The Laws of Magic and Loss of Refresh

[darkfire14]

What about killing indirectly with magic? Using magic to immobilize or knock a person unconscious and then use a mundane method to deal the killing (Like stabbing them with a sword). I'm sure plenty of wardens don't take down targets they intend to kill in a straight up fight but disable them first. Still technically you are using magic as means as an end to accomplish the kill, so should it not already be breaking the law?

As for the lawbreaker losing refresh, your arguments are compelling but I'm still iffy to take characters out of play because they broke an abstract set of laws which they as characters might not fully understand unless they're actually members of the White Council. Remember the White Council isn't everywhere (Especially in the city I'm running, Detroit which is strongly overwhelmed by Vampires, Fae Creatures and other supernaturals, the city is TOO violent for the wardens to enforce!)

Then again so far I don't have a wizards or spell casters in the party yet. Running a single player who is a True Believer and works as a freelance exorcist in the city as she was denied support from the church cause she's a woman and not willing to take the vows of the church to become a member of the church. Not that I could have one as its only at a chest-deep level (7 Refresh, 25 Skill points. Like it cause it has room for growth as I hate games where you start out at max power, it leaves no room for growth for a character, in fact the system does not allow you to get beyond the Full Immersion stage!)

[Bruce Coulson]

I agree that there's a bit of inconsistency in that it seems to be acceptable to use magic to disable people, rendering them helpless, and then using mundane methods to kill them.  But the source material is pretty clear that it's the direct use of magic by a mortal caster that leads to the Lawbreaker stunt.  (Again, if you want to change that for your campaign, that's fine; we're just discussing what's been printed as a source for the campaign.)

I tend to be lenient, in the sense that I carefully explain the consequences of doing something if it's going to lead to drastic change of the PC (such as render them unplayable).  I even allow a modification of a action, working on the assumption that the character (as opposed to the player) would be aware of the consequences (in these cases; when it will just lead to an interesting story I let things play out).

Ultimately, we're playing to have fun.  If your character becomes unplayable because of a rule you didn't fully understand or weren't aware of, generally that's not much fun.

[Belial666]

Think of it as the Force.

The jedi are the good guys, using the Light Side for knowledge and defense. And yet, each Jedi kills hundreds, if not thousands, of sentient creatures in lightsaber combat or batting back their own weapons. They are using the Force to enhance their skills in lightsaber combat, increase their speed, even guide their blows. And yet, killing people with a Force-guided, Force-enhanced blow from a lightsaber that decapitates them or bats back their own blaster bolts is NOT using the Dark-Side.

On the other hand, the Sith use force lightning to fry opponents, force choke to strangle them, simple telekinetic blasts to throw them into walls with bone-breaking force and so on. These uses ARE Dark-Side.

[JosephKell]

What about killing indirectly with magic? Using magic to immobilize or knock a person unconscious and then use a mundane method to deal the killing (Like stabbing them with a sword). I'm sure plenty of wardens don't take down targets they intend to kill in a straight up fight but disable them first. Still technically you are using magic as means as an end to accomplish the kill, so should it not already be breaking the law?

As for the lawbreaker losing refresh, your arguments are compelling but I'm still iffy to take characters out of play because they broke an abstract set of laws which they as characters might not fully understand unless they're actually members of the White Council. Remember the White Council isn't everywhere (Especially in the city I'm running, Detroit which is strongly overwhelmed by Vampires, Fae Creatures and other supernaturals, the city is TOO violent for the wardens to enforce!)

Then again so far I don't have a wizards or spell casters in the party yet. Running a single player who is a True Believer and works as a freelance exorcist in the city as she was denied support from the church cause she's a woman and not willing to take the vows of the church to become a member of the church. Not that I could have one as its only at a chest-deep level (7 Refresh, 25 Skill points. Like it cause it has room for growth as I hate games where you start out at max power, it leaves no room for growth for a character, in fact the system does not allow you to get beyond the Full Immersion stage!)

An illusion to trick a person into running over a cliff is a First Law Violation (and possibly a Fourth Law if the illusion was in the mind instead of made of tangible light).  So is a lance of fire to detach the beam a person is dangling from (letting the person fall to their death).

In general, if the spell directly contributes to the death of a person (and it is a direct consequence that can be expected), it is a violation.  If you burn down a building in early morning (like 3 A.M.) with magic and there was a janitor sitting on the toilet, you violated the First Law.  Sure you didn't intend to kill the guy, but you felt justified to be reckless with your power and ruined a building that you didn't check to ensure it was empty.  Now if someone else rifted that janitor into the bathroom after you set the building on fire, it isn't your fault, they intentionally placed the guy there, so they violated the First Law (if they are a practitioner).

Even using magic to restrain a person so that you can lop off his head is also a violation.

Wardens are very careful to not use blocks to restrain a warlock for execution, they do employ blocks to prevent the usage of magic, but without magic, most warlocks are less dangerous than vanilla mortals (notice how neither Victor Sells or Kravos carried a gun?).  And "shutting down" a warlock's magic doesn't kill them, they could still run away.

