The letter not the spirit of the Law

[BumblingBear]

Yes it's a grey area, however got to the chapter in the book that talk about death curses.  It specificaly says that wardens have gotten VERY good at avoiding them.  Pretty much this means they take the target unaware or at least fast enough that they don't have time to spit one out or even think about it.

Imo having Morgan in the books was a very bad idea as far as example of a warden.  Because except for what happened at the end of the first book he didn't bother to try to be tricky at all.  Though this could easily have just been his stubborness.

Really when you get right down to it why even bother knocking them out unless you are in combat.  With good use of veils you could be right up next to them, wait till they are asleep, drug them, or just about anything, and well that's that.

Well, with the "means to an end" argument, vieling yourself to sneak up next to someone in order to lop them with your sword would be just like immobilizing them before cutting them.

::shrug::

Personally, I feel that using magic to create a situation where death is completely inescapable and inevitable warrants it.

Paralyzing someone while they're swimming I totally agree with you - because by paralyzing them, any rational person would know you are causing them to die.  Simply knocking someone out is not the same thing.

If you yourself disagree, you are welcome to as there are no hard rules regarding it.
We indeed do not have to play together.

Agreed.  Although your next statement would lead me to believe it would not be impossible.

Mind you, given how heated this topic is here, I'll certainly bring it up with my players and get their feedback as their opinion is the one that counts.

That is very sensible of you.

[Drachasor]

Well, actually, by RAW and canon, it's very much a grey area. The only thing we know is that Wardens use their sword for the killing blow. It's never actually described how they go about it. And even in the Magic section, it is stated that there's a lot of grey area here, that Wardens can never use magic as a means to that end, and that players and GMs should discuss how to apply and interpret this rule in the game. Personally, I feel that using magic to create a situation where death is completely inescapable and inevitable warrants it. If you yourself disagree, you are welcome to as there are no hard rules regarding it. We indeed do not have to play together. Mind you, given how heated this topic is here, I'll certainly bring it up with my players and get their feedback as their opinion is the one that counts.

And what's the difference between putting someone to sleep with magic and then killing them verses stopping anything they do (run, defend, attack) with magic and then killing them?  They are both essentially the same thing, except the target gets to experience the latter consciously.  You draw a poor line about the person needs to be "able to surrender" and talk about free will, but there's no reasoning along those lines regarding the Law against killing, that IS something of your own making.  The reason why this line is poor is that it requires a Warden to announce his presence to any warlock he's fighting.  If he takes them by surprise using magic, then he's not letting them exercise free will.  That's the same as putting them to sleep.

Of course, regarding putting them to sleep, is it ok if the Warden asks the person to surrender, and then if they refuse he puts them to sleep according to your rules?  Why is it important that a Warden ask permission to kill the guy when it doesn't matter what their answer is?  (As far as "free will" of the person to be killed goes, which again is not a relevant factor in First Law violations, they already made their choices long before when they violated the Laws of Magic; they've exercised it).

I think the real distinction with killing with magic must lie upon causal chains of events.  If you use a spell that results in a chain of events WITHOUT LIVING ACTORS REQUIRED TO ACT A SPECIFIC WAY that ends in someone dying, then you've killed with magic.  That covers blowing someone off a building, killing directly, putting them to sleep behind the wheel, etc.  If you put someone to sleep and then you kill them with a sword, however, you have to still decide to kill them with that sword or they won't die.  If you say that's against the rules and is breaking the law, then so is disabling someone else's magic and escape routes while defending yourself with magic; you've destroyed all their options except dying with magic in the exact same way as putting them to sleep.  Since you object to the Warden using some physical, non-magical acts to complete the job, how can you draw the line in a reasonable way?  What's the principle at work here?  If a warden does two defenses with a sword and then kills with it, but the rest of the fight and stopping retreat is heavily added by magic, is that against the law?  If not, why not?

To me the only line that is sensible and can work in the game is where the last conscious choice that determines death was done by magic.  There are some grey areas here regarding the complexity of the non-conscious stuff, accidental death, random chance, etc, but that's a very, very reasonable line to draw where anything to one side could be a breaking of the Law and anything to the other is not.

[bibliophile20]

I'm curious as to where unintentional killings fall under your definitions.  Here's a workable example: Pulling from the classics, a fire spell from a mage starts a fire in a crowded building.  People are killed in the ensuing fire.  Does the wizard get lawbreaker for:
1. The people who burned to death?
2. The people who passed out from smoke inhalation and suffocated?
3. The people who were trampled by the panicking crowd?

[Drachasor]

I'm curious as to where unintentional killings fall under your definitions.  Here's a workable example: Pulling from the classics, a fire spell from a mage starts a fire in a crowded building.  People are killed in the ensuing fire.  Does the wizard get lawbreaker for:
1. The people who burned to death?
2. The people who passed out from smoke inhalation and suffocated?
3. The people who were trampled by the panicking crowd?

