ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: RogerC on April 23, 2010, 08:40:54 PM
-
Can a spellcaster dismiss/dispel their own conjurations at will? If not, what sort of action would it be?
(I'm thinking particularly of the case where you conjure up a dagger for the purposes of killing someone with it, and then turning the evidence into ectoplasmic goo. Of course, if you get stopped by the cops along the way, you might want to turn it to goo right then.)
I'm pretty happy just handwaving it on the side of allowing it, but wondering if there's any explicit rules for it, or any explicit examples in the canon.
Cheers,
Roger
-
I'd say that you can let the caster dismiss their own conjured items. I mean, its their will that is holding it into form, so if they draw their will back from it, it would be gone, yes?
As a side question, would killing with a conjured dagger be a first law violation? I'd say yes, but I'm looking for opinions.
-
I'd go with no, the essential element of belief in the rightness of murder that makes a Lawbreaker isn't necessary to conjuring a dagger, nor stabbing someone with it. It's in the same category as a werewolf killing someone with their fangs, IMO.
-
I'd go with no, the essential element of belief in the rightness of murder that makes a Lawbreaker isn't necessary to conjuring a dagger, nor stabbing someone with it. It's in the same category as a werewolf killing someone with their fangs, IMO.
The key difference is that the fangs aren't a physical manifestation of magic the dagger is. Theirs not much difference between creating a dagger out of magic and stabbing someone and creating a ball of fire and killing someone, the daggers just slower.
-
The key difference is that the fangs aren't a physical manifestation of magic the dagger is. Theirs not much difference between creating a dagger out of magic and stabbing someone and creating a ball of fire and killing someone, the daggers just slower.
on the other side where's the difference to taking 15 minutes to walk down to a shop and buy a dagger and making a 15 minute conjuration of a dagger? it is a difficult question...
but I have another question along that line - how about summonings? I mean - a wizard tries to summon a demon - he gets the containment spell alright and reckons, he will need it until noon tomorrow. let's say our wizard is not so good at binding after he summoned the nasty. let's say he fails at binding, but that is ok, since the containment spell still has some time good. then he is distracted, whatever, got called to a friend in need - pick your scenario - and all the time the clock is ticking.
meanwhile our demon is somewhat imprisoned in the wizard's conjuring circle, but get's his laugh when the little wizard tries to bind him. now the question: can a wizard, who has not bound the demon/spirit/whatever make it go away? say the demon looks at its watch and thinks it has nothing important to do than to wait for the containment spell winking out, and eating the wizard then, or whatevs demons do.
our wizard comes back totally exhausted from the emergency, 5 minutes to noon, just remembering there might be a demon who is set loose really soon.
feasible scenario?
-
Im going to say Yes, you can dismiss your own conjurations (see redirecting spell energy on page 260), in my opinion it would just be redirecting the energy holding the conjuration together in a safe way (ie not using it for an attack or just letting it bleed into the environment).
As to the second question, Luminos is asking because of my character who has access to soulfire, and uses a Rote Spell that conjures (soulfire lets me use conjuration at evocation speed, neato) a sword. So Im interested in your opinions as well.
-
and uses a Rote Spell that conjures (soulfire lets me use conjuration at evocation speed, neato) a sword
What you really need to ask your self is if i stabbed you with a sword made of fire, would you consider it using magic to kill you?. if yes then conjuring a weapon to kill someone counts especially if your using it at evocation speeds. because you have no separation from the intent and the action. now weather the sword i actually use. "appears" to be made of plastic, metal, unobtonium or fire. doesn't matter because those are all simply thematic descriptions in every case the conjured sword is made of magic.
Now if your useing soulfire to make a sword and you happen to kill a human with it your probably in deep shit regardless of weather or not its a violation. "god" has some pretty firm rules against murder. and vengenence. niether of which permits a person to take matter into there own hands.
-
Soulfire is just the name, the effects arent always on fire, like when Harry made the super had to crush the denarien. It wasn't a flaming hand of "oh wow, that burns the skin", it was just a super large hand.
