Law Talk

[Mrmdubois]

Just because they're not human and lack the same basics in terms of free will and all that doesn't mean you're not reinforcing a mindset that goes, "Kill 'em." Killing anything with magic promotes fantastic racism, it's just a lot harder to feel bad for vampires and other predators because they usually have it coming.

[ReaderAt2046]

Keep in mind that narratively that means you believed with our entire being that the person you killed needed to die.  You're pretty likely to have been doing that to the bogeymen that have been coming after you too though and for some reason they don't stain your soul.  A lot of picking up Lawbreaker has to do with self perception, not just the outside mechanics of Wardens coming after you.  So there's a lot of factors to take into consideration when you break a Law.  Do you think you did?  Do they think you did?  Will you actually take the power?  A lot of that can come down to context.

This is part of the point I'm trying to get at. I keep seeing people say that breaking the First Law corrupts because it means you believe that you have the right to decide who lives and dies, but if on a fundamental level, what you believe is "Protect these innocents" or "punish this murderer", shouldn't that be what is enforced?

[Troy]

This is part of the point I'm trying to get at. I keep seeing people say that breaking the First Law corrupts because it means you believe that you have the right to decide who lives and dies, but if on a fundamental level, what you believe is "Protect these innocents" or "punish this murderer", shouldn't that be what is enforced?

Surely, as a wizard, you can protect people without killing anyone. And isn't saying "punish this murderer" nearly the same as "this person needs to die" if punishment means killing him?

[ReaderAt2046]

And isn't saying "punish this murderer" nearly the same as "this person needs to die" if punishment means killing him?

Of course, that's why you would be justified in killing him. The point I'm trying to get at is that the RAW seem to say that doing a good thing for a good reason can turn you evil, which doesn't make any kind of sense.

[Tedronai]

You presume that killing can ever be a 'good thing', whatever of the reasons.

[Mr. Death]

It's about power--power over someone else, taking the choices away from someone else, is a huge deal in Dresden. Killing a mortal with magic is a bad thing because you're using your power to subjugate and destroy someone else. You're taking away their choices and their life. You're removing their free will--and because you're doing it with magic, you're believing that it's your right to do such a thing.

[ReaderAt2046]

@ Tedronai: Well, yes. What about the Wardens tracking down and killing warlocks? What about the execution of murderers? What about soldiers in war? What about defending the innocent from some crazy attacker? Etc, etc.

[ReaderAt2046]

I suppose what drives me nuts about this specific instance is that it's sort of a real-world violation of the Fourth Law. This is basically the only circumstance (that I can see) under which the GM can say, in essence, "I don't care whether you want to play a good guy, you are going to play a bad guy".

[polkaneverdies]

We should avoid the touchy topic of whether or not any killing can be justified  and stick to "can it be done without breaking the law?".

Simple answer: yes to wardens might not shorten you. Ex: Dresden

No to avoiding magical smackdown. Ex: Dresden

[Mr. Death]

I suppose what drives me nuts about this specific instance is that it's sort of a real-world violation of the Fourth Law. This is basically the only circumstance (that I can see) under which the GM can say, in essence, "I don't care whether you want to play a good guy, you are going to play a bad guy".

I don't see how it's saying that at all.

[ReaderAt2046]

I don't see how it's saying that at all.

Because you have your character heroically fighting against the crazy guy with the ax (or something like that) and then the GM says "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that", when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong. Or even the GM actually taking your character away from you for trying to be a hero.

Hmm... maybe I could make this work by imagining that the Lawbreaker bonus in this specific case reflects less homicidal mania and more the sort of psychic conditioning that soldiers get to train them to fight and kill when necessary.

[Mr. Death]

Because you have your character heroically fighting against the crazy guy with the ax (or something like that) and then the GM says "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that", when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong. Or even the GM actually taking your character away from you for trying to be a hero.

Hmm... maybe I could make this work by imagining that the Lawbreaker bonus in this specific case reflects less homicidal mania and more the sort of psychic conditioning that soldiers get to train them to fight and kill when necessary.

First, no, you're grossly exaggerating the effect and the immediacy. It's not an instant change, any more than smoking one cigarette instantly turns you into a chain smoker. There's a reason the Lawbreaker power has it so it changes the more you break that law--one kill with magic isn't going to turn you into Bloodbath McEvilwizardington. But one kill with magic will make you somewhat more likely to kill with magic again, and it's a cumulative effect.

Secondly, you seem to be operating from the impression that a character has to kill (or even, oddly, that they have to kill to be a hero?), when that's pretty much never the case. Outside of a compel, it's always the player's choice how a Taken Out result goes.

And if you do kill once with magic, it doesn't ever mean "Ok, now you're an evil murderer and you have to change your personality to reflect that," it means, "Okay, now you're the sort of person who believes they can kill with magic, change one aspect to reflect that."

Here's the key words: "when you (and your character) are absolutely certain that you aren't in the wrong" is exactly why there's the laws of magic. Some of the worst atrocities in history were caused by people who were "absolutely certain" that they're not wrong. It's exactly that mindset--"I'm completely right for killing this person," via lawbreaker, becomes, "I'm right for killing," and eventually works itself up to, "I'm always right for killing, and you deserve to die because I said so."

[Sanctaphrax]

Reader, your moral code doesn't correspond very well to the one assumed by the rules of this game.

Fortunately, you have the authority to change those rules.

You can make Lawbreaker non-mandatory, you can allow people to avoid it if they're acting for good reasons, you can make it less about morality and more about methodology.

[vultur]

Just because they're not human and lack the same basics in terms of free will and all that doesn't mean you're not reinforcing a mindset that goes, "Kill 'em." Killing anything with magic promotes fantastic racism,

But that's the fundamental difference. In the Dresdenverse, it's not analogous to racism, because people (of whatever group) are people. Red Court Vampires or demons are not people. We have authorial word on the fact that there is a fundamental, metaphysical distinction there.  In the DV, the difference is very real.

The idea is that a human being, a person, can still decide to turn their life around, and if they're killed, all that potential, everything they could be, is killed. But Kalshazzak is always going to eat you if he gets the chance, he can't change that, can't even want to change that any more than a worm can grow wings.

See the WoJ about how a Black Court Vampire would still recognize its relatives from life, but it wouldn't actually make the BCV any less likely to prey on them.

[Mrmdubois]

I'm not actually disagreeing with you or I don't think I am anyways.

My point isn't that every instance of killing with magic will net you Lawbreaker, it's simply that whenever you use magic to kill you're more likely to do it again because you believe it to be right.

It is analogous to racism in that supernatural creatures are deemed "acceptable" targets.  Which is the only comparison to racism that I intended to draw.  Obviously you're going to dehumanize the inhumane, or you would be smart to anyways.