The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Comments thread for "The Laws of Magic: Part 3 of 8"
taralon:
The only real grey area I see in this law, is what if a Wizard, say like Harry, had been teaching the Alphas to transform instead of Tera West? Though he would not *directly* be changing their form, he would be accessory to it. Would he then, ala Toot Toot be persecuted by Morgan for "transforming another"?
White Night Spoiler
(click to show/hide)There also seems to be another possible transformation, that of a Wizard into a different shape. Textev in White Night seems to indicate it might be possible (Molly saying that he's refused to teach her how to turn into animals yet rather than just flat out saying it isn't doable).
There may be a possible grey in the area of a newly minted mage. Say like Molly. What if her powers had manifested themselves as her being able to change her friends into werewolf like animals and then back. As a breaker of one of the laws, she would be subjected the same punishment she got, but through proving she had no intent to injury as happened in White Night she might have just been put under the Doom
mikeryan:
This Law is about the most problematic of them all for me.
I'm not sure if it's mentioned explicitly, but in general the Laws seem to fit with the real world Wiccan Rede. "An' it harm none, do what thou will."
For the rest of the Laws, the harm is not only pretty obvious, but we have explicit examples from the books. We've seen what happens when you twist the will of a mortal, or what can happen when you reach beyond the Outer Gates.
This Law seems murkier to me. In Fool Moon Harry says that the harm is destruction of the personality. Bob corrects him though, saying that most personalities can survive a transformation. So how do you define harm, and if there is no harm, is it really Black Magic?
Going back to an earlier question about "accidental changes"...I don't like the idea of a spell that was not supposed to transform anyone accidentally transforming them. That has no interest for me. But we have seen that young magicians who are learning about their powers (and may be ignorant about the laws) have a kind of wish fulfillment thing going for them. So their "enemies" (school rivals, not ravening psychopaths. Usually) might find themselves with tails or weird skin diseases. Or they may feel bad that their pudgy best friend gets picked on all the time, so that friend wakes up with a Bowflex body. Or their significant other (boy or girl) wakes up to other, ahem, blessings.
Along those later lines, I can see adult wizards being paid truckloads of money for those exact same services. If the subject truly wants it, is it Black Magic? Maybe, maybe not. Good intentions didn't really help in Proven Guilty (other than getting the Doom instead of the Sword).
And didn't Harry transform him and Susan into wind (temporarily) in Storm Front?
So confusing.
iago:
If you ask me, I think this law is as much about robbing the victim of his or her personal freedom by trapping them in a form not their own. But it is a potential oddball in the bunch, I'll grant that.
Rel Fexive:
That would seem to be the way it would most often come up, yes. Makes sense; it might be easier to magic away someone's arms and legs for torture/punishment purposes than to make them into a dog, or render them horribly sightless or unable to speak... and this Law would be the one to cover these acts.
Douglas:
--- Quote from: mikeryan on June 21, 2007, 03:43:54 AM ---This Law is about the most problematic of them all for me.
I'm not sure if it's mentioned explicitly, but in general the Laws seem to fit with the real world Wiccan Rede. "An' it harm none, do what thou will."
For the rest of the Laws, the harm is not only pretty obvious, but we have explicit examples from the books. We've seen what happens when you twist the will of a mortal, or what can happen when you reach beyond the Outer Gates.
This Law seems murkier to me. In Fool Moon Harry says that the harm is destruction of the personality. Bob corrects him though, saying that most personalities can survive a transformation. So how do you define harm, and if there is no harm, is it really Black Magic?
--- End quote ---
From Fool Moon pg. 60:
--- Quote ---I glanced up at him. "Transmogrification? That's illegal, Bob. It's one of the Laws of Magic. If you transform someone into an animal, it destroys their personality. You can't transform someone else without wiping out their mind. It's practically murder."
Yeah. Neat, huh? But actually ,most personalities can survive the transformation. For a while at least. Really strong wills might manage to keep their human memories and personality locked away for several years. But sooner or later, they're irretrievably gone, and you're left with nothing but a wolf.
--- End quote ---
Yes the personality can survive the initial transformation, but even if the transformation was done well enough to allow you to survive this is a truly cruel thing to do. Think about weeks and months of your personality and mind bleeding away bit-by-bit. We are talking incredibly slow torture here, even without the violation of will inherent in altering another being's fundamental nature. How is that not harming someone? Even assuming that the wizard performing the spell is good enough to do it and make a viable body, all it's doing is prolonging the slow decline into non-sentience.
Actually this could be a really fun thing to do to a character, if the player was up to roleplaying it. Trying to interact with the world without the power of speech, or even proper control over the new body could be a really neat roleplaying experience. Assuming they get back to being human eventually.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version