As for the bit about god getting mad at you for killing humans, I seem to recall quite a few passages in the bible that have to deal with killing people, or stoning children to death for disobeying their parents. It all depends on how far you want to take some of the stuff in there. :)
-
Soulfire is just the name, the effects arent always on fire, like when Harry made the super had to crush the denarien. It wasn't a flaming hand of "oh wow, that burns the skin", it was just a super large hand.
Reread what i wrote please. i specifically mentioned that what you manifest the sword as materially doesnt matter. what matter sis that it is a creation composed entirely of Magic It might look like steal but its just as magical as if it looked like it was made of fire.
As for the bit about god getting mad at you for killing humans, I seem to recall quite a few passages in the bible that have to deal with killing people, or stoning children to death for disobeying their parents. It all depends on how far you want to take some of the stuff in there.
Are you playing a jew or a christian? if youd like to go hunt down all of thouse go smite this passages youll find that there are one and all in the old testament. Jesus put that all behind you all. The ten commandments say clearly "though shalt not kill" jesus clearly says " do not take vengeance for that is the lords, he also says to turn the other check. Every reference to violence in the new testament is about moving beyond it, forgiving, and passing up your anger to god for it is inly through him that you can be pure.
And yes there are some gruesome punishments for crimes in the old testament, the problem with quting them is not only what i already said above in that there in no way actually parts of the christian doctrine except as matters of record, but even historically most of those laws where products of the time and place as opposed to religious laws. I think that if you went and conferred with any religious scholar weather he be christian [of whatever flavor] or a rabbi. they would agree that it is inherently against the tenants of there religion to kill , it may be permitted in certain situations but it is still a sin.Just to be perfectly clear i am in no way a christian or a jew, or even close to either. i personally think that murder is perfectly acceptable[morally, there's still the law to deal with[. however that doesn't change the doctrine and beliefs of the religions that would be granting soul-fire in the dresdenverse.
-
Yes, because werewolves get Lawbreaker for killing with their (magically conjured) claws and fangs. Oh, wait, no they don't. There's no difference between a Werewolf's magically conjured weaponry, and a Wizard's, or at least there shouldn't be.
-
Yes, because werewolves get Lawbreaker for killing with their (magically conjured) claws and fangs. Oh, wait, no they don't. There's no difference between a Werewolf's magically conjured weaponry, and a Wizard's, or at least there shouldn't be.
in the end effect it depends on the view of you character's local warden. (see to morgan in storm front, who affronted harry for trapping toot.)
-
in the end effect it depends on the view of you character's local warden. (see to morgan in storm front, who affronted harry for trapping toot.)
True! Though I'm not arguing about physical enforcement, I'm arguing whether you should get Lawbreaker.
-
Yes, because werewolves get Lawbreaker for killing with their (magically conjured) claws and fangs. Oh, wait, no they don't. There's no difference between a Werewolf's magically conjured weaponry, and a Wizard's, or at least there shouldn't be.
When a person transforms into a werewolf they are changing there body into another natural state. [Remember that most weres turn into normal versions of there appropriate animals, obviously loup-gauroux would probably be different' and this argument dose not apply to them. ] Thus once there done there new body is not a direct manifest on of magic, it can continue to exist indefinitely in that new and now "permanent" state and thus using there claws or hands or feat or whatever part of there now natural body is not a magical attack.
When you use Conjuration To create a "sword" it is a Temporary manifestation of a sword composed of solidified magic so when you use this to kill someone you are using magic to commit murder. i acknowledge that this may seem a finicky distinction to some people. but it is none the less a fairly clear difference and you should keep in mind that physically transforming yourself is a whole lot more dangerous [for so many other reasons] then conjuring a sword.
-
You're splitting hairs, particularly for, say, a Bear shifter who gains ectoplamic weight. Is his (mystically conjured) flesh a magical manifestation like the sword, and thus able to cause Lawbreaker? The rules appear to say not, and I agree with them.
It's not a question of practicality per se, but of internal consistency and logic.
-
Is his (mystically conjured) flesh a magical manifestation like the sword, and thus able to cause Lawbreaker?
no because the change is permanent [until changed]. If you could actually create a sword, a real tangible permanently real sword with conjuration then it wouldn't be lawbreaker, it would just be like using any other sword. but you cant. conjuration only make temporary manifestations of magic. transformation and similarly transmutation. are by there nature permanent changes. and by the metaphysical rules as established in the books permanent magical creations must obey the laws of physics and are natural parts of the real world. it may seem like splitting hairs but i assure you if you go do some research into any of the real world metaphysical beliefs these kinds of distinctions are extremely common.
