In the last couple of sessions my group make short work of a heavily-guard Black Court nest, taking out a total of 32 renfields, all of whom were killed with magic (burned with fire, sandblasted with coal dust and metal filings, and pebble-dashed with rocks). Yep, the two players responsible were happy to kill them.
Now, I've decided not to enforce the Lawbreaker stunt, given the mental damage done to the renfields by their masters.
But this group is already on shaky ground with the White Council, as two of their member had, in their backstories, been framed for violating the First Law and have, as a result, been on the run. They've currently managed to negotiate a deal for a retrial and re-investigation, having recently saved the world.
However, I'm thinking that the Wardens would come out in force against the group if they find out that nearly three dozen humans had been killed by the group, using magic to do the job. Even accounting for the fact their minds are gone, it ought to show a marked willingness to take human life on a massive scale.
Thoughts?
self defense is allowed No person wizard or not, has to sit passively by and be killed by anyone or thing. You may have to explain your actions but your not a lawbreaker. so i doubt anyone would consider it murder especially since WCouncil knows all about the abilities of the BC and what they do to humans. I really don't think the laws are as tight as alot of people want to play them.
self defense is allowed No person wizard or not, has to sit passively by and be killed by anyone or thing. You may have to explain your actions but your not a lawbreaker. so i doubt anyone would consider it murder especially since WCouncil knows all about the abilities of the BC and what they do to humans. I really don't think the laws are as tight as alot of people want to play them.
Incorrect. Killing a mortal with magic, regardless of the reason, still breaks the First Law (note, I didn't say murder, I said kill). If the situation warrants it, you can get a stay of execution/probation sentence under the Doom of Damocles (which requires a patron) for self-defense and the like, but you still broke the Law, and bear the taint. The question here would be whether or not Renfields are mortal anymore; the OP stated his table's decision already, so it's a moot point.thats one interpretation. And may have been how JB wanted it when he started writing, but 15 books later and I think the interpretation has changed. Self defense seems ok in the later half of the series. And is fine in my games.
Think of it like this; Harry Dresden killed a man with magic in self-defense at the age of 16. At the age of 25, he's still got a Warden on his ass trying to find an excuse to kill him, the murderous urges brought upon by his previous killing, is under the Doom of Damocles, etc. Said Warden continues to harass and suspect him for over a decade, while his reputation with the White Council still has him painted as a potential warlock (which is exacerbated by his continued skirting of the Laws). He also continues to struggle with darker urges, on top of the temptations that tend to roll his way.
Yes, the Laws are harsh, and the White Council is quite unforgiving if they catch you. It's a major part of the setting, at least from the perspective of a person who had previously broken a Law and has seen the process, as well having joined the organization that enforces it (although not working on that aspect of the job).
This is completely opposite what both the rule books and the novels present as cannon.
I believe the main reason the laws taint you is because you're using your magic to take free will away from a mortal. Now two things could have happened when they killed a renfield. They knew that they were basically alive zombies, because there's no harm in killing a reanimated person, and knew they werent people anymore, or option two; If they thought the renfields were still people, the very belief they were killing a mortal would be enough to taint them. I forget where exactly I read that, but it makes sense.
Meanwhile because he(the wizard) doesn't believe he is tainted and is doing the right thing he isnt tainted and is fine. (this is also how HD defines the universe so which is true( the belief thing HD always talks about)).
thats one interpretation. And may have been how JB wanted it when he started writing, but 15 books later and I think the interpretation has changed. Self defense seems ok in the later half of the series. And is fine in my games.
no its not, especially with the last part of the series. Moreover if we check out the dresden wiki, merlin is given credit for writing the laws of magic, in otherwords a mortal says its bad to kill with magic.
So what. hes only one mortal wizard who is either dead or imprisoned somewhere. Mortal law is only good if you can enforce it. Also i would argue further that the entire series is from the perspective of one wizard HD. JB has said this isnt the end all be all of the truth. It certainly is how he (HD) feels about the first law, but he is biased and it may not be the truth...just how he sees it.
So it might entirely be true that a wizard who believes there is nothing wrong with killing in self defense leaves no taint or scar because he believes that he did right by defending others or himself. He may have to argue with the white council about it and he would probably lose....but mortal law is only as strong as the mortals willing to enforce it..things change.
Meanwhile because he(the wizard) doesn'tt believe he is tainted and is doing the right thing he isnt tainted and is fine. (this is also how HD defines the universe so which is true( the belief thing HD always talks about)).
its not my wizards fault Dresden has an anger management issue that he blames on the fact he killed an asshat that was going to mentally bind him for all time.
