you are now a Lawbreaker.

I'd also be interested in whether counterspelling someone's flight spell would count as lawbreaker.

And then that's one of those fun little gray areas.

[CMEast]

If you don't save someone on purpose then you aren't a lawbreaker but you are a bad person.

If you try to save someone but fail because you don't have enough power then you aren't a lawbreaker.

If you try to save someone, fail, and the fallout from your spell actually makes their situation worse, guaranteeing their death then it's not a lawbreaker as long as you take some backlash. If you allow the spell to cause fallout even though you could take backlash, valuing your stress over their life... well, it really depends on the circumstances, I might make the fallout push you off the building too so that you join them, or if you've been walking the lawbreaker line for a while I might make it push you over as long as it didn't make you an NPC (that is too cruel, I'd only make that happen to a player if they deliberately pushed me to).

If you try to save someone, catch them in the air, and then allow them to drop on purpose. That might well be a lawbreaker depending on why. If you had to let them drop to save someone even more important (or to save yourself, because otherwise you'd both die) then it wouldn't be lawbreaker... unless it fit the story. If that person would be dramatically changed by that moment, if they had the refresh spare and thought it might be fun then they'd get it. If they drop them on purpose without a good reason, it's a lawbreaker stunt.

[YuriPup]

There are 2 problems we run into with the Laws of Magic: the first is that magic is belief driven but the Universe has some absolute rules about magic. The second is we don't know the absolute rules. We know that mind magic harms the caster. We don't even know if that is true for breaking the First Law (Thou shalt not kill by use of magic).

If killing someone with magic also damages the spirit then I would expect the Council's Laws hue closely to what the Universe decides. Then the GM has to figure out what the rules for the Universe are: does it care about intention at all? How does it weigh the removal of Free Will? How indirect does the removal have to be? (Does someone dying from tetanus from stepping on a nail exposed by a fire started by magic 50 years ago count?)

If the first Law isn't a reflection of the Universe's rules then I expect that the not killing rule is to keep normals hunting down an killing all the wizards. But I think without knowing the driving force of Law we can't really authoritatively comment on what is or isn't Lawbreaking.

[Ophidimancer]

We know that mind magic harms the caster. We don't even know if that is true for breaking the First Law (Thou shalt not kill by use of magic).

Actually I'm pretty sure we do know that.  That's what the Lawbreaker Stunts represent.  Kill using magic and you change yourself on the metaphysical level.  Do it enough and your soul twists into a new and darker configuration.

We know that killing with magic inherently affects you, it's the exact definition of "killing with magic" I'm after.

How indirect does the removal have to be? (Does someone dying from tetanus from stepping on a nail exposed by a fire started by magic 50 years ago count?)

These are more of the lines of questions I'm wondering about.

I think without knowing the driving force of Law we can't really authoritatively comment on what is or isn't Lawbreaking.

I think Harry has explained that magic comes from life and is a force for life and creativity and that to use it to destroy life is anathema.

[Bruce Coulson]

Then the GM has to figure out what the rules for the Universe are: does it care about intention at all? How does it weigh the removal of Free Will? How indirect does the removal have to be? (Does someone dying from tetanus from stepping on a nail exposed by a fire started by magic 50 years ago count?)

If the first Law isn't a reflection of the Universe's rules then I expect that the not killing rule is to keep normals hunting down an killing all the wizards. But I think without knowing the driving force of Law we can't really authoritatively comment on what is or isn't Lawbreaking.

Part of the group's job (not just the GM's) is to determine how the Laws of Magic work in their campaign.  This can be done before the campaign starts or (far more likely, in my experience) on a case-to-case basis as situations arise.  As long as the groups shares a general idea of how the Laws work, everything can be worked out.

For my groups, we're going with the Laws of Magic are a reflection of how the laws of the universe work.  They are imperfect, because people are imperfect; but they represent the best understanding (so far) mortals have of metaphysical constants.  So, breaking the Laws is bad not only because the White Council tries to kill you; it's bad because it's bad for you, on a fundamental level.  (cf Harry's comments in the game book re the First Law.)

