The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Dismissing Conjurations (which has turned into another Laws of Magic thread)

<< < (4/9) > >>

KOFFEYKID:
Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.

Moriden:

--- Quote ---Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.
--- End quote ---


There dose seem to be a distinction, if there is a separation from the affect and the origination of a spell. if you combat summon a sword to murder someone then id definitely say lawbreaker stunt.  if you spend an hour to summon a sword[although why wouldn't you just buy one?] give it to  your assassin friend and he goes on a murder spree, do you, dose he, do both of you get the stunt?


I think the answer can be worked out if we take a step back and look at the specific situation instead of it as a generic example. You spend an hour to creat a sword, why? you could buy one for a similar amount of trouble, well with a conjured sword it will dosolve later leaveing no evidence of a murder wapon!  great so you now have a reaosn to want to summen a sword instead of buy one, you also are creating this weapon with the clear intent of it being used for murder. bam! you get lawbreaker[ if that weapon actually kills someone]

You give the new shiny sword to your friend Stabbby Mcassasin to use as his murder weapon dejoir for the next few hours knowing that it will dissolve latter and leave no evidential murder weapon, he proceeds to kill people with that weapon and no other use of magic. he is not channeling magical forces so dose not get tainted by that use of magic and thus no lawbreaker stunt. he should however face similar penalties as if he had, for example a warden might view this as a violation m and one of his aspects should probably be changed to "murderer with magic sword"


When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.

KOFFEYKID:

--- Quote from: Moriden ---When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.
--- End quote ---

There, you just supported my position without even realizing it. Yes, intent  matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword. What I do with that sword is another matter entirely, and Im no-longer directing the magic that holds the sword together. The spell is cast and it'll continue to do its job (which is to keep the ectoplasm in sword shape) until the duration ends.

Deadmanwalking:
What KOFFEYKID said. There's a world of difference in intent between creating a weapon and killing directly.

Moriden:

--- Quote --- no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.
--- End quote ---
\
--- Quote ---Yes, intent  matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword.
--- End quote ---

If your going to quote me please do so in context. What i said in regards to intent was that. if i throw a fireball at a person with intent to kill them and do so i have violated the law, if i do so and fail to kill them i have not. this is irrational but it is how the laws are written.

When you summon the sword you say your intent is to "create a sword" not to kill someone, but your not creating this sword just to put it on your mantel. your creating it to be used. the only purpose of a sword is to kill human beings, its never been used to hunt and sharp metal swords are rarely if ever used for showmanship or sparing, so if you are creating a functional sword you are creating a weapon of murder. You could say that your intent was to "create a weapon to combat the monsters" but if that weapon is used to kill a human you have still violated the law just as surely as the person who throws a fireball at a crowd of monsters and "accidentally' kills a few humans as well. The fact is that your creating amagical affect with the sole purpose of combat and thus death. weather  that affect instantly kills someone or dose so a few hours latter is irrelevant the only distinction that seems to matter is weather or not the magical affect successfully kills someone.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page