ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: cetra02 on July 17, 2010, 03:43:28 AM
-
If a wizard made a magical gun for a friend that put elemental effects on the rounds, like say the fire effect makes incendiary rounds, and the friend kills a mortal with it in a gun fight, does this violate the First Law?
-
oh goodness, this one resulted in a huge argument a month or so ago. I might try to dig to find that thread, but generally, yes, magic with intent to kill + resulting in a kill is lawbreaking.
-
I didn't read the thread in question. I only pop in to read the first few threads.
But...
You could always try sidestepping that. Get something that isn't bound by the laws of the white council to make the gun. Come up with a design, then get something like a troll-smith (but can manipulate iron) to make the final weapon. The white council doesn't appear to bother with the knights of the cross, who clearly wield magical weapons to kill people (tongueless cultists... among other things).
-
You don't get lawbreaker from killing with a warden sword. So why do you get it from shooting them with a gun?
-
Probably because warden swords have only a questionably magical killing ability. Their primary use is the spell breaking. The secondary power of being weapon 6 for one attack, which is closer to a mortal stunt than a magical effect on the sword.
(YS 152)
Killer Blow: Add 3 damage to the damage of a fists attack on a successful hit, once per scene, for a fate point. This stacks with any other damage-increasing stunts for Fists.
Sounds more like what the swords are rocking, could just be an outrageously finely crafted sword and warden training that gives it the weapon 6.
-
My first post, so please, be gentle...
Having taken a quick read through of the forum, this post struck me so I thought I'd toss my $0.02 in.
The first thing which came to my mind, is that a "magic" gun which can give fired rounds an elemental effect is a bit over the top uber-powerful. Secondly, such an item would pretty much be a First Law breaker, at least in human hands.
For starters, a decision would need to be made as to how such a gun would "work". Does the weapon actually enchant the round fired? Or does it just replace any round shot with an elemental effect? Given the various problems with allowing a "magic" item to enchant other items, I would expect that it would be more reasonable to allow the "gun" just shot elemental effects instead of bullets.
This would make the gun not unlike Harry's various force rings, the lethal use of which upon another human being is a clear First Law violation. Additionally, the force rings are quite limited in terms of usage, both in the books and the RPG.
So, at present to get a "gun" which fires an elemental effect of strength 2 (standard pistol is Weapon:2) able to be used once per session, it would require the following:
a minimum Lore of Average (+1)
an enchanted item slot
either Ritual or Thaumaturgy: with the Crafting-Strength specialization
Now, if the "gun" is to supposed to be able to be used by others, then the creator needs to either have an additional rank in Lore (min of Fair +2), or a Refinement of +1 to the Crafting-Strength specialization, or an additional enchanted item slot is required. Similar requirements exist for the "gun" to have greater strength/power
If additional per session uses of the "gun" are desired, then a combination of additional ranks in Lore, enchanted item slots, or Crafting-Frequency Refinements are required.
Having the "gun" be able to use additional elements beyond the first one would also require additional enchanted item slots, one for each additional element desired.
In terms of someone from the Nevernever that might be able to fashion such an item, a svartalf likely could, even with using iron. It would just be costly.
Lastly, a Knight of the Cross does not kill human mortals with magic, even using a Sword of the Cross. If a Sword was used to kill a human mortal, it is still a sword, magic is not required for it to deliver a killing strike. A Sword of the Cross itself is not really so much an enchanted item as it is an Item of Power, being in essence a Focus Item for the power (Faith) of the wielder, and/or acting as a focus for the Faith of people in the world. Not unlike what made the theft of the Shroud of Turin such a concern. It was less important whether or not the Shroud was "real", the fact that so many people believed it was/is "real" and for such a long time, potentially made the relic a focus/source of power.
-
Lastly, a Knight of the Cross does not kill human mortals with magic, even using a Sword of the Cross. If a Sword was used to kill a human mortal, it is still a sword, magic is not required for it to deliver a killing strike.
Yes, but you don't need magical effects to kill someone with a gun either. In trained hands, a .22 is deadly.
-
If you use the gun to fire a .22 that kills the Mortal target it is ok (As far as Firt Law is concerned). If you use the gun to fire an elemental effect and kill the said mortal, then you just broke the first law.
The Law is very clear on that.
Now the grey area: IF the gun puts a fire effect on the bullet like making a W:1 bullet into W:2 effect with flaming bullet then I would say it is still a Lawbreaker. Because it is still using magic to kill.
On the other hand, IF the magic effect made targets armor 1 less like some kind of penetration aid, not really connected to what happens to the guy, then I would say it isn't a lawbreaker... And sic someone like Morgan on you.
-
Consider that there's something inherently nasty about putting bits of your soul into enchanted bullets, which I would say would be Potions for the purpose of mechanics, because they are made for killing. Unless you're making non-lethals, like Sunlight in a Shell or Cupid's Lust Bullets.
-
Of course, if someone else actually did the killing I don't think the metaphysical Lawbreaker would happen, though the crafter might still get charged with Lawbreaking.
-
If you use the gun to fire a .22 that kills the Mortal target it is ok (As far as Firt Law is concerned). If you use the gun to fire an elemental effect and kill the said mortal, then you just broke the first law.
