The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 2 of 8"

<< < (4/7) > >>

The Last Bean:
Wow, I hope all the Laws generate a discussion this good.

For the axe-wall situation it seems prety cut and dry when you look at it less in terms of legal and more in terms of the person's soul. The problem involved in using magic to kill someone is the creation of forces that are intended to take a life. Magic in Dresden is a matter of will, and seems to have a direct conduit to the mind and soul. And it is the opening of that conduit to death dealing that is the problem.

Sylvia did not kill that fellow with magic, she held him to a wall. An axe killed him, propelled by the muscles of another mortal. She didn't make the decision to end his life, and she didn't use her will to make it happen. If she had thrown him through a window instead, we'd get into that grey area.


On the subject of grey areas... The wardens. They use magic swords to kill people. Wouldn't that count as the use of magic to kill someone? If not, then there's a pretty big loophole in the "thall shalt not kill" rule, since just about anyone can enchant something and hand it to their friend, the same way the forger of that sword did for the wardens.

Thoughts?

iago:

--- Quote from: The Last Bean on June 18, 2007, 03:53:56 PM ---On the subject of grey areas... The wardens. They use magic swords to kill people. Wouldn't that count as the use of magic to kill someone? If not, then there's a pretty big loophole in the "thall shalt not kill" rule, since just about anyone can enchant something and hand it to their friend, the same way the forger of that sword did for the wardens.

--- End quote ---

I may have said this elsethread. :)

Jim's Official Word is that the reason the Wardens carry the swords is so that they don't have to use magic to kill.  Sure, it might be a loophole, but it's an official one. :)

(click to show/hide)Not to mention, if there is a burden, it has been borne by one or two people alone; with Luccio's body-switch, she's lost some of her power, and I believe (IIRC) that she was the one creating the swords -- thus drying up the supply of new ones.
Warden Swords are all kinds of interesting, when it comes down to it, but I think that some of the non-Law-breaking-ness of it has to do with immediacy.  If you pin someone to a wall while your friend wields an axe, that's a lot greyer than creating a sword well in advance of being face to face with a living human target who you mean to do harm.

iago:

--- Quote from: The Last Bean on June 18, 2007, 03:53:56 PM ---Wow, I hope all the Laws generate a discussion this good.

--- End quote ---

I echo this sentiment, as well. :)

rayden54:
I don't know anything about role-playing, but these laws of magic intrigue me too much to let this opportunity pass by.

I have a few scenarios in mind, and I'm wondering how the Laws would apply to them.

First, picture this. Two wizards are battling a sorcerer. The sorcerer, being evil, doesn't really care about breaking the laws. He's too far gone. The two wizards, on the other hand, do.

It quickly becomes apparent that this difference gives the sorcerer an edge. He doesn't have to worry about his magical attacks being lethal.

In desperation, one of the two wizards prepares to kill the sorcerer by calling down fire, knowing that if he doesn't, the sorcerer will kill him, his friend, and others. He believes that stopping the sorcerer is worth his death.

However, just before the fire can incinerate the sorcerer, the other wizard kills the sorcerer with his own attack. Assume the two were not acting in concert, and the first wizard had actually intended to kill the sorcerer, not just distract him.

My question is: Is the first wizard still guilty of breaking the first law? If the second had killed the sorcerer with magic in order to prevent the first from doing so, did he succeed? Or will they both be executed? And what does this translate to in game terms?

Second, what if a person kills someone with magic, and it's truly accidental? Say someone's trying to burn their garbage and they accidentally light someone on fire.

Or, someone's fighting a Black Court Vampire on a deserted rooftop. Just as the wizard unleashes a wind attack meant to knock the Vampire off the roof, an unwitting bystander walks onto the roof and takes the brunt of the blast. The poor sap is knocked off the roof and falls to his death instead.

I'm sorry this is so long. I'm just really curious. I almost think that Jim should write a book series dealing with the grey areas of the laws. I'm sure there's enough there.

I have another question, but it fits better with the law against compulsion so I'll wait on it. See if you hang me for the long post. I'm also sorry all the wizards are male, but it's easier to write than he/she.

mikeryan:

--- Quote from: iago on June 18, 2007, 04:05:44 PM ---Warden Swords are all kinds of interesting, when it comes down to it, but I think that some of the non-Law-breaking-ness of it has to do with immediacy.  If you pin someone to a wall while your friend wields an axe, that's a lot greyer than creating a sword well in advance of being face to face with a living human target who you mean to do harm.

--- End quote ---

That works. Harry has mentioned the "self-defense" clause from time to time. With the swords, cutting someone down in the heat of battle is probably ok, but using it to cut through their house wards and stabbing them in their sleep would more likely be a violation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page