-
Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.
-
Ok, here is a question. Lets say I conjure a sword, then hand it to Steve. Steve then takes that sword and goes on a murderous rampage. Do I get a lawbreaker? Probably not.
There dose seem to be a distinction, if there is a separation from the affect and the origination of a spell. if you combat summon a sword to murder someone then id definitely say lawbreaker stunt. if you spend an hour to summon a sword[although why wouldn't you just buy one?] give it to your assassin friend and he goes on a murder spree, do you, dose he, do both of you get the stunt?
I think the answer can be worked out if we take a step back and look at the specific situation instead of it as a generic example. You spend an hour to creat a sword, why? you could buy one for a similar amount of trouble, well with a conjured sword it will dosolve later leaveing no evidence of a murder wapon! great so you now have a reaosn to want to summen a sword instead of buy one, you also are creating this weapon with the clear intent of it being used for murder. bam! you get lawbreaker[ if that weapon actually kills someone]
You give the new shiny sword to your friend Stabbby Mcassasin to use as his murder weapon dejoir for the next few hours knowing that it will dissolve latter and leave no evidential murder weapon, he proceeds to kill people with that weapon and no other use of magic. he is not channeling magical forces so dose not get tainted by that use of magic and thus no lawbreaker stunt. he should however face similar penalties as if he had, for example a warden might view this as a violation m and one of his aspects should probably be changed to "murderer with magic sword"
When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.
-
When you step back and look at it. the ic description of why the laws "taint" you is that when you cast these spells they leave a mark upon your soul changing you slightly to reflect that law violation and make you more likly to do it again, no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.
There, you just supported my position without even realizing it. Yes, intent matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword. What I do with that sword is another matter entirely, and Im no-longer directing the magic that holds the sword together. The spell is cast and it'll continue to do its job (which is to keep the ectoplasm in sword shape) until the duration ends.
-
What KOFFEYKID said. There's a world of difference in intent between creating a weapon and killing directly.
-
no matter what the manifestation of the spell is if your using magic with the intent that that magic will kill someone weather or not that death is right now or a year from now, you've violated the law. why theirs a distinction between successfully killing someone with magic and just really wanting to i have no idea, but we've got to work with what we have.
\Yes, intent matters when you cast a spell, only Im not casting a spell intending to hurt somebody. My spell is intending to create a sword.
If your going to quote me please do so in context. What i said in regards to intent was that. if i throw a fireball at a person with intent to kill them and do so i have violated the law, if i do so and fail to kill them i have not. this is irrational but it is how the laws are written.
When you summon the sword you say your intent is to "create a sword" not to kill someone, but your not creating this sword just to put it on your mantel. your creating it to be used. the only purpose of a sword is to kill human beings, its never been used to hunt and sharp metal swords are rarely if ever used for showmanship or sparing, so if you are creating a functional sword you are creating a weapon of murder. You could say that your intent was to "create a weapon to combat the monsters" but if that weapon is used to kill a human you have still violated the law just as surely as the person who throws a fireball at a crowd of monsters and "accidentally' kills a few humans as well. The fact is that your creating amagical affect with the sole purpose of combat and thus death. weather that affect instantly kills someone or dose so a few hours latter is irrelevant the only distinction that seems to matter is weather or not the magical affect successfully kills someone.
-
Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)
-
I believe the difference between "shoot a fireball" and "conjure a knife, then stab" is that you don't need to summon and direct any magical power to do the actual stabbing, as long as you use your own muscles (or someone else's) rather than flinging it at them with magical force. Because you are not using the fundamental force of magic, directed by your will, to cause death directly then you are not killing with magic, in the sense that anyone could take that knife and use it and not just you.
This is different to "throw someone off a roof with magic and let the fall kill them" because your intent within that spell is to kill; the intent within the conjuration spell is just to create a knife.
This is again different to "conjure an anvil over someone's head and let it drop on them" as the intent within that spell is to create something that will crush and thus kill the target; the intent within the knife conjuration spell is still to simply create a knife.