Oh and how do you think the wardens take down the warlocks who wont come quietly to their beheading. Granted they might use their swords only but honestly that isn't the only way, and kimler certainly was killed with magic.Self defense is allowed. You just have to make sure you do your self defense in a way the council likes. In otherwords mortal law is mutable and only matters if your on the outside looking in.
this is why there really isnt a debate as to the OP question. The renfields just dont count as human. The real debate is about if any killing of humans can be allowed.Well the killing of a mortal with your own magic stains you no matter how you go about it. The only difference in killing a mortal is whether or not the White Council will french revolution your ass.
Well the killing of a mortal with your own magic stains you no matter how you go about it. The only difference in killing a mortal is whether or not the White Council will french revolution your ass.
Molly thought she was doing right when she brain whammied that guy in an effort to break his addiction.and then harry convinced he she fucked up and she believed she did, up til lthen she was fine
When is using magic to kill mortals (in self-defense) okay and goes unpunished in the later books? And your games aren't the books, so they aren't exactly a canon source. Also keep in mind that the game only goes up to Small Favor.
There are two parts of the Laws. The first part is the White Council's written law, allegedly scribed by the original Merlin. The second part is the metaphysical effect of breaking the Laws, the part that makes you a crazy monster, which happens regardless of the White Council's knowledge of you or vice-versa. Your... Idea, I suppose, that Harry just blames his anger issues on killing someone is also completely untrue. Harry Dresden has the First Lawbreaker power. It's in the rules, and we know how and why he did it.
Harry broke the First Law by killing Justin, and had to deal with the taint of black magic (and still has to, decades after he committed the act, in fact). And keep in mind, his reasons to kill Justin? Justin had the love of his life as a hostage, and was sending demons after Harry to hunt him down. He acted to save himself and Elaine. He was still a Lawbreaker, still tainted.
While yes, Harry can be an unreliable narrator, I honestly doubt the entire White Council is wrong on the Laws they've been enforcing for centuries.
And it's been explained how the Wardens take out warlocks. They shoot, behead, bludgeon, or otherwise kill them with weapons, not magic. They do use magic to defend themselves, weaken the enemy, and if possible hold them down to make the rest of the job easier.
You're also completely incorrect, Kemmler was not killed with magic. He was killed with a variety of weapons, including a flamethrower.
Finally, yes, mortal law is mutable. The Laws are more than that.
But that's all your own conjecture and assumptions, as you've said yourself. Most of the killing done with magic is done by non-humans, done using non-mortal magic, done to non-mortals, or it's stressed that killing with magic goes against the laws of nature and inherently changes someone.
As for Harry's enemies and bad people using magic in bad ways... Has it occurred to you that the misuse of magic could have contributed to these enemies being such horrible people?
Quite late in the series Harry and Luccio even have a pretty heavy conversation about why the Wardens police the misuse of magic - it allows them to prevent wizards becoming a threat to the world in ways mundane mortals can't handle, without getting stuck in mortal politics.
Like it or not, the Word of Jim is that breaking the Laws of Magic has an inherent corrupting effect on a person. It doesn't take away your free will or make you any less responsible for your actions, but it does change you as a person, and make you more prone to doing so again.
WOP is killing with magic for a the right reason doesn't do a thing to you. no taint and certainly no power up. Do it for the wrong reasons and your power up wont be enough to help you against the still living morgan and his earth crunching spells of stomp you into the ground.
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
I'm going to have to ask for a source on this because this is directly the opposite of everything that we have been told both in the books and through WoJ. Jim has said that the White Council Laws and the Cosmic Laws don't match up exactly and that there are grey areas, but he's made it very clear that killing with magic does taint you whether you did it for the right reasons or not.WOP (word of potestas) the guy in my game that has more power then JB, i disagree with him and some others I presented up above why I do, using his own stories and I provided a more plausable reason why wizards need to follow the laws of magic rather then "you will become monsters" we dont have evidence of this in book only bad people we are told went ape shit becasue they over did the breaking of the rules. In other words we see bad people being executed on the say so of the council but none of the building process that is supossed to have happen. I think killing in self defense or to protect others is a moral act regardless of what you use to do it. Your millage may vary
WOP (word of potestas) the guy in my game that has more power then JB, i disagree with him and some others I presented up above why I do, using his own stories and I provided a more plausable reason why wizards need to follow the laws of magic rather then "you will become monsters" we dont have evidence of this in book only bad people we are told went ape shit becasue they over did the breaking of the rules. In other words we see bad people being executed on the say so of the council but none of the building process that is supossed to have happen. I think killing in self defense or to protect others is a moral act regardless of what you use to do it. Your millage may varyBut we do have evidence. Harry himself spoke about how power tempted him and threatened to corrode him; he spoke about the Soulgaze with Molly and seeing the black taint on her own soul, especially when she claimed not to have done anything wrong. We have the soulgazes of the Hexenwulfen...need I go on?
and then harry convinced he she fucked up and she believed she did, up til lthen she was fineNot in the books, no. Maybe in your world / in your game.
