The letter not the spirit of the Law

[bitterpill]

I was wondering how many of you have come across some wonderfully orginal ways to kill with magic and not get lawbreaker either by mechanic ( i do this which causes this to happen which causes someone to die) or by tecnicality.

One of the coolest ways I have seen this done was with a Scion of Hel who had a sponsored magic called Dark Waltz which meant he could give power to ghost and other spirits he then used his ghost sight to get in contact with the spirit of the people killed by the big bad and used inspire rage to turn them geist and then fed them power via a ritual of 30 complexity. He with ghost speaker directed the now powerful ghosts to the big bads layer and waited until the sounds of screams died down. The GM stated that about 5-10 inocents were killed in the attack but as the scion didn't carry out the attack and it wasn't his will that choose the fate of the people inside he has not tecnically commited a violation of the laws of magic as the ghost were not compeled at any point. He didn't even go beyond reality as the ghosts were in this world and the ghosts themselves requested the power once he offered the possibility so they take full credit for the concequenses (This was all done in downtime so none of the party knew).

As far as i know this is the most convoluted way to comit mass atrocities without breaking the laws of magic, if anyone can out do this I would be really pleased to hear about it.  

[Bruce Coulson]

There has been some serious debates over whether Sponsored Magic, even wielded by a mortal, qualifies under the Laws of Magic.  (It does not, imho.)  So, I'm not sure if this really get around the 1st Law.

The simplest way under the Laws; use magic to contact a spell-caster who is not under the Laws of the White Council.  Then, bargain with them to commit the murder.  Your magic's intent was to contact someone; not a violation.  Even if the intent of that contact was to hire a killer.  As long as you didn't summon them, you should be in the clear.

[bitterpill]

The idea would get by the first law if you assume the ghosts have free-will thats a big assumption but if you assume that then the only thing that the Sponsored Magic did was give power to the Ghosts and that it was the ghost that took the descision to take revenge for its death and commit the murder, That way without the ghost being compelled or summoned (ghost speaker finds ghost allready in the world) the caster can not be held responsible for the actions of the ghost.   

[TheMouse]

When circumventing the Laws, one needs must be careful to do so subtly. If you use that ghost trick a bunch of times and some Warden finds out, they might just nuke you for violation.

As for whether this got you the Lawbreaker Stunt, intention does matter to some degree. If you intend that the target dies when you cast the spell, I'd say that you've still broken the Law. You've used magic to end life.

Even if that's not your intention, if it happens a number of times, you've got to accept that you're not doing enough to prevent it. If you accidentally kill enough people through negligence, doesn't that say a similar thing about you as murder says about someone who kills intentionally. That is, that ending life with magic is fine with you.

[toturi]

It depends on how you view the Laws within the game world. Are the Laws metaphysical "spirit" based or more tangible "letter" based?

Whether you get the Lawbreaker stunt could depend on how your group answers the question. If intention doesn't matter, then killing by accident would force Lawbreaker onto the accidental killer. If intention does matter, then killing by accident wouldn't.

For myself, a mortal would only get the Lawbreaker stunt if the Laws are directly broken through the use of mortal magic. Killing by a roundabout route means that at the least, he does not believe so deeply in his action and that at some level he is not fine with it. Using mortal magic to directly cause the death of another mortal crosses that line, it crosses the metaphysical threshold and it is only once that line is crossed that Lawbreaker comes in.

[Tallyrand]

In my opinion, if you're working to circumvent the law (first law anyway) and you get someone killed, you've broken the law.  The laws of magic aren't rules applied to people, they are more like laws of nature enumerated as best as the wizards could.  Killing with magic doesn't give you the Law Breaker trait because it was against the rules, it gives you it because the Law Breaker trait means that deep in your soul you believe killing people is right. 

[BumblingBear]

In my opinion, if you're working to circumvent the law (first law anyway) and you get someone killed, you've broken the law.  The laws of magic aren't rules applied to people, they are more like laws of nature enumerated as best as the wizards could.  Killing with magic doesn't give you the Law Breaker trait because it was against the rules, it gives you it because the Law Breaker trait means that deep in your soul you believe killing people is right. 

I don't agree with this.

I think the lawbreaker stunt is taken if someone directly kills with magic - like blowing them off a roof or ripping their heart out with thaumatergy.  The direct link to the victim according to Harry feels really good and makes one feel like a god.

Indirectly killing with magic is not the same thing.  That said, a Warden may not take the time to ask you about the fine details and just kill you anyway if rumors of hocus pocus are flying around.

[BumblingBear]

Actually, my favorite method to kill without killing is simply to use a spirit evocation to knock a mortal out and then slit their throat.

The wardens more than likely do this sort of thing all the time.  Those swords are not for show.

Wizards can kill all they want.  They just can't use magic to kill without taking the lawbreaker stunt, and killing mortals does not mean the mundane law won't start looking for you.

[wyvern]

On killing with magic by a roundabout means.  See: YS285.  Summoning (or presumably empowering) a demon (or presumably anything else) with the intent that it will kill for you is a first law violation - you cast magic with the intent that doing so would result in a death.