It's worth bearing in mind that you could conjure a spade to dig a hole (because you're no good at earth magic, maybe?) and then find you have to whack someone upside the head with it. Does it matter if you didn't create a stabbity-stab weapon in the first place but still killed someone with your conjured spade? Or would you suddenly get "penalised" for it? I'd say no - you still don't get a Lawbreaker stunt for killing someone with a conjured object in the context of "I picked it up and hit him with it" because you are not channelling magical force through the lens of your deepest held beliefs in order to do it. There's no special corruption going on, just the regular corruption of the soul that murderers probably get, which isn't covered by the Laws Of Magic.
Of course, it may be different in your games :)
-
Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)
So, looking at my previous post, what if you create something intended for another purpose that you then find yourself having to use as a weapon?
-
It doesn't matter what I intend to do with the sword, you want to tie the creation of a thing with the use of a thing, which is different. One can make a sword for more than just killing. What if the intent behind the forging of a sword was for defense? Defense might include killing, but it doesn't have to. Sometimes just having a sword would be enough to stop a fight.
Lets move away from the sword, lets say I conjure a brick. I can use that brick as part of a wall, or I can throw it through somebodies window, or I can use it to bash a skull in. Its just a brick.
Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)
I think the key word here is "murder":
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
So just going out with the intent to kill a human would get you a lawbreaker for using the sword. If while defending yourself with it, it kills a human, well, thats self defense, not murder, and a warden lawfully executing a warlock wouldn't trigger it.
Here is a different example:
Lets say I use my skill In fire Evocation to freeze water into a spike, then I kill somebody with it. Lawbreaker or not?
-
So, looking at my previous post, what if you create something intended for another purpose that you then find yourself having to use as a weapon?
The First Law as worded in the books is about killing (requirement #1: the act of taking the life of a human being) with magic (requirement #2).
Creating a magic item (requirement #2) but not killing someone as a part of that creation (failure on requirement #1) does not, for me, violate that law.
-
Quoting Iago
Creating a weapon is not a first law violation. Using a weapon to murder is. (A riff on "guns don't kill people, people do" but I think it's valid.)
Or as i have repeatedly phrased it, successfully using magic to kill gets you lawbreaker regardless of the description of what that magic looks like, or your intent when you cast the spell.
And yes if you cast the spell to kill someone and fail it should change your aspects just like lawbreaker would you just don't get the actual stunt.
-
Remember Harry's line: You can't do anything with magic you don't believe you can do. Killing is a part of that (even accidental killing; in retrospect, that eats into you and changes you too, though perhaps not so potently as doing it with intent does). Believing you can create a weapon is one thing. Believing you can use that weapon to do harm is quite another.
Though even there I'm shaky when the weapon is mundane, or used mundanely like a sword-stroke and so forth, since it's really about using *magic*; the reason Wardens carry those swords, supposedly, is so that they won't violate the First Law when they execute a warlock.
But here's the other thing: this is all opinion, from me, by intention. The subtext of the Laws discussion in the RPG is not "and this is how it is always with no wiggle". It's meant to say, how the Laws are interpreted -- both in-character as a body of Law that the Wardens enforce, and in-system as to when one is required to take (or expand) a Lawbreaker ability -- is something to be explored as you play the game. It's a journey, and as your game travels along that path certain themes should emerge. One game's themes might point away from the idea that the Laws-as-enforced-by-the-Wardens-matches-the-Laws-as-enforced-upon-your-soul; another's might insistently point towards it, suggesting that the Laws as laid down by the Council are Laws Of The Universe that have been uncovered and codified.
-
And I think the "that might be how it is in your game, but it is different in mine" aspect of using the Laws in games is the most important thing to remember when discussing them. No one is wrong, everyone is right (for them). Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone ;)
-
Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone ;)
Or at least, right for the game he's running for Harry. ;)
-
And I think the "that might be how it is in your game, but it is different in mine" aspect of using the Laws in games is the most important thing to remember when discussing them. No one is wrong, everyone is right (for them). Except Jim, who's probably always right for everyone
This is unfortunately as much a flaw as a strength. without a clear, understandable, and universally true way that the laws work ooc then you will have radicaly different interpretations on them, this is good in that aindividual st is not "tied down" in there implementation and bad because most st's are not in anyway skilled enough orators, debators, or writers to actually express there individual interpreation and as such you will have many players who think they ooc know how the laws work get a rather harsh surprise when they get slapped with lawbreaker and are told there charecter is now unplayable.