The Law is very clear on that.
Now the grey area: IF the gun puts a fire effect on the bullet like making a W:1 bullet into W:2 effect with flaming bullet then I would say it is still a Lawbreaker. Because it is still using magic to kill.
On the other hand, IF the magic effect made targets armor 1 less like some kind of penetration aid, not really connected to what happens to the guy, then I would say it isn't a lawbreaker... And sic someone like Morgan on you.
We had actually discussed using aspects instead of elemental damage, slow down for earth, confusion for air ect.
-
Those would be rote's for different spells using "the" gun as a focus.
If you are looking at similar but pre-prepared methods, try looking up the alchemist discussions on the board.
-
Those would be rote's for different spells using "the" gun as a focus.
If you are looking at similar but pre-prepared methods, try looking up the alchemist discussions on the board.
Or bullet shaped potions.
-
In general, I don't think using enchanted items or potions can earn you the Lawbreaker power.
Based on my reading of the novels, a wizard cannot cast any spell that they don't truly believe to be Right. If they cast a spell that breaks a Law, they MUST believe that breaking the Law is the Right thing to do... and that mentality is what earns Lawbreaker. Harry believed he was Right to kill Justin with magic, and Molly believed she was Right to invade and alter the minds of her friends. Casting a spell to kill a vampire that misses and ends up accidentally killing an innocent bystander will not earn you Lawbreaker, IMO. Similarly, just attempting to enthrall someone with magic, regardless of whether you succeed or not, would earn you Lawbreaker, since you truly Believed that enthralling another mortal was Right.
This does not mean that the White Council won't have you executed as a warlock anyway, provided that they become aware of it.
Along the same lines, use of an enchanted item does not require the wielder to believe it is Right, especially if that item is usable by others. IMO, that's how love potions get around the fourth law (margins comments aside). Harry could blast a mortal with his rings and probably get away without increasing his Lawbreaker, but he simply chooses not to.
NOTE: I do not assert that my POV is backed up by the rulebook (it isn't), but I do feel like I am being consistent with the source material nonetheless. Not everyone will agree with my POV, of course, but that is to be expected.
-
I think as long as a game is consistent in it's approach to the laws of magic, it doesn't really matter how you interprer them. They are plot devices rather than game rules in my opinion.
To my mind, I prefer games where any mortal magic that breaks a law can result in a lawbreaker stunt, including crafted items and accidents. Non-mortal magic isn't subject to the laws, but a warden may still lop the casters head off if they aren't protected by the accords.
-
Non-mortal magic isn't subject to the laws, but a warden may still lop the casters head off if they aren't protected by the accords.
I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires. After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?
So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer. However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First). Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case. All my opinion, of course.
-
I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires. After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?
So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer. However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First). Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case. All my opinion, of course.
I don't buy it. Being evil to other evil people is par for the course. Being inhuman does not make similarly inhuman people sympathetic in your eyes.
-
oh goodness, this one resulted in a huge argument a month or so ago. I might try to dig to find that thread, but generally, yes, magic with intent to kill + resulting in a kill is lawbreaking.
In SK harry won't hit the assassins that show up in the beginning with his force ring because it would break the 1st law. He states this out and out.
NOTE: that harry's ring isn't a focus. Its a magic item. It stores energy from simply moving around on his arm. It simply releases that energy up to a certain capacity (it can flip a car over so its pretty tough). Thats a magic item that presumably he could enchant for anyones use. The balance for mortals with magic is that you CANT KILL people with it without consequences. Thats a pretty hard and fast rule.
-
I was considering this the other day, and I think that Lawbreaker is just as applicable to vampires... provided that they are breaking the Laws in regards to other vampires. After all, a mortal gets a pass on the Laws if he or she breaks them in regards to an animal, a vampire, or some other monster, so why wouldn't a vampire get a pass for the vice versa?
So, if Arianna used her sorcery to kill a mortal, it wouldn't be any different than if Harry used his magic to kill a deer. However, if Arianna used her magic against Thomas or Mavra (or at least another Red), a fellow vampire, it would earn her Lawbreaker (First). Fortunately for her, there are no Wardens of the Red Court, so no one would come to cut off her head in any case. All my opinion, of course.
The Laws of Magic are strictly applicable to mortal casters, they were (per the novels) originally created by the (original) Merlin who founded the White Council. The intent behind the Laws of Magic is to restrict/control the negative impact magic can have upon spellcasters and their potential mortal targets. Now, if ones group felt it appropriate to have a metaphysical impact for creatures other than mortal who do something similar to what would be a mortal violating one of the Laws... On the other hand though, no one should be playing an immortal character, as they lack free will. And that is what is at the heart of the Laws of Magic, the actions which violate them end up twisting the nature of the person who violated the Laws, and with enough violations, a person can become so twisted as to no longer have free will, instead how they respond becomes completely dependent on their twisted nature. Given that supernatural/immortal creatures already act depending on their nature instead of with free will, it does not make sense for them to become (further) twisted by how they might use magic.