This is not to say that your game can't have a different interpretation, of course - but I'd say that, by the book, it's pretty clear that you really can't lawyer your way around the laws the way that was described in the original post.

[Tallyrand]

I don't agree with this.

I think the lawbreaker stunt is taken if someone directly kills with magic - like blowing them off a roof or ripping their heart out with thaumatergy.  The direct link to the victim according to Harry feels really good and makes one feel like a god.

Indirectly killing with magic is not the same thing.  That said, a Warden may not take the time to ask you about the fine details and just kill you anyway if rumors of hocus pocus are flying around.

Except that knocking someone off a building IS indirectly killing them and that is clearly defined as being a lawbreaker.  People fall off buildings all the time and survive, you could even rightfully claim it wasn't your intent, but it's breaking the law because you knew that was a likelihood and did it anyway.

[Tallyrand]

Actually, my favorite method to kill without killing is simply to use a spirit evocation to knock a mortal out and then slit their throat.

The wardens more than likely do this sort of thing all the time.  Those swords are not for show.

Wizards can kill all they want.  They just can't use magic to kill without taking the lawbreaker stunt, and killing mortals does not mean the mundane law won't start looking for you.

This I agree with, because you're not killing with your soul, you're killing with a knife, and that is the key difference when it comes to law breaker.

[Tallyrand]

I think that it is worth noting though that my stance on Lawbreaking applies only to the Lawbreaker Power, all of the lawyering and roundabout means very well may protect you from the Wardens, but at least if I were running they wouldn't protect you from losing a refresh.

[bitterpill]

On killing with magic by a roundabout means.  See: YS285.  Summoning (or presumably empowering) a demon (or presumably anything else) with the intent that it will kill for you is a first law violation - you cast magic with the intent that doing so would result in a death.

This is not to say that your game can't have a different interpretation, of course - but I'd say that, by the book, it's pretty clear that you really can't lawyer your way around the laws the way that was described in the original post.

The trick with the Ghosts is that it is not killing for you it is killing for itself, the trick would still work with only incite anger and ghost speaker (both not magic so no risk of lawbreaker) the addition of magic is just quadruple the effectiveness of the Ghost, Summoning usaully involves compelling or bringing things from elsewhere wereas this isn't any different from persuading mortals to kill with Incite Emotion other than epic trolling. 

[infusco]

The laws of magic are far more spirit than letter of the law. The idea behind the Lawbreaker power is that your soul got twisted by a willful decision on your part. In other words, if either intent or hubris resulted in the law being broken, then you're a lawbreaker.

Here are some examples:

- You're facing down a couple of red court vampires in the middle of a plaza swarming with people. You turn around and blast them with your uber firebolt ... and lose control of the spell. You really want those vamps dead but don't want to risk taking injuring yourself, so you instead let loose some of the energy as fallout. And half the spell veers to the side and smokes a small child. BOOM, instant Lawbreaker! You weren't targeting the child, but your hubris caused you to not only use dangerous fire magic in the middle of a crowd, but let the out of control spell turn into fallout instead of backlash.

- You're facing down a couple of red court vampires in the middle of an empty plaza at 4 in the morning. You look around and see no one and have no reason to believe anything living is nearby. Run same scenario, but this time the fallout hits some homeless guy sleeping quietly in some bushes, hidden from view. There I wouldn't have hit the player with Lawbreaker, but depending on his actions afterwards, not to mention repeat occurrences, might do some later. Again, a question of hubris ... the first time was an accident, but several accidents in a row starts to smell pretty smug.

- SPOILER:

(click to show/hide)

At the end of Grave Peril, Harry only releases the spirit of the dead trapped in Bianca's mansion. He didn't guide them or control them, he simply let them loose. That would not be a Lawbreaker as he simply open their jail cell and let their own free will run wild.

- SPOILER:

(click to show/hide)

In Dead Beat, the Necromancers not only summoned human ghosts and controlled them, but then subsequently used them to kill. *Definitely* breaking the 5th law, and arguably the 1st as well. Mind you, Harry also zombified a T-Rex (proud member of the I Love Sue fan club!). First off, he brought forth an undead dinosaur, not a sentient and free willed being, so no Lawbreaker on the 5th there (although for dabbling, I'd possibly give it to him if it became a repeat occurrence), and he only threw Sue at other zombies, so no 1st there either.

[jybil178]

Well.. Unfortunately we get a kinda cold shoulder on some subject somewhat...

On the one part, I'm not sure if imbuing the Ghost with enough power to extract its revenge is worthy of breaking a law, nor is calling the ghosts that are already present.  But summoning the ghosts purposefully could get dangerously close to the 5th law, and imbueing the ghosts with enough power to take their revenge, and then sending them off to take it would also be quite close to 1st law territory...

The thing is, we are told that using magic to cause a gust of wind that blows someone off a roof is first law breaking, but you have harry ((book 3, Grave Peril))

(click to show/hide)

seemingly calling up ghosts, giving them plenty of mojo and letting them take their revenge

, and apparently not break any of the laws..  Without some of Harry's set precident, we would assume that the laws were a lot easier to break, but with him skimming by on so many gray zones, it gives us a lot more to think about and consider... >.<