The letter not the spirit of the Law

[infusco]

This is why my character will just knock people out with magic and then slit their throats.  Easy peezy.

LOL! Actually, I'm pretty damn near certain rendering someone completely vulnerable to a death stroke using magic, even if it's not the magic that directly killed him, would get you a trip down Lawbreaker road.

Remember ... it's all about intent. Plus by knocking him unconscious, you've robbed him of free will and the ability to even remotely defend himself against that which will kill him.

[Peteman]

Oooo, true, had forgotten that you keep swapping all your Aspects. I had assumed you only ever swapped one per Law you break.

Nope. So what happens when you've swapped out all your Aspects and you continue to Lawbreak? Do you swap them out for more intense Aspects?

[BumblingBear]

Your intent when using magic to knock someone out is to knock someone out- that's it.

This is not wizard morality.  It's about certain things being done with magic warping the wielder.

The WARDENS use the method I just described to kill people.  You don't really think that all these warlocks just stand around waiting for their heads to be chopped off, do you?

Actually, an immobilizing evocation block would probably be even easier to do than knocking someone out.

Anyway, the point is that the law is not:

Thou shalt not kill

The law is

Thou shalt not kill with magic

If you kill in self defense, you still have to take the lawbreaker stunt but you won't get axed by the White Council.

[Tbora]

Different games using the same basic mechanics just means they're using the same basic mechanics. The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game, being based on the Dresden Files novels, are very much based around that concept. It's not merely implied but outright stated. Just because *you* consider it irrelevant fluff to be ignored doesn't mean you're right. I apologize if I come off as insulting, but if you wish to play this as if it were SotC, Diaspora, or Starblazer Adventures, then I recommend you simply go play those games and leave the discussion and theorycrafting to those who wish to play the RPG based on Harry Dresden's universe *as is written in the novels and Your Story*

And what I am saying is that the setting is malleable and subject to each gaming groups desires. The game is awesome no doubt, as are the novels, but like anything else they are not perfect and do not cover every scenario. In this case players wanting to play non-human characters. If someone wants to play the youngest of the Gruffs, a demon from the darkest reaches of hell, a spirit of air and intellect, or even one of the Little folk, then I say let them. Nothing should impede upon the overall enjoyment of a game, including the base setting. It is for this reason a GM can either can alter or outright ignore any part of the setting or rules. While I can respect your desire to stay as close to the source material as possible, I also know that for many things its incomplete and can use some fixing up. via hand-waving, if necessary.

[infusco]

And what I am saying is that the setting is malleable and subject to each gaming groups desires. The game is awesome no doubt, as are the novels, but like anything else they are not perfect and do not cover every scenario. In this case players wanting to play non-human characters. If someone wants to play the youngest of the Gruffs, a demon from the darkest reaches of hell, a spirit of air and intellect, or even one of the Little folk, then I say let them. Nothing should impede upon the overall enjoyment of a game, including the base setting. It is for this reason a GM can either can alter or outright ignore any part of the setting or rules. While I can respect your desire to stay as close to the source material as possible, I also know that for many things its incomplete and can use some fixing up. via hand-waving, if necessary.

Mate, I'm not contesting the point that GM's word is law. It's the Golden Rule and it exists in every game for a very good reason. What I'm saying is that when you're involving yourself in a discussion about game and setting mechanics on the game's official forums, you can't go around telling people they are wrong because you house ruled it otherwise. I mean, I could believe a Toyota is a german car, but I'm not about to go to a Toyota dealership and claim to people there that it's german just because it makes sense in my head

[Drachasor]

LOL! Actually, I'm pretty damn near certain rendering someone completely vulnerable to a death stroke using magic, even if it's not the magic that directly killed him, would get you a trip down Lawbreaker road.

Remember ... it's all about intent. Plus by knocking him unconscious, you've robbed him of free will and the ability to even remotely defend himself against that which will kill him.

That line of reasoning leads to Lawful Stupid behavior, where Wardens would be a joke since they can't kill anyone because of ridiculously restraining rules.  Intent only matters in terms of the magic.  If you think it is OK to knock someone out with magic, then that's different than thinking it is OK to KILL with magic.  It's the same difference as a police officer thinking it is ok to detain someone he just saw kill someone else, and thinking it is ok to shoot that person when they aren't a threat.  Let's assume it is 100% certain the criminal will get the death penalty, that doesn't make the two acts equivalent.  In the same way, how you use magic follows very different rules than how you use physical or other capabilities.  Killing with magic is different than disabling, even if you plan on killing the person anyway.

Otherwise you get very ridiculously things.  A warden goes to stop a warlock, who has is protecting himself with magic.  The warden knows he has to kill the guy (warlock!), so by your reasoning he can't disable the magic shield, as that's just one of the steps towards killing him.  Similarly, the Warden couldn't use magic to ever help apprehend a warlock, since he's clearly intending to track the guy down (and later kill them).  On the helpless thing, that reasoning leads to a Warden sneaking up on an unconscious warlock having to wake them and make sure they can defend themselves before attacking.  That ends up neutering Wardens so much that they are worthless.

In any case, the Laws of Magic aren't about robbing people of free will in general.  They aren't even necessarily about robbing people of free will (you can imprison someone with magic just fine).  They are about a select set of uses of magic that twist the mind of the practitioner.

This is the same sort of flawed reasoning that can make Paladins very hard to play in D&D.  The Laws aren't about people being nice, fair, generous, friendly, good, evil, or whatnot.  They are about a particular set of behavior AND intent WITH MAGIC and nothing more.  Lose the behavior, lose the intent, or lose the magic, and you don't have a violation.