Transparency and consistency are good... yes freedom for individual its is good[or so i'm told]. but you can take it to far and i believe this is an example of that.
-
Or at least, right for the game he's running for Harry. ;)
Heh, of course :) Or, for that matter, in the game where he's playing Harry... ;)
On that subject, who on earth is Jim's GM if he's playing Harry?
-
This is unfortunately as much a flaw as a strength. without a clear, understandable, and universally true way that the laws work ooc then you will have radicaly different interpretations on them, this is good in that aindividual st is not "tied down" in there implementation and bad because most st's are not in anyway skilled enough orators, debators, or writers to actually express there individual interpreation and as such you will have many players who think they ooc know how the laws work get a rather harsh surprise when they get slapped with lawbreaker and are told there charecter is now unplayable.
Transparency and consistency are good... yes freedom for individual its is good[or so i'm told]. but you can take it to far and i believe this is an example of that.
Everyone's game is different anyway, without or without something massively open to interpretation like the Laws. So the only thing you can do is get an idea of how the Laws will work at your table and play within that framework. At the end of the day everyone in your game will decide what is and isn't cool, so becoming a Lawbreaker shouldn't be that much of a shock. Ideally, at least; the first few times someone tries to step around the Laws will probably trigger some spirited discussions, which isn't much different to arguing any other rule interpretation.
-
spirited discussions
Unfortunately in my experience this kind of thing especially when theres no actual exact interpretation to resort to, actually is closer to "screaming bitter diatribe" and has lead to not only the end of friendships but occasionally physical violence. should people get that worked up over a game, no of course not.Do i think this will happen in my current gaming group? no probably not. that doesn't mean they wont happen somewhere though.
I have always argued for a clear and universal interpretation of a setting and rules. because in the last 13 years of role playing i have seen significantly less drama, confusion, and anger caused by "be forced into an interpretation" then by vague or "however you feel like" descriptions.
-
Problem is, such a clear interpretation is entirely within Mr Butcher's province, not the game developers. So the highest authority you can probably get an answer from is the developers... and that's just an interpretation itself. So I think you're out of luck if you're looking for Word Of God on this... unless you go post in the "Questions To Jim" thread elsewhere in the forum. And that's not guaranteed a useful response; he's not required to give you a straight/useful answer after all :)
-
true. i tend to take into account that since Fred plays d and d with Jim[ or so ive heard] that they got the laws correct when they wrote them, so i argue from the perspective that the laws "as writen" are "corect"
-
It is not the game's job to fix malfunctioning social dynamics in a play-group. We've written a game for people who can play as mature, rational individuals. If there are screaming diatribes around the Laws, I can say firmly that that is in no way our problem nor our fault.
I feel the discussion in the books is flexible but reasonably comprehensive. You can use the info in the book to draw a firm line as to what constitutes a violation. If you have players who need that kind of firmness, then do so, and do it up front rather than in play. We've given you the tools. It's up to you to make sure you don't hammer your thumb.
-
do it up front rather than in play
This part at least ill agree with.
-
I think you must tell the players up front how you'll be utilizing these rules. No doubt.
As an aside, if you use magic with the intent to kill but don't you don't get the LB stunt. If you do kill you do. This makes sense to me since you've sort of finished your intent 'closing the circle' of the magical effect so to speak. You made that irrevocable choice.
-
As an aside, if you use magic with the intent to kill but don't you don't get the LB stunt. If you do kill you do. This makes sense to me since you've sort of finished your intent 'closing the circle' of the magical effect so to speak. You made that irrevocable choice.
Yep. That ties into how many all of the Laws operate, really. Doing the undoable, messing with the natural order of the universe by imposing your will upon it, etc.
-
Anyone feel like answering the original question? Thanks =)
Cheers,
Roger
-
Anyone feel like answering the original question? Thanks =)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17681.new.html#new