I do think the Weapon:6 ability on the Warden Sword is kind of a bad precedent, but I think it is there more to make the sword more useful (if it was just 3 uses of a 6 shift counterspell, it is only relevant when you face practitioners, mortal or otherwise).  Without it, the item is just so corner case it might not be worth it.

[Bruce Coulson]

It's not just warlocks that Wardens have to deal with; it's quite probable that the Weapon:6 power is never used on humans.  Out-of-control vampires and nasties from the Nevernever that are rampaging across the human community fall under the Warden's purview as well.

Just because the police officer HAS a gun, doesn't mean he USES it every time he confronts someone; quite the reverse.

[wyvern]

Even using magic to restrain a person so that you can lop off his head is also a violation.

This is false.  (By which I mean: I believe this is false, and am attempting to make the point that stating opinions as facts is not particularly useful.  Please note that the rest of this post is my opinion, and you should go with whatever definition of the first law works for your gaming group.)

Why?  Basically, it totally hamstrings the wardens.  What can they do to make an arrest?  Well, they can't use magic, because if it directly leads to the arrest, well, the death of the warlock is a direct consequence that can be expected after that, even if there's an intermediate "trial" and the actual execution is done by someone else.  Just directly contributing to death can't be enough; that'd give out lawbreakers to, for example, anyone who uses magic to attack someone that's killed during combat, regardless of the source of the death blow.

The dividing line I use is whether or not there's any additional act of free will involved.
So, if there's a fey there that's sworn to kill the guy, and you restrain him, that's a first law violation - the fey killing him once restrained isn't an act of free will, and thus the death is metaphysically directly caused by your spell.
On the other hand, if you restrain a guy, fully intending to personally slit his throat once that's done - that's not a first law violation - it's "merely" murder.  Why?  Because the actual death wasn't caused by magic; it was a separate act of free will.  The GM would, of course, be perfectly justified to have various mundane complications come up from doing that, up to and including the wardens investigating you, but it's not justification for a lawbreaker power.

I'd also say that, if you kill a human using the weapon:6 power of a warden sword, that's a lawbreaker - see all the normal rules for responsibility for use of enchanted items.  But if you're using it as just its base weapon:3 really sharp sword, no lawbreaker; that's killing someone with a sharpened hunk of metal, no magic involved.

[Richard_Chilton]

Hmmm... That has me thinking... Just how many things could you tag when executing a warlock?
"Bound" and "Blindfolded" come to mind.  So does "Lining up the blade" and "positioning myself for the perfect blow", and maybe other maneuvers could be done while preparing for the fatal blow.  Weapon 3 would probably be all you need to take out someone.  

Richard

[Becq]

Lots of grey area involved in this discussion, especially with respect to the first law.  I think they way I would adjudicate this is to look at motivations to clear up the grey areas.  I think that in most cases a use of magic that leads to a mortal death falls into one of several cases:

1) Magic was used to directly end a life.
2) Magic was used in the expectation or hope that a life would be ended.
3) Magic was used recklessly without regard to the possibility that life might be endangered.
4) Magic was used as responsibly as possible, but something unpredictable within reason occured.

Generally, the first three would be considered lawbreaking, and the fourth would not, in my opinion.  So teleporting someone over a volcano or into a deadly part of the Nevernever would be #2.  Blowing up a building without even considering that someone might be there would be #3.  Tossing a fireball at a vampire just as someone teleported directly into your line of fire would be #4.  Wardens are certainly risking #2 through their work, which makes me think that

(click to show/hide)

perhaps their swords offer some measure of blackstaff-like protection.  Perhaps instead of the blanket immunity it offers protection only for warden-sword executions in defense of the laws of magic.

[Bruce Coulson]

I tend to support that #1 is definitely a violation, #2 is probably a violation...and #3 and #4 are not.  It comes down to intent, which is a focusing of the will, which is the definition of magic.  In cases #1 and #2, you're intending to kill someone.  You've harnessed your will to end a life.  You've changed some essential part of you in order to kill someone with magic (with your soul, for all intents and purposes).

In #3 and #4, there is no intent.  Now, case #3 would probably get you in trouble, simply because the reckless and careless use of magic is something the Council wants to avoid.  You might even be executed for it.  But Lawbreaker?  There's nothing that says being stupid is damaging to your soul.  (To be fair, I can see the case for #3 being Lawbreaker territory.  I don't agree, but that's just my campaign.)  And #4?  No intent, and reasonable precautions taken; the White Council has to recognize that accidents and the unexpected happen, otherwise everyone would be arming up against them.

[Becq]

I could certainly support that call; as I said it's something of a grey area and up for interpretation by the GM and/or the group.

