Something I'm not 100% on: Do the Laws of Magic only apply to human wizards, or do they have an effect on anything at all that uses magic? Obviously the Wardens are primarily concerned with policing the wizards, and protecting lives, so you won't hear them accusing a monster of breaking a law. My question is, does the monster take a lawbreaker stunt, if it breaks one of the laws?
I ask because, in my campaign of ~7 players, only one is a wizard. The rest are a varied array of beasts and fae. I'm interested to know if the corrupting influence of using magic wrong is fairly universal, or if it is something that only happens to humans.
How would you advise treating an attempt to make an opponent easier to kill using magic?
Example:
My friend's character, a witch named Sylvia Valois, and my character, a mortal named James Strand, are confronting a human villain named Phillip Burroughs. Burroughs is powerful, influential, and in league with a group of vampires, but is still a free-willed human being. He tries to call security when we burst into his office, but Sylvia pins him to the wall by projecting magical force. He starts to scream threats at us and James buries a fire-axe in his skull.
Would this violate the First Law?
Would it make a difference if Sylvia had acted alone and used an axe to kill Phillip after immobilizing him with magic? I think it might, since you had the example of using magic to knock someone off a building as a no-no even though the cause of death was mundane.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. Well, Sylvia's intentions there weren't about killing him -- or were they? Does she agree with what James did? Did she keep that magical force going so she could make that easier -- or did it just happen to work out that way?
Remember, part (but not all) of the reason a First Law violation is a violation is because, in bringing up her magic, Sylvia intended a deadly result. That's half of it. If she didn't, then there's some wiggle room, and it becomes a "grey area" judgment call. If she did it so she could help James get his axe into Phil's head, well -- that's calling up magic with the intent to kill, now isn't it?
2. Thunking someone in the head with an axe is also an event that should bring in traditional civil authorities ... the police. Too many times in RPGs players get into the pattern of see a critter, kill the critter, take its loot and move on. That's not really true role playing, it's a video game mentality. The Dresden world is supposed to be essentially our world, only with the twist that magic works. Harry gets some slack because he's friends with Murph, but that doesn't always stop her from cuffing him and running him into the station. The PCs probably don't have such connections, or if they do probably haven't built up enough of a white-hat reputation to allow an axe-murder to slide off so that they can just walk away clean. If nothing else, some "Dark Side" points might be in order... ;)
Just my two cents.
How would you advise treating an attempt to make an opponent easier to kill using magic?
Harry's duster and shield bracelet have saved his skin countless times. I can see myself coming up with villains with similar defenses. I think I remember reading that Warden swords can cut through such defenses. If holding an enemy immobile while sticking an axe in his skull is a violation of the First Law, I'd think that using a magical sword to pierce his force field would also apply.
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.
Wow, I hope all the Laws generate a discussion this good.
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.
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.
Yep, you're on to something; someone could certainly take the Laws of Magic rules system presented here and apply it to non-supernatural activities too, if they cared to... I doubt we'll actually explicitly support that in the game, but I'd love to see a few local games "drift" things that way.
I'm not sure what you mean by "beasts" here, though, so I'm not sure where to go with the specifics of your game.
This is a heat of battle scenario. I think that if they have friends on the council, they'd get off with a warning.
In game terms, I think the guy who "got the kill" would probably still get the Lawbreaker stunt. The other guy would probably get a pass from me. You can want to kill someone as much as you want. You just can't kill them. The player can still play up the emotional angle at coming that close to taking a life. The stunt isn't really needed for that.
Personally, I think that without intent, it doesn't count. It's still a good motivation to be cautious with your mighty powers.
Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass. Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another. Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt. Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself. I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences.
As far as a truly accidental effect. Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves. If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent.
You know these arguments are virtually the same ones that come up with the "thou shall not kill" Commandment in the Bible. How many thousands of years has that discussion been going on? It seems likely that the WC would have come to the same conclusions that society has in general - the grey areas are covered under things like negligent homicide and manslaughter with gradational punishments going on up to premeditated murder and the death penalty. A vote of the WC or SC is substituted for a jury and/or judge. The final decision will be based on human instinct and probably, some politics.
I do believe the original translation is closer to "Thou shalt not murder" quite different than kill
I do believe the original translation is closer to "Thou shalt not murder" quite different than kill