Hypothetical First Law/Second Law Problem

[sjksprocket]

Typically I'd say no. Changing a person is described as being so total you might as well call it murder. The mind is gone, the soul is distorted, they ARE a dog, not a transformed person.

As has been brought up, you could certainly make more elaborate scenarios where the mind/soul was in tact, but if you start doing that your just defeating the point of the discussion.

No, not really. If you do somehow pull it off, and the transformed human still has their minds, then it does matter a whole lot. I think the whole scenario would also be taken as a case by case bases.

[riplikash]

Actually the book is pretty clear on the fact that they do NOT retain their minds. They are effectively dead as a human being. That is why it is considered such a horrible thing to do.

[Tallyrand]

Actually the book is pretty clear on the fact that they do NOT retain their minds. They are effectively dead as a human being. That is why it is considered such a horrible thing to do.

The book does allow for the possibility for someone transformed to retain their minds, it's just very unlikely.  But for this hypothetical the person's mind is effectively gone, what isn't certain is whether that matters in regard to the First Law.

[Tbora]

The book does allow for the possibility for someone transformed to retain their minds, it's just very unlikely.  But for this hypothetical the person's mind is effectively gone, what isn't certain is whether that matters in regard to the First Law.

If the persons mind is gone, its no longer a person and therefore subject to the laws.

So no Lawbreaker IMHO.

[Bruce Coulson]

First, this seems to be treading closely to 'nastily surprise the character' territory.

But...obviously the first wizard gets Lawbreaker, unless the transformation was completely voluntary.  (I suspect the Wardens would disagree, but I would allow free consent to trump Lawbreaker.)

Unless the second wizard had some way of knowing that what they were dealing with was once human, no Lawbreaker.  No intent, and no way of knowing.  And quite possibly, no longer a person at all.

This would make a far better story if the second wizard was investigating a possible warlock...and discovered a sick, angry, formerly human dog.  Now they know the problem; what do they do?

[sinker]

The book does allow for the possibility for someone transformed to retain their minds, it's just very unlikely.  But for this hypothetical the person's mind is effectively gone, what isn't certain is whether that matters in regard to the First Law.

Then I'd be leaning towards no lawbreaker.