The Dresden Files > DFRPG

The First Law Question.

<< < (5/16) > >>

vultur:

--- Quote from: KnightFerrous on April 20, 2010, 04:36:19 PM ---Also don't forget during Changes:

(click to show/hide)Molly says that Merlin wrote the laws of magic
So did he discover what taints your soul and quanitfy it? Or did he warp mortal magic to fit his laws?

--- End quote ---

I would assume the former; the latter seems ... a bit beyond what I would expect even him to be capable of.

However, we don't know that all the laws taint the soul; Kumori does not seem to be twisted in the way Victor Sells or that Korean kid in PG are or the way Molly was beginning to head down the path towards. Even Cowl may be a bad guy, but it seems to be a qualitatively different sort of evil than the twisted-by-their-black-magic warlocks; those seem to become subjugated to their baser desires and become almost animalistic, while Cowl has retained high and ambitious (if likely extreme) goals and the full capacity to act towards them.

And Jim has said that the Laws don't line up precisely with the things that taint your soul; from DB, I'm tending to think necromancy is largely one of those exceptions. (Time travel may be too! I can see the 5th/6th and maybe 7th Laws being the Council saying "this stuff is too dangerous to screw with" rather than about crimes against people like the 1st-4th. I think necromancy is only 'tainting' if you use it in nasty ways. It seems to be the 'crime against a person' aspect that makes killing with magic tainting -- thus why killing vampires etc. doesn't do it; I think it's because (as Harry has said often) you have to really want that person dead and doing that to another human being is going to be damaging/corrosive to anyone who was remotely a healthy human being to start with. I'm not sure using necromancy even against humans in, say, the way Kumori uses it to save a life would do that. (On the other hand, it still might; it still sounds like it had creepiness going on.)

Saedar:
A couple points. I think that discussion of the Laws, whether they are destructive on intent or intrinsically corrupting and ways in which there is gray area is a fantastic thing. I'd be willing to bet that, insofar as the setting is a "real" place, that these discussions occur with some degree of frequency among wizards who trust one another.

Here is how I conceptualize the in-setting dialog about the Laws. Imagine for a second that I am a psychological researcher (and I am). There are certain codes of conduct and ethical standards that we adhere to when doing research with human subjects because we have deemed that to do otherwise is wrong, whether because it is naturally wrong or because it has the potential to harm other people. However, it is not uncommon for people to get frustrated because these standards can hamper the flow of research. Take, for example, research on children. It is VERY difficult to perform this research because there are HUGE roadblocks based on parental consent, individual consent, potential harm and so on. However, were these blocks not in the way, research could flow unhindered.

I view the Laws (and discussion of them) in much the same way. Like it was mentioned above, not all of the Laws seem intrinsically corrupting. Killing and mind things seem to be intrinsically wrong but only so as it applies to humans. In the research example, it is much easier to perform studies that would be considered wrong, ethically speaking, when applied to people if they were instead applied to animals.

As to the bomb question, I'm going to side with the dissenters and say that a bomb serves one function, and one function only. To kill. Even young people know that bombs kill people. It would be VERY hard to say that even a very young practitioner could reasonably believe that his/her bomb could never be misused or kill unintended targets. Even if it didn't bring down the Lawbreaker stunt (depending on how intrinsically corrupting the Laws are in your world), I would probably say he becomes Target 1 should the Wardens find out about it.

srl51676:
Saedar Thank you for the well reasoned response. The research analogy is a good one.

Why the hell is it so damn hard for people just to play by the damn rules! why does every other thread on this board devolve into "here is why the Laws do not apply to my character."? If it helps use the characters from the books as your guide. Cowl is dead because he was a evil necromancer who tried to consume the souls of human beings to make himself a god. so that he could remake the world in his image so Harry put him down. His sidekick is just as bad because she wanted to help him. Molly did not choose to break a law ,she did not know it existed, but it damaged her soul anyway and mad it harder to resist doing the wrong thing the next time. The Stunts are way more than balance they reflect the metaphysical reality and the moral structure of the game world and ones self control. Try to think What would Harry Do WWHD or would Murphy want to stop me from doing this. Anti-heros are bad people with good rationalization. The point of the Laws is that the ends do not justify the means. If you think that animating human corpses, Killing innocent bystanders with a bomb, or consuming the souls of the dead is OK then their is already a dark spot on your soul.  

Saedar:
SRL: I think you and I have had a similar discussion in another thread. The point is that some people are interested in pushing the boundaries in their game worlds. You don't. That is just fine. I have a thing for evil characters but I'm not playing one right now. Assume, for the sake of the discussion, that magic DOES work with more flexibility, because it just might in other people's worlds. How would you approach this issue, in that specific case?

Moriden:

--- Quote ---The Stunts are way more than balance they reflect the metaphysical reality and the moral structure of the game world and ones self control.
--- End quote ---

These repercussions will happen regardless of weather or not it says lawbreaker on your charecter sheat. Thats what i was trying to say earlier.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page