Potestas, it's cool your own games have different setting rules. Mine do, too, in certain places. But in particular because this discussion is about whether or not the Wardens would regard the killing of renfields with magic as a violation of the Laws of Magic, and therefore is firmly based on what we've seen on their attitude in the books, I don't think it's really relevant whether or not the White Council is correct about the changing effects of magic on a person who mis-uses it.
After all, the Wardens were perfectly ready to execute a teenage girl for using magic to steer a guy away from drug use.
I dont recall anywhere where it was said he was killed with what you just mentioned. He was taken out by wizards i assume magic. He had a horde of things serving him so i assume they brought all their resources to bear, but to make sure he was dead and stayed that way..a spell would be my guess.
many people have argued the laws are more then mortal. I just don't see any real evidence that they are. Harry thinks they are; his enemies don't. Sometimes mortals are monsters too and they deserve the same treatment any monster gets.
I think Harry had problems before he killed Justin, I don't think it was the fact that he killed Justin. Harry is probably unstable from his upbrining and from what Justin did to him. Not the magic but the base betrayal it represented. Harry has never been in a good place. Fortunatly hes a good person. Its like Urial told him its his choice. he can choose to be a monster servant to mab or a human servant to mab. Humans are allowed almost universally the right of self defense in all ethical systems, it is considered moral to do so. Why would the laws of magic(if they are the wizards version of an ethical code) not be the same as all the other ethical systems out there. Essentillly you have a right to self defense unless your a wizard then you have to fight the mortals on their own ground with their best weapons. I dont think so. Buttttttt.
The real reason(my conjecture here) the laws are the way they are is when you violate them you strengthen the outsiders. That is reason enough to not violate the laws of magic and it is different from the "given" reason for violating the rules of magic. Somewhere along the way Merlin wrote the laws down because it was he who figured out what happened when you do. I bet prior to Merlin writing down the laws and enforcing them( and he could because his power was or is equal to that of one of the queens)(wiki) i bet people broke them whenever it suited them and it didnt do anything to them, except break down the walls between reality.Most wizards don't even know about the war with the outsiders. Wizards are human they get choice and free agency and that includes choice to use good things for bad. Execpt when wizards do it there are bigger consequences. I bet if enough wizards misuse magic things just slip in, no one notices it. Even the wizard who kills in self defense weakens the barrior. His individual act, one that he may only have had to do once in his entire life (not all live dresdens life) but its chink. Nothing happens to the wizard he was a good person doing a good act, but using the only tool he really has in a manner that does harm to boundries. He doesnt know it he will probably never know it.
I think merlin figured this out. I think its one of the reasons he built the prison wrote the laws, formed the council, its all a part of the war against the outsiders. And if he had to lie to make people follow it so what. The stakes are to high, at least he thought so.
You may say this is a quibble but its not, the given reason for breaking the laws of magic is it changes you into a monster more likely to get worse with each infraction. In story we have no real evidence of this. What we see is bad people using magic i n a way bad people would use it or any tool. In a self centered way theat benefits them.
i have bee n arguing from evidence in the book that it isn't so using that to justify the change in the game.Wardens willingness to obey the law doesnt change the fact that using magic in a way the law forbids doesn't change you at least there is no evidence of this only what people say who already believe the law is correct. In all the books we have evil people using magic to work evil ends, we don't know that the magic did this to them we only know the wardens believe this, that dresden believes this. Dresdans intenral stuggle has more to do with his issues then the fact he killed justin with magic. So in my game based on what i have seen in book, ones intent and action is what makes a lawbreaker.Not the action on its own.
Wardens willingness to obey the law...
If it isn't the Blackstaff doing it, I imagine the wardens would be along to take the head of whomever did it. The only way they would not is if it wasn't clear the cause of death was related to magic being used (it might be, it might not be, and maybe a soulgaze doesn't show signs of taint so they give the rare benefit of the doubt..)
i disagree and i am leaving it at that. I;ve laid it out their isnt enough evidence eitherway other then what JB said and I disagree with him as well
So... The author of the series, the architect of the setting, says something outright, and you 'disagree'? Got it.