Well, going by what I think is the spirit and more or less letter of what is in the book, what I said about Willful Causal Agents, the thing doing the killing was the fire of the building (no will) caused by fire magic) will.  That caused all the deaths one way or another, so they definitely fall on the side of "Potential Violations".  The book recommends looking at Intent at this point, so if the mage intended to kill people, then it is definitely a violation and he gets Lawbreaker.  Beyond that it's a little fuzzy, but I think I'd personally lean towards the idea that if it was reasonable to expect deaths to be caused by casting the spell, then you get law breaker for any deaths that happen.  I do tend to think Harry should have gotten Lawbreaker for burning Bianca's place (but as a 2nd violation, it doesn't actually do anything to him in terms of game mechanics).  That said, if you get compelled to do it by the GM and have no fate points to stop it, then you shouldn't get it.

Compare to the fire being started by a wizard, and another wizard makes a wind that blows the fire onto innocents, lighting them ablaze.  In that the fire kills, but there's a willful act between the casting of the fire spell and the burning people that caused the killing, so the original caster is off the hook.  Weeelll, I suppose there could be an exception if that tag-team was planned so the fire-casting wizard intended to kill people with his fire (with someone's help), but I don't think there should be.  He's not killing someone directly with magic there, even if he intends for them to do.  Clearly an evil guy, but being evil does not mean he's a Lawbreaker.  Same with conjuring a knife so someone can kill their spouse with it.

[Peteman]

I'd say the people trampled to death are not Lawbreaker (the Wizard did not compel anyone to stampede, and the mortals of their own free will decided to panic as opposed to file out orderly or die in the fire [the latter is a jerk thing to say, but the panicked crowd still had free wil]), the others are.

[Drachasor]

I'd say the people trampled to death are not Lawbreaker (the Wizard did not compel anyone to stampede, and the mortals of their own free will decided to panic as opposed to file out orderly or die in the fire [the latter is a jerk thing to say, but the panicked crowd still had free wil]), the others are.

Well, as someone in one of the books says (paraphrasing) "you'd be surprised how little people use free will."
I think the litmus tests should be more like the following:
Did Magic directly violate a law?  (if so, it's a violation, regardless of intent)
Did Magic cause a direct chain of events with no intelligent actors that led to deaths?  (if so it's a violation, though exceptions could be made for long causal chains that are completely unforeseeable...but that's not going to show up in a game).
If not....
1.  Did the wizard intend to kill?
2.  Did the intelligent actors behave in an extremely predictable manner (e.g. crowd panicking) where none of them had to intend to kill someone to make the death happen?
If you have both of those, I think it is definitely a violation. 

(click to show/hide)

Consider Blood Rites.  Trixie kills someone with a gun, but didn't intend to do that..in fact an entropy curse caused it.  Still, she CHOSE to fire.  Not a perfect example, but suppose you made someone attract bullets in that scenario instead.  You know that Trixie is likely to be goading into shooting (but you don't do the goading).  She fires, the spell causes the bullets to hit an innocent and kill them.  That's a violation even though it depended on someone else, because that other person didn't have to intend to kill anyone.

  You've set things up so your magic CAN cause a death if people behave as they are likely to.  Note, it is important, imho, that the people you are using in 2. did NOT intend to kill anyone, you are using them to kill by betting on likely behavior resulting in accidents leading to death.  If someone there is deciding to kill and without that it wouldn't happen, then they are the ones responsible, even if you help out by binding, sleeping, whatevering the enemy.

Now, if instead of 1. you have
3.  Did you just recklessly endanger people with magic so death was a real possibility due to your negligence?

2. and 3. together are quite possibly a Law violation.  Yeah, you didn't INTEND it, but you are being extremely sloppy and a cursory examination of what is going on is going to show that your actions are likely to result in death.  (1st law violations don't have to have intent, it just helps make the case clear...lack of intent makes it murkier and possibly not a violation if enough other things aren't in place).

On the other hand, if you just have 1.  Intent but not death, you didn't get a violation.  If you just have 2., but actually knowing 2. was there wouldn't be easy (e.g. you didn't behave recklessly), then I don't think that should be a violation.  If you just have 3, reckless behavior, but no one died, then that's not a violation either.  When these start to get mixed together, imho, is where the grey area exists.

[Bruce Coulson]

One of the things that often gets overlooked in these discussions...

Killing anyone, by any means whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever, should have an effect on the character.  Taking a human life is a traumatic event.  (If it's not, then the murderer has serious psychological issues.)  Even in the heat of rage or fear...after the initial emotion wears off, and the character has time to consider what they've just done...there should be a reaction.

Morgan is a hard-ass because he's killed too many people.  The fact that most of those killings may have been completely necessary and justified doesn't matter.  Part of his soul is darkened.  He's done too much, become too much, to become a light and cheery soul ever again.  It's a common defense mechanism.  Once you become capable of killing a helpless bound victim (again, no matter how justified), part of you is never quite the same.  You have to harden yourself against human feelings...or go insane.

I can easily see an Aspect change for any character who kills.

[bitterpill]

The thing is that for lots of the characters you can play your better than human or different than human for example it does not a long walk for fae changling to have a completly different valuation of life than a normal person, if a summer fae used life magic to incourage the spread of a parasites that eat a person alive that would be causeing more growth than death and might be the correct thing to do from a sellie perspective but not from a human. 