Now, since the Laws are an imperfect understanding of the real metaphysical constants, that's why there are 'grey' areas.  There really aren't; but mortals just can't know enough to avoid those shadings.

For the above example, I feel that falls under both 'intent' and 'capability of control'.  If other people had the free will to influence actions (why was the nail still there? why didn't the victim seek treatment?)  then you had no control of the event, and therefore lawbreaker would not apply.  (Now, if you set up a ritual to cause plague to anyone who entered an area, and failed to properly remove it...that's going into grey.)

I wouldn't apply Lawbreaker to cancelling a spell keeping someone alive, but that's just because the consequences of the act (like all the friends of the victim and whoever was trying to save them coming after you; aka karma) would be just as severe as if you had broken the law.  In general, I see this as another grey area; but that's just for my group.

[TheMouse]

It sort of depends on which of two interpretations you have.

"You use magic to kill someone." This is the direct interpretation. It says that it's bad to take some magic -- any magic -- and use it to end a life. This is your fireball, your accelerating a bullet, or your pushing someone off a ledge with magic. You do something pretty direct that kills someone.

"The result of your magic is a death." This is indirect. It says that it's bad if you do something and the end result is someone dying. This would include something like negating magic that's keeping someone alive, because the direct result of that negation is a death.

[ahunting]

I think it would come down to intent. Did you drop the spell intending to kill the guy? Did you drop the spell b/c you were unable to keep it going? Did you drop the spell thinking the man was going to be safe? Did you drop the spell b/c he was about shoot you while suspended in the Air? All of these questions represent different scenarios of what could be the same action. If the intent to kill was there, then I'd say First law maybe be a part of this, but if it was not intended as an attack then I'd say not. Remember that stress is not damage, only consequences are.

[Bruce Coulson]

The second interpretation, to me at least, seems too broad to be reasonably applied.  (Some groups might be just fine with it.)  It also seems to overlook probable events in the books/rpg books that did not lead to Lawbreaker level consequences. It just strikes me that there are too many ways to abuse that interpretation against wizards, without adding any fun to the game.

My interpretation is based on the following ideas.

Free Will - This seems to be pretty important throughout.  To break a Law requires an act of Free Will, that cannot be made by anyone else.  Yes, you can be put into very bad circumstances, but taking away your Free Will is an act only monsters do (hence the Law against mind-magic).  A lack of will may also lead to serious consequences, but doesn't seem to have the same metaphysical impact.  (I'm not saying it doesn't affect a character to choose by not making a choice; just that it doesn't seem to work at the level of Lawbreaking.)

Intent - Again, this seems to be a common thread throughout the books.  Magic is all about focusing your will, with a stated intent, to achieve a result.  Lack of intent = lack of will = no magic, or at least no magical consequences.  See Harry's statement in the rpgs re certain events involving probable human deaths that resulted from a casting.  Harry did not intend for that result to happen; it wasn't the will and intent of the spell; so, although it's affected him, he didn't suffer a Lawbreaker result.

Add to this some corollaries

Reckless Disregard - If a wizard knowingly casts a spell that isn't necessarily intended to harm mortals, but doesn't take their presence into consideration, then he/she's shading into Lawbreaker territory.  Key words are 'knowingly'. This is a grey area, that can quickly go to black.

Good Intentions Don't Count - At least, not in the metaphysical area.  It can mitigate the legal consequences of your acts...but Harry is still a Lawbreaker, even though the alternative was dying and letting his 'mentor' get away with a much more serious violation of the Laws.

As always, your mileage may vary...

[GruffAndTumble]

Bruce has covered my opinions very well with his four points, although I might be inclined to modify them slightly by individual law. I would also probably add "arrogance/presumption" as a grey area border--if you are aware of the risks to your soul by casting a piece of grey magic, but disregard them willfully, that might push it over into the Lawbreaker zone for me. However, I must stress that this refers to a caster who is absolutely sure he can control the consequences or who thinks the Laws don't apply to him as strictly, not just someone who is aware their magic skirts the Laws and casts it out of necessity.