1st Law of Magic Canundrum

[SuperBunnyBun]

I've a question about the first rule of magic a few people have said is intriguing.

Law one, don't kill with magic.  Simple enough.  Doing so places a taint on your spirit that doesn't go away.

Well, what if you killed someone with an enchanted item?  Such as Dresden's force rings as an example.

Who would be at fault with such an act?  The wearer of the ring?  the one who enchanted the ring? (if different)  Or would the ring itself be blamed?

Also, would any taint (ie, requiring to purchase the law breaker) come from the act as well?  like trace back to the one who cast the original spell in it, or into the one wearing it, or possibly corrupt the item itself.



Also, one thing to take into account when pondering this is, what about protective wards?  They can easily be strong enough to kill, and yet are accepted.  so...

[MijRai]

Enchanted Items count. Check Harry in Summer Knight during the first assassination attempt.

The person who did it would be at fault, however they did it. I will point out that people can't use another's enchanted items anyways.

Yes, if you break the Law with a tool, it is still breaking the Law, and you get Lawbreaker.

Wards, if they kill, are Lawbreaker. In the latest book, Harry takes down his wards because some mortals were trying to get in and he didn't want to kill them.

[toturi]

Yes, if you break the Law with a tool, it is still breaking the Law, and you get Lawbreaker.

Wards, if they kill, are Lawbreaker. In the latest book, Harry takes down his wards because some mortals were trying to get in and he didn't want to kill them.

If a Warden killed a warlock with a Warden sword, does he get a Lawbreaker? Morgan, being the Merlin's favorite attack dog, would have executed quite a few warlocks with his sword. Lawbreaker much?

There are many reasons why Harry did not want to kill those mortals. Lawbreaker may not figure.

[Rel Fexive]

The force rings can only harm by using their magic; the Warden swords can be used just as swords without adding the extra powers on.  Their enhanced sharpness is part of their construction, not a magical effect, so that doesn't count, but the extra abilities may; ask your GM or make your own decision on it of that's you.

[toturi]

Their enhanced sharpness is part of their construction, not a magical effect, so that doesn't count, but the extra abilities may; ask your GM or make your own decision on it of that's you.

We do not know if the enhanced sharpness is a completely mundane effect, divorced from the magic that would have been used in their construction.

[sinker]

The whole point of the warden's swords is that they can be used as swords to kill people. It seems silly to me that one would create something that can't be used for it's intended purpose. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you could make some compelling arguments along the lines of Morgan: Murderous Warlock?

[Tbora]

I've a question about the first rule of magic a few people have said is intriguing.

Law one, don't kill with magic.  Simple enough.  Doing so places a taint on your spirit that doesn't go away.

Well, what if you killed someone with an enchanted item?  Such as Dresden's force rings as an example.

Who would be at fault with such an act?  The wearer of the ring?  the one who enchanted the ring? (if different)  Or would the ring itself be blamed?

Also, would any taint (ie, requiring to purchase the law breaker) come from the act as well?  like trace back to the one who cast the original spell in it, or into the one wearing it, or possibly corrupt the item itself.



Also, one thing to take into account when pondering this is, what about protective wards?  They can easily be strong enough to kill, and yet are accepted.  so...

This is one of those unresolved debates that will never be truly "won" except if Fred or one of the other dev's comes in with a hard answer.

My suggestion: Talk it out with your group and make a decision from there on how YOU want to treat it.

[SuperBunnyBun]

I don't have a group.  Besides, debating what may or may not be the case was my intention for asking it in the first place.
I would LOVE to hear Butcher's view on the question, but I highly doubt he'd show up to give it.

Also, I believe a book stated the enchantements on the warden swords are intended for negating and dispelling magics.  Possibly others to enhance durability.  No real offensive spells on it though.  So it can't really be a proper example of this canundrum.

Same with the reference earlier to Changes about taking down wards.  Harry doesn't want to kill people.  He even states in that scene they're innocent and just doing their job, pushed on them by an idiot.  So that too can't be an explanation towards if a taint would trace back to Harry or not for such a thing.


It is difficult to figure out though, as very few magic items appear in the books that aren't either non-offensive, or focus items that merely channel power through it.  Apart from Dresden's force rings, I can't think of any examples.

[Wilder]

I'd argue that the swords do have some sort of enhanced damage magically added, simply by dint of the abilities they have in the DFRPG. The ability to go from Weapon 3 (as in something really really sharp) to Weapon 6! is huge. After all, Weapon 4 is on the scale of hand grenades if I remember correctly. So to do more damage with a sword than being hit by a train is rather significant.

Add to that fact that it only works a few times a day tells me that magic is adding to the effect otherwise it would be a constant Weapon 6 as opposed to Weapon 3.

[sjksprocket]

I'm pretty sure it's by means of CASTING magic only. If you swing with an enchanted blade you still kill with the blade. the magic that was cast isn't doing the killing itself. That's why wardens swords don't count. That's the feel I got from it anyway.

[devonapple]

I feel that a big component is whether something is considered a melee or a ranged weapon.

Mundane Sword/knife: Legal under First Law
Mundane Gun: brutal, potential for death at range, but legal
Magically enhanced Sword: feels like it could maybe be a First Law violation, but it's debatable
Ring/Wand/Staff dealing ranged Damage: definitely can be death at range, so feels much more like a First Law violation

[bibliophile20]

Also, a note: To do magic is to believe in what you're doing with magic, which is why someone who kills with magic--or breaks any of the other laws--is tainted the way they are.  However, the warden swords were enchanted by someone else, meaning that their magic isn't native to the wielder and that distance might help with any issues with the First Law. 

Second, the magic on the sword just makes it a better sword; it's a much more passive sort of action than even a gust of wind blowing someone off of a high rise is.  As intent matters, remember that a sword is a sword is a sword--a big, sharp thing that works by the pointy end going into the other guy--whereas a spell comes from the will of the wizard.  In one case, you're killing someone with a sharp piece of metal that is a sharper piece of metal thanks to some magic, but the metal is still doing the killing.  In the other case, an expression of a raw element given form by your will is doing the killing.  One is more personal than the other.

And third, just to switch sides a bit, perhaps the twitchy sword fingers that are endemic among the Wardens are related to this; maybe they're getting just a wiff of bad mojo off of the swords when they kill with them; not enough to qualify as First Lawbreaker, but enough, especially when combined with the destruction around most warlocks, to nudge them in the direction of "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails." 

[UmbraLux]

While it's a different set of 'laws' I take the literalness of the Unseelie Accords and use that for the White Council's laws as well.  So, using an extremely literal interpretation, any magic directly causing death is a violation but using an object (or a person) enhanced by magic isn't a violation.  In addition to allowing a warden's sword this avoids getting into areas where killing someone with your fists after drinking a potion of strength can also be seen as breaking the Law.

Besides, I view the White Council as a group of disparate people and factions with differing, and often opposing, goals.  The only thing they'd agree on is a literal interpretation.  

[devonapple]

Besides, I view the White Council as a group of disparate people and factions with differing, and often opposing, goals.  The only thing they'd agree on is a literal interpretation.  

I'm certainly happy to go with the most literal option.