[infusco]

Your intent when using magic to knock someone out is to knock someone out- that's it.
This is not wizard morality.  It's about certain things being done with magic warping the wielder.
The WARDENS use the method I just described to kill people.  You don't really think that all these warlocks just stand around waiting for their heads to be chopped off, do you?
Actually, an immobilizing evocation block would probably be even easier to do than knocking someone out.
Anyway, the point is that the law is not:
Thou shalt not kill
The law is
Thou shalt not kill with magic
If you kill in self defense, you still have to take the lawbreaker stunt but you won't get axed by the White Council.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's never been stated in the books that Wardens knock warlocks unconscious and then run them through while they are helpless and unaware of what's going on. In fact, their swords are specifically enchanted to cut through defensive enchantments so that the only that stands between a Warden and a Warlock at that moment is a Warden's very human aim with his sword, and the warlock's very human, and very likely negligible, ability to dodge the fatal strike.

[Peteman]

If you kill in self defense, you still have to take the lawbreaker stunt but you won't get axed by the White Council.

You probably will, even if it was done in self defense. You can pray someone is willing to stick their neck out for you, but Lawbreaking is Lawbreaking and the White Council largely doesn't care about mitigating circumstances.

[Tbora]

Mate, I'm not contesting the point that GM's word is law. It's the Golden Rule and it exists in every game for a very good reason. What I'm saying is that when you're involving yourself in a discussion about game and setting mechanics on the game's official forums, you can't go around telling people they are wrong because you house ruled it otherwise. I mean, I could believe a Toyota is a german car, but I'm not about to go to a Toyota dealership and claim to people there that it's german just because it makes sense in my head

The only german automaker I know of is BMW

I suppose I was kind of  a dick and a knee jerk reaction to call you dead wrong in that, while I will give you that is RAW per the books, I still hold that is just one of the things that most groups should take a white out too, if it interferes with their game. But that is just my mind set I guess.

[BumblingBear]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's never been stated in the books that Wardens knock warlocks unconscious and then run them through while they are helpless and unaware of what's going on. In fact, their swords are specifically enchanted to cut through defensive enchantments so that the only that stands between a Warden and a Warlock at that moment is a Warden's very human aim with his sword, and the warlock's very human, and very likely negligible, ability to dodge the fatal strike.

I mean this without malice, but I'm glad you're not in my game then.

With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks.

It also flies in the face of the spirit of the books.

If wizards were powerless to even knock someone out to kill them, Wardens would not exist, and nobody would be as severely scared of wizards as they are.

I think you're mixing mortality and the laws of magic.  The two do not necessarily mix.

By your line of reasoning, if you made a kinetic shield while people were shooting at you in order to shoot back, THAT would be breaking the laws of magic since you're shielding yourself in order to kill.

That's ridiculous.

[infusco]

By your line of reasoning, if you made a kinetic shield while people were shooting at you in order to shoot back, THAT would be breaking the laws of magic since you're shielding yourself in order to kill.

That's ridiculous.

You're right, that would be ridiculous if that's what I meant. It's a good thing that it's not. I'm saying specifically to use magic to either directly kill someone, or to incapacitate someone beyond any ability to be aware of their very immediate doom. I'm not talking about restraining yourself to use magic in creating a scenario where you'll have the upper hand, which is precisely what a warden does.

And remember, a warden is usually MUCH more powerful than those warlocks they are sent to take down.

The tactics are simple:

Warden runs after warlock and corners him. He starts by creating a personal long lasting block that is a great deal stronger than anything the warlock can throw at him. Then he likely creates a huge zone barrier to cut off the warlock's escape. Then he draws his sword and advances on the warlock. Warlock tries to throw a fireball ... sizzles on warden's shield. Draws a gun and fires on warden ... which also sizzles on warden's shield. Warlock tries desperately to throw up a block of his own which warden counterspells himself or using the enchantments on his sword. Warden draws back with his sword with nothing but his Weapons skill to aid him, and decapitates the warlock who royally failed his Athletics roll to dodge.

Again, it's a question of free will. The warlock had no chance magically, but could still choose to surrender. He could (and likely did) choose to dodge or parry. He *did* have the ability to defend himself and was very much aware of his own actions and the actions of the warlock. He was simply outclassed by not only a master evoker, but a master swordsman as well. Wardens' swords are not merely ceremonial you know. They are very very good at actually using them.

And there is at least one stated example in the books where an accused warlock is brought to trial. Which likely means that the warlock did knock him unconscious and dragged him before the council instead of dispatching him immediately.

By your definition, any wizard could simply bypass the first law by casually wandering around, putting people to sleep, and slitting their throats. Rinse and repeat. That's hubris of the very highest order, mate.

[Tallyrand]

Agreed

Are you including knocking someone out and killing with a knife?  I don't think so based on your agreement with me.

No, I think the knife thing will get you passed the Council and the Laws.

[BumblingBear]

No, I think the knife thing will get you passed the Council and the Laws.

I think that 99.99999% of the community agrees on this one.

[BumblingBear]

Actually, since it is up to the person who "wins" to describe what happens to someone who is taken out, wouldn't it be almost impossible to kill someone a player didn't want to? 

[bitterpill]

That true 99% of the time but if your attacking with 10 shifts of hellfire powered fire when you take the enemy out the GM is right to go no you killed him. I would say the same goes for supernatural strength attack as well as they have the reminder 'be careful at this level its very easy to kill someone with a single blow'.