The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Sample Combat
wyvern:
...But then they didn't die as a result of your magic. They died as a result of someone else decapitating them. Certainly, your magic made that possible. But the spell you cast did not have lethal intent behind it. That'd be like saying "Well, I healed my friend, and then he went and killed the guy who hurt him. I guess I need to take a lawbreaker power, because my healing spell caused that other guy's death."
Say you use magic to make a warlock fall asleep. Then you slit his throat. Did you break the first law? What if you tie him up and wake him up before killing him? What if you tie him up, wake him up, and hand him off to the wardens for a "trial" that will inevitably end in someone else killing him? By your logic, *all* of those are Lawbreaker actions. So you're telling me that every warden who ever uses magic at any point when apprehending a warlock has a Lawbreaker power? Really?
I'd draw the line at there being a direct causal effect between your magic and the target's death - with no further act of free will involved. Summon a demon to kill someone for you? Direct causal effect - your magic resulted in their death with no further act of free will involved. Blast the ceiling to make it crash down on the enemy? Direct causal effect. Use magic to trigger a rube goldberg device that eventually sets off a lethal trap? Direct causal effect. Immobilize a target so that some second action - whether by you or someone else (as long as it's by a creature that has free will) - can kill them? No direct causal effect. Gift your allies with a potion of speed so they can run down a particularly fleet-of-foot enemy and kill it? No direct causal effect. Etc.
ClassDunce:
--- Quote from: wyvern on August 24, 2010, 05:14:08 PM ---...But then they didn't die as a result of your magic. They died as a result of someone else decapitating them.
Say you use magic to make a warlock fall asleep. Then you slit his throat. Did you break the first law? What if you tie him up and wake him up before killing him? What if you tie him up, wake him up, and hand him off to the wardens for a "trial" that will inevitably end in someone else killing him? By your logic, *all* of those are Lawbreaker actions. So you're telling me that every warden who ever uses magic at any point when apprehending a warlock has a Lawbreaker power? Really?
--- End quote ---
Let's go back to the sleeping and then slitting his throat thing, in my mind that would be a violation of the first law of magic. It's well established that a wizard can't use magic to do something that they don't believe in, it does go back to intent. The spell was used so that you could then slit his throat. The spell was used to kill a man. Capturing a Warlock and turning him over to the Wardens to be tried (if you can call it a trail) is not breaking the first law of magic even if he's then executed, You're working within the laws of the White Council.
babel2uk:
My opinion is that it's a matter of degrees of separation of magic and killing. In my view the example of throat slitting while target is sleeping due to a spell simply isn't a breach of the First Law. Yes it's murder, yes it's unpleasant, but the actual weapon that dealt the killing blow is unconnected to the magic that caused the sleep. Otherwise the Wardens themselves would be guilty of breaking the first law if they used magic in a fight that resulted in the death of a warlock. The sleep didn't cause the death, it merely made it easier to accomplish. The magic wasn't directly responsible. The example used in the First Law section of the book mentions using air to throw someone off a building. If the magic is a direct cause it violates the first law. Otherwise it's just likely to get you looked at closely by the Wardens and the mortal authorities. In the sleep case the slitting of the throat is a completely separate act from putting the person to sleep. In the air blast example from the rulebook the spell actually throws the person to their death.
My reading in the section on the First Law is that there is a lot of unpleasant grey area that may not result in a Lawbreaker stunt (so no metaphysical consequences) but may result in a trial and a Doom of Damocles punishment. Much of it is going to be down to personal interpretation by the GM, depending on how severe they want the First Law to be.
Lukas the Dead:
First off, Thank you eberg for the example.
--- Quote from: babel2uk on August 24, 2010, 06:28:28 PM ---My opinion is that it's a matter of degrees of separation of magic and killing.
--- End quote ---
I like to add in one more variable to that equation, and that is intention. If you put them to sleep in order to kill them, you used magic with the intention of killing. It's a little more restrictive, but still allows some escape from an accident. Blowing someone off a building still lands you in first law territory, but holding a person who someone else kills only gets you a Lawbreaker stunt if you knew that would be the outcome. (However, I'd except most wizards would be upset by that outcome, if only for the fact they know they are still in deep trouble if the wardens find out.)
--- Quote from: babel2uk on August 24, 2010, 06:28:28 PM ---My reading in the section on the First Law is that there is a lot of unpleasant grey area that may not result in a Lawbreaker stunt (so no metaphysical consequences) but may result in a trial and a Doom of Damocles punishment. Much of it is going to be down to personal interpretation by the GM, depending on how severe they want the First Law to be.
--- End quote ---
Which leads into this, which I completely agree with. You can avoid the metaphysical consequences and still have to face some consequences. It allows the GM to go, "Yes, I am aware of the difference, but the Wardens aren't so discerning."
infusco:
--- Quote from: eberg on August 23, 2010, 06:07:01 PM ---I got clarification from Fred that Aspects generated from Evocation maneuvers work the same as non-magical maneuvers. That is, if you get at least one shift of effort, it is sticky and will last the scene or until it is removed.
--- End quote ---
Uhm ... then why this line from that section on page 253?:
"As with other effects, you can pay an additional shift to make the effect persistent at the cost of 1 shift per additional *exchange*"
Me thinks a new sticky thread with Errata and an FAQ should rear it's head soon ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version