[Bruce Coulson]

A Summer Fae isn't human, and has no free will (in most cases).

A changeling still has free will, and should have some issues with randomly killing people just to spread a plague.  Such an act might propel them towards choosing to become a fae...or renouncing their Fae heritage altogether.

[My Dark Sunshine]

My thoughts are this:

Using magic to put someone to sleep / pin them down, and then killing them with a blade may not offer an instance of Lawbreaker (per GM's discretion), however it is still a morally grey act. Sure, it may prevent you from tainting your soul (black, but you would be shading it grey), but it probably wouldn't prevent a Warden going snicker snack. You are 'using magic to kill', simply not directly. Not to mention blades can more easily be traced, and local law enforcers may come knocking if you're sloppy. Using magic to get you out of that situation could go all kinds of bad.

Although from a roleplaying point of view, if you're the type of person willing to put someone to sleep with magic and kill them, it wouldn't take much to become the type of person that cuts out the latter stage; and just out-right kill them. I'd also expect any such character to have some sort of aspect that makes them that type of person, e.g. "I flirt with the darkness in my soul", which would be compelled accordingly.

Saying that, it could easily be argued that if your intent was to kill from the very start, your magic may mould itself to that intent. Spells are extensions of your will (in a way), if your will is to kill, but your spell to put the target to sleep, the lines may blur. Focus is important in magic and with such double-purposes, things could go badly.

Just my 2 pence. (I'm British, so sue me)

 

[bitterpill]

Wardens are killers, theres no way around it and they use magic to aide them in their job which for the most part is killing, when they kill they don't get lawbreaker as they are acting according to the will of the council it is pretty fair to say though that most wardens are jaded and darkened by their actions to the extent that Morgan couldn't see beyond his own shadows when viewing Harry even though Harry was clearly a good guy.

[tymire]

Actually I really like that, use the aspect change of lawbreaker (limited to 1-2 changes), but don't give them the power if the magic isn't directly used to kill.  Also this way you can also apply it to critters.  As you don't taint your soul when you kill them, however you "are" killing them so it does affect you, even if it is justified.

That seperates out the morally grey, from the tainting your soul parts.

[Bruce Coulson]

When you're used to seeing the worst things that humanity/wizards can do, it's hard for you to see any good in anyone.  If you don't see a stain, they're just concealing it real well.

Except for your fellow Wardens, the men and women who back you up when you're sent out against a warlock.  Those are the only people you can trust.

And Harry was trained by the worst sort of rogue...of course he's guilty of something.

[Moriden]

Wardens are killers, theres no way around it and they use magic to aide them in their job which for the most part is killing, when they kill they don't get lawbreaker as they are acting according to the will of the council it is pretty fair to say though that most wardens are jaded and darkened by their actions to the extent that Morgan couldn't see beyond his own shadows when viewing Harry even though Harry was clearly a good guy.

I have argued before that warden has the law breaker stunt. i see little difficulty in haveing all of his aspect reflect that he has no value for life. they make a point in the end that he valued life so little that he saw no difficulty in giving up his life to save the white council some politcal trouble.

[Drachasor]

Using magic to put someone to sleep / pin them down, and then killing them with a blade may not offer an instance of Lawbreaker (per GM's discretion), however it is still a morally grey act. Sure, it may prevent you from tainting your soul (black, but you would be shading it grey), but it probably wouldn't prevent a Warden going snicker snack. You are 'using magic to kill', simply not directly. Not to mention blades can more easily be traced, and local law enforcers may come knocking if you're sloppy. Using magic to get you out of that situation could go all kinds of bad.

Although from a roleplaying point of view, if you're the type of person willing to put someone to sleep with magic and kill them, it wouldn't take much to become the type of person that cuts out the latter stage; and just out-right kill them. I'd also expect any such character to have some sort of aspect that makes them that type of person, e.g. "I flirt with the darkness in my soul", which would be compelled accordingly.

Like I said, you use that as an example of something bad Law-wise, and how is it different from just overpowering someone with magic, preventing them from fleeing, running, getting a successful attack off, etc, and then killing them?  If anything, that's more protracted and emotionally intense.

I don't see any way to have a consistent and sensible standard where putting an enemy to sleep and then killing them conventionally earns you Lawbreaker, and using multiple magics to stop the enemy and then killing them conventionally doesn't.

It's important to remember that the Laws aren't about good or evil.  They aren't about killing in cold blood.  They aren't about being nice, humane, compassionate.  They aren't about disregarding the value of human life, being a monster, or serial killer.  They are about one thing and one thing only.  Doing something WITH MAGIC.  Putting someone to sleep isn't killing them with magic, unless falling asleep  causes them to crash their car and die or the like.  You might think it is a pretty cold way to go, but that doesn't make it earn Lawbreaker.  If it did, then all Wardens would have Lawbreaker, since they surely use a lot of magic to help disable Warlocks before killing them (usually without a trial).