The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Dismissing Conjurations (which has turned into another Laws of Magic thread)
Wyrdrune:
--- Quote from: Deadmanwalking on April 24, 2010, 08:53:52 AM ---Yes, because werewolves get Lawbreaker for killing with their (magically conjured) claws and fangs. Oh, wait, no they don't. There's no difference between a Werewolf's magically conjured weaponry, and a Wizard's, or at least there shouldn't be.
--- End quote ---
in the end effect it depends on the view of you character's local warden. (see to morgan in storm front, who affronted harry for trapping toot.)
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: Wyrdrune on April 24, 2010, 09:14:17 AM ---in the end effect it depends on the view of you character's local warden. (see to morgan in storm front, who affronted harry for trapping toot.)
--- End quote ---
True! Though I'm not arguing about physical enforcement, I'm arguing whether you should get Lawbreaker.
Moriden:
--- Quote ---Yes, because werewolves get Lawbreaker for killing with their (magically conjured) claws and fangs. Oh, wait, no they don't. There's no difference between a Werewolf's magically conjured weaponry, and a Wizard's, or at least there shouldn't be.
--- End quote ---
When a person transforms into a werewolf they are changing there body into another natural state. [Remember that most weres turn into normal versions of there appropriate animals, obviously loup-gauroux would probably be different' and this argument dose not apply to them. ] Thus once there done there new body is not a direct manifest on of magic, it can continue to exist indefinitely in that new and now "permanent" state and thus using there claws or hands or feat or whatever part of there now natural body is not a magical attack.
When you use Conjuration To create a "sword" it is a Temporary manifestation of a sword composed of solidified magic so when you use this to kill someone you are using magic to commit murder. i acknowledge that this may seem a finicky distinction to some people. but it is none the less a fairly clear difference and you should keep in mind that physically transforming yourself is a whole lot more dangerous [for so many other reasons] then conjuring a sword.
Deadmanwalking:
You're splitting hairs, particularly for, say, a Bear shifter who gains ectoplamic weight. Is his (mystically conjured) flesh a magical manifestation like the sword, and thus able to cause Lawbreaker? The rules appear to say not, and I agree with them.
It's not a question of practicality per se, but of internal consistency and logic.
Moriden:
--- Quote ---Is his (mystically conjured) flesh a magical manifestation like the sword, and thus able to cause Lawbreaker?
--- End quote ---
no because the change is permanent [until changed]. If you could actually create a sword, a real tangible permanently real sword with conjuration then it wouldn't be lawbreaker, it would just be like using any other sword. but you cant. conjuration only make temporary manifestations of magic. transformation and similarly transmutation. are by there nature permanent changes. and by the metaphysical rules as established in the books permanent magical creations must obey the laws of physics and are natural parts of the real world. it may seem like splitting hairs but i assure you if you go do some research into any of the real world metaphysical beliefs these kinds of distinctions are extremely common.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version