To be fair, when it comes to literary criticism I largely agree with the "Death of the Author" philosophy. We're not really engaging in literary criticism, but trying to suss out how the mechanics of a fictional world work and work from a common baseline. For that purpose, the views of the game designers and author carry quite a bit of weight (they don't have to be adhered to, but that would be a house rule or setting change based on your table).
Potestas seems to read the novels rather differently than I do. He also wants a very different type of game than I do.
I just dont think its clear wizards misusing magic does anything. And you hit it on the head my game is more magic intense .ive postest my disagreements with system and some of my mods and ideas wont repost them...on tablet hard to type
You have however claimed that killing with magic in self defence is ok in the later books, but not supplied an example. I think have a fairly good memory for the kinds of things happening in the books, but I can't recall a single time that a mortal has used mortal magic to kill another mortal, aside from The Blackstaff which is a specific exception, and it's been considered non-tainting.your restating the arguement: I am arguing that the people who are "corrupted" by it are not corrupted by it but were already bad people. In book we have no evidence of any type of progression from good to bad to downright insane evil. JB has never provided that. All we have is the wardens and the WC word that this happens.(and as evidence they show the corrupted person to us and then lop off his head aka korean kid) Since they enofrce the laws that keep them in power of course they and their minions would believe this. Any speciific examples provided have shown people who are evil and nasty and some insane but none of the examples of shown a progress to this directly from magic. This leaves me enough room to A: believe there is more at work then we know (which is my guess as I have stated) and B allows me to allow my games to be run with a looser hand then a vanilla game and still maintain some ties to the series. You may not agree many dont, but the debate is long standing so I am not alone in this belief minority it may be.
Regarding them being mortal laws because Merlin wrote them - that's more along the way of Newtons laws. Merlin codified them into human understanding, and that informs how the Wardens act. The tainting is however more of a natural law.
Basically, mass in movement unaffected by a force will continue that movement whether Newton had written down his laws or not.
Similarly, killing a mortal with magic will taint a mortal killer, whether Merlin wrote down the law or not and whether a Warden comes to chop your head off or not.
your restating the arguement: I am arguing that the people who are "corrupted" by it are not corrupted by it but were already bad people. In book we have no evidence of any type of progression from good to bad to downright insane evil. JB has never provided that. All we have is the wardens and the WC word that this happens.(and as evidence they show the corrupted person to us and then lop off his head aka korean kid) Since they enofrce the laws that keep them in power of course they and their minions would believe this. Any speciific examples provided have shown people who are evil and nasty and some insane but none of the examples of shown a progress to this directly from magic. This leaves me enough room to A: believe there is more at work then we know (which is my guess as I have stated) and B allows me to allow my games to be run with a looser hand then a vanilla game and still maintain some ties to the series. You may not agree many dont, but the debate is long standing so I am not alone in this belief minority it may be.
Molly never got corrupted, HD never got corrupted, EB never got corrupted. They did what they did and did not become monsters. JB shows them struggling with ethical isues but we all struggle with those. If i am forced t o kill someone at somepoint in my life I will struggle with it for along time, but I am not a monster becasue of that one action nor am i predisposed to become a monster. This applies universally including magic. A monster is a person who chooses to go that route. And it wont matter if he weilds a knife or magic. you disagree cool, but i think this is the way the game should be played and I think its a solid interpretation of the books. Until we are shown a direct link of a good person slowly going bad. We dont have that.
JB may be able to do just this in that book hes coming out with...mirror mirror if thats the case then I wont argue that my interpetation of the books is correct as he will have clearly shown in book that it is not. But I will in my series ignore it.
ah and the reason I allow for this is I understand the humans can be the worst kind of monster, they choose it it. A vampire doesn't the fey dont. So I could argue that some humans dont qualify as human in regards to the first law. Marcone would be one of those. He's plain jane, but his soul is corrupted. He kills without remorse, or orders those in his employ to do the same. His actiivties isn't based on right or wrong but how it benefits or harms him. He is a monster. He can be killed outright with magic and the laws wouldnt apply.
I am arguing that the people who are "corrupted" by it are not corrupted by it but were already bad people. In book we have no evidence of any type of progression from good to bad to downright insane evil.Yes we do. Look at
Molly never got corrupted, HD never got corrupted.
You're completely right Mij. We have I believe a WOJ that says black magic does corrupt your soul.
Yes we do. Look at Hannah Asher. She went from the same point Harry was at, killing to protect ones life, to killing more wardens to "protect her life", then to taking up a coin in vengeance against someone . That's a descent into darkness if I've ever seen one.