One thing I meant to add but failed to is that it should be stressed that the Laws as imposed by the Lawbreaker stunts are metaphysical laws imposed by the universe.  Whatever they happen to be (as determined by the house rules) is what they are, and they cannot be argued away, rules-lawyered (by the character), or avoided by any means.  "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" doesn't cut it, nor does "but I didn't know that the Warden would fall into that volcano I teleported him over, and then die!  I figured he'd cast a protection spell and teleport out!  Honest!"

This is different than the Laws as imposed by Wardens.  They *can* (in theory) be convinced, tricked, or hidden from.  Maybe.  In much the same way as a snowball *could* survive in Hell...

[mostlyawake]

I've explicitly told my group that binding someone with magic and then executing them is a clear first law violation.

You used magic to aid in killing someone. 

Capturing your prey and turning them over to justice, however, is not the same.   Your intent at the time is "capture"; you aren't intending to kill them (though it may happen later, and you won't necessarily be the judge). 

Now, here's where the laws get weird... say the mage was tried and you have a kill order. Binding him to kill him - first law violation.  But what about every other spell you cast?  I mean, a spell to knock a gun away - well you're only doing it to make him easier to kill.  A spell to help you catch up with him, or hell, even track him - all intended to help kill.  Where is the line drawn? (I allow all of those things, but we've discussed this line in-game).

[Richard_Chilton]

Maybe we should break the laws of magic into two parts:
1) The metaphysics part, where if you break the law you're breaking a part of yourself and get the lawbreaker stuff
2) What the Wardens enforce.

Point one seems very cut and dried.  Point two is up for debate.  If a Warden says "I'm positive that he was breaking the laws of magic and when I confronted him he ran" then that's probably enough to sword anyone that's not on the White Council.  If you're on the White Council then you get a trial, and if not then probably not.
And by probably not I'm pointing at the part of Proven Guilty when the person answering the phone says "Um, I don't think we do that anymore" (or words to that effect - I'm paraphrasing since the book isn't handy) and Dresden has to point out that it can still happen and he wants it to happen.  I'm pretty sure that if he called in and said "I came across a warlock named Molly Carpenter who messed with two minds (files to follow) and tried to run so I shot her in the back of her skull" the response would have been "Great - we have to start making sword for you new guys so you don't have to use a gun".

At least that's how they are viewed by the magical community, to the point where practitioner start going missing / dying and there's someone wearing a Grey Cloak near the scene even Mac thinks that it might be Dresden taking care of business.

So kill someone with a spell and you get the metaphysical effects of breaking the law.  Use magic indirectly when killing someone while the metaphysical stuff might or might not happen a Warden might decide that you've broken the first law and take whatever action he feels he has to.

Richard
Edit: I have to become a faster typist.  At least one other person chimed in with the same point while I was typing.

[Korwin]

(click to show/hide)

She did it twice - twice in total,  Years later, after training and daily reinforcement not to do it (or we both die) she does it again.  How is that changing over time? If anything she should have changed into someone who would never used magic that way.

Richard

Are you arguing for the Lawbreaker stunt?
Because what you describe, can be explained by an Aspect as well.
She was out of Fate points and couldnt resist the compell.

And I wouldnt allow to exchange an Lawbreaker aspect with an non-Lawbreaker aspect.

[Richard_Chilton]

What I'm saying is she broke the law once so was always tempted to break it again - which is more or less what the lawbreaker bit says.

If it was an aspect she had in Proven Guilty then I would argue that she had the ability to change it (based on her actions in White Night alone she would have earned a milestone) but that she was devoting her earned refreshes into wizarding abilities and could afford to buy off lawbreaker.

Richard

[Becq]

I'm considering an alternate take on the first law.  To whit: I'm thinking that for it to count as a First Law violation, there may have to be a direct cause-effect relationship between the spell in question and the death.  Predictable results from elements outside your control should be assumed as given, but your own choices seperate from the act of casting the spell do not.  Put in other words, is it possible to action of casting the spell from the action of causing the victim to die?  Put yet another way, if some other benevolently-inclined wizard had recreated your spell exactly, and with all relevant factors the same, would the victim have died as a result?  (I apologize, I'm having trouble putting this into words that convey what I'm thinking.)

So, for example holding someone in place while you shoot/stab/bludgeon/etc or allow your allies to it for you doesn't count.  Your spell may have abetted your killing, but casting the spell -- taken as an action on its own -- did nothing to directly lead to the death.  If you'd held the victim immobile until your mental stress boxes couldn't handle any more, they would have lived.  (If Mr. GoodWizard had cast this spell, the 'victim' would have been fine, because the wizard would have made a different choice involving the subsequent killing.)

This is different from the ol' "Teleporting Your Foe Over An Active Volcano" spell, because the results of the spell directly led to the death without any other action being taken.  (If Mr. GoodWizard had cast the same spell, teleporting the victim over the same volcano, the resulting death would have been the same.)

And taking the example of Warden's swords (or other enchanted items) being used to kill, nobody would be violating the Laws, as the person wielding the blade did not cast any spell in taking the life, and the creator of the blade did so completely independently of the taking of the life.

Does any of this make any sense?