The first time you ever kill a deer when you're hunting, you freak the fuck out, but every subsequent deer kill makes you less sad, and is therefor easier to do. That's how black magic works. It just makes it a more viable option in your brain. Think about Harry relying on Lash.
Yes to both to some point. Think about how often Harry has had to fight down the urge to use his magic that shape the world to his will. That's the stain of black magic saying "do it". Think about Molly, even though she already knew it was bad, something in her head was whispering "just go into morgans mind and make him stop talking about Harry" All of those are examples of the corruption of Black Magic.
Molly never got corrupted, HD never got corrupted, EB never got corrupted.
Absolutely. What's going to be great about this is seeing how the PCs react and how their attitude to it influences any potential investigation.
I think I'm inclined to rule that renfields are still human, much in the same way a changeling or lycanthrope is human. They're controlled, and physically boosted with magic, but the Wardens would view their death by mortal magic as a violation of the First Law.
So I checked Blood Rites, and(click to show/hide)
Still, I also need to consider that my players do have that black mark against them, and this is a potent display, not only of power, but a willingness to use that power destructively.
I don't think that this counts. The shield didn't kill them, the napalm did, and it was just normal napalm. If a bullet bounces off your shield and kills someone, I don't think it would violate the first law. If I recall, in SK harry douses the chlorofiend in gas and lights it up with a match. This mundane fire burns in in a way that magic fire wouldn't. This may establish that if the source of the fire is mundane then is doesn't count as using "magic". This definitely allows for abuses, but remember that the laws are not about right and wrong.
I just reread the Blood Rites chapter in question.(click to show/hide)
I don't think that's a first law violation. As the napalm was not magic, much less his magic, directly doing the killing.
This is further supported in Skin Game(click to show/hide)
I do agree that the Law doesn't care if you kill in self defense, you get tainted either way.
The White Council might be more lenient about their enforcement of the Law.
(click to show/hide)
As for the actual topic of killing Renfields with magic is okay or not, I'm not sure. Even OW is vague about it. I'm inclined to say that with no mind left for free will, there's nothing for a wizard to further steal from them. So the Law might not taint the wizard, but the White Council might have different opinions, especially if they already have a bad reputation.
The Laws aren't built like that, I'm afraid. We have Word of Jim that pushing a person off a building with magic is still breaking the Law, because your magic is still involved. It's not a matter of 'this spell isn't meant to be lethal'. It's a matter of 'this spell caused someone to die'.(click to show/hide)
They are, but not much. Harry only got around it by having the Blackstaff as his grandfather while Molly got very lucky that the Gatekeeper showed up at her trial.
I could go either way on this myself too, because I see Renfields as being little more than the shattered remains of a human being. That said, Rasmussen still had a soul despite being tortured into insanity by Ursiel, so insanity/mental trauma may not be enough.
So I'd probably adjudicate it based on the type of game being played. If you're going for a less serious adventure where the players kick ass and take names, I'd say no Lawbreaker. If it's a more serious game or one focused on horror, I'd say put it out there as an option. If you're a dick, do it and only tell them afterwards. :P
there in lies the problem intent, if your intent is to cause harm with magic its enough to break the laws whether you end up using magic or to do it directly or indirectly. As with most moral issues intent is a part of the equation. Intent to defend oneself isnt the same as intent to murder. hence no law breaking.
You've got that last bit slighting off. Mortals and Fae, specifically, use the same magic, though with slightly different rules. Vampires use a completely different energy, the same Death Energy that Necromancer's use, though the learned skills translate. We have no idea what more obscure beings like Dragons or Rakshasa might use.(click to show/hide)
What we do know is it FEELS the same to Harry as necromancy, but isn't QUITE the same. Harry's pretty up on necromancy after the Kemmler stuff, but probably doesn't know the precise differences between what vampires do and what a mortal necromancer does.
The Laws aren't built like that, I'm afraid. We have Word of Jim that pushing a person off a building with magic is still breaking the Law, because your magic is still involved. It's not a matter of 'this spell isn't meant to be lethal'. It's a matter of 'this spell caused someone to die'.(click to show/hide)
They are, but not much. Harry only got around it by having the Blackstaff as his grandfather while Molly got very lucky that the Gatekeeper showed up at her trial.
I could go either way on this myself too, because I see Renfields as being little more than the shattered remains of a human being. That said, Rasmussen still had a soul despite being tortured into insanity by Ursiel, so insanity/mental trauma may not be enough.
So I'd probably adjudicate it based on the type of game being played. If you're going for a less serious adventure where the players kick ass and take names, I'd say no Lawbreaker. If it's a more serious game or one focused on horror, I'd say put it out there as an option. If you're a dick, do it and only tell them afterwards. :P