-
And that is what is at the heart of the Laws of Magic, the actions which violate them end up twisting the nature of the person who violated the Laws, and with enough violations, a person can become so twisted as to no longer have free will, instead how they respond becomes completely dependent on their twisted nature. Given that supernatural/immortal creatures already act depending on their nature instead of with free will, it does not make sense for them to become (further) twisted by how they might use magic.
Totally this! As to Merlin creating the laws, I'll just add that the laws were in response to the lawbreaker effect rather than the cause of the lawbreaker effect.
-
So how many Lawbreakers does Luccio have? The intent of the sword are to kill, no? The magical enhancements on the swords are supposed to enable the user to kill, are they not?
-
1. They aren't taking up her enchanted item slots, she's somehow managed to disown them.
2. The swords are designed so that they can kill without magic, that's one of the reasons they are given to wardens.
3. They are plot devices.
-
The rpg books reference that there's a lot of hair-splitting and grey areas in the Laws; especially the 1st. But, in the system and books, there is a difference between using magic to kill someone and using a magical implement to kill someone (i.e. a Warden's sword).
So, enhancing a sword so that it bypasses protections (but doesn't do any additional damage); acceptable. Flaming sword with fire damage? 1st Law violation.
Gun with magical relaoding capability? (Why?) Acceptable. Bullets with enhanced damaged; 1st Law violation. Magical targetting/balance; grey area.
Now, a gun designed ONLY to shoot non-mortal targets? Perfectly acceptable.
-
So how many Lawbreakers does Luccio have? The intent of the sword are to kill, no? The magical enhancements on the swords are supposed to enable the user to kill, are they not?
Uh...they're swords. Debatably, using the Weapon: 6 power to kill would cause Lawbreaker for the person who did it (I tend to think it wouldn't, but that's an argument for elsewhere), using the normal sword to kill wouldn't cause Lawbreaker any more than any other sword. I mean, why would it?
-
I believe it was mentioned at some point that the Wardens use the swords specifically to avoid breaking the first law, but I don't know if it was Mr Butcher who stated it or one of the game designers. It's definitely a sticky rules interaction question. How can we request an official opinion?
-
How can we request an official opinion?
Send a white court vampire to Jim's house with instructions to use her mind mojo to get Jim to post whatever you want the rule to be.
-
I'm pretty sure we have the official opinion, in the form of Jim not counting the wardens as lawbreakers, in the form of Harry not wanting to kill people with force rings, and in the form of the rulebook that talks about the laws of magic. Everything else is interpretation squabbles, which I doubt will be settled no matter what the developers or Jim says on the matter. Someone will always find room for loopholes, and what seems common sense to some will be disagreed on by others so that nothing can be solved without getting a ruling on each and every minor variation on the same theme.
-
I'm pretty sure we have the official opinion, in the form of Jim not counting the wardens as lawbreakers, in the form of Harry not wanting to kill people with force rings, and in the form of the rulebook that talks about the laws of magic. Everything else is interpretation squabbles, which I doubt will be settled no matter what the developers or Jim says on the matter. Someone will always find room for loopholes, and what seems common sense to some will be disagreed on by others so that nothing can be solved without getting a ruling on each and every minor variation on the same theme.
I generally agree, that people are likely to keep picking at the issue due to differing interpretations for every minute variation. Two things come to mind though. The first is that with the Laws of Magic, it is not so much the letter of the law which is important, but the spirit of the law (unlike the Unseelei Accords, where there is no spirit to the accords, just the letter). The other important issue is that for a First Law violation to occur, a mortal needs to kill another mortal with magic. How often would a Warden actually bother using the Weapon: 6 power of their Warden Sword against another human being? I would expect that sort of power to be kept in reserve for times when the Warden is fighting a tough supernatural beastie that they have to get up close and personal with them for some reason. When possible I would expect that Wardens would use normal/conventional weaponry if they needed to fight/kill other mortals.
And I tend to agree, though the books have not stated this as fact yet, that the original Merlin created the Laws of Magic as a response to the potential effect the now prohibited actions had. Not necessarily the effect had upon the violator, but on people/mortals in general. While I can imagine that a 7th Law violation could have pretty extreme consequences for the violator (nevermind possibly becoming a Warden snicker-snack) but what impact would there be if the Outer Gates were breached or thrown open completely?
-
Totally this! As to Merlin creating the laws, I'll just add that the laws were in response to the lawbreaker effect rather than the cause of the lawbreaker effect.
Unless Merlin was powerful enough to change the nature of mortal magic, that is.
...I doubt it, but it's a possibility.
-
I generally agree, that people are likely to keep picking at the issue due to differing interpretations for every minute variation. Two things come to mind though. The first is that with the Laws of Magic, it is not so much the letter of the law which is important, but the spirit of the law (unlike the Unseelei Accords, where there is no spirit to the accords, just the letter). The other important issue is that for a First Law violation to occur, a mortal needs to kill another mortal with magic. How often would a Warden actually bother using the Weapon: 6 power of their Warden Sword against another human being? I would expect that sort of power to be kept in reserve for times when the Warden is fighting a tough supernatural beastie that they have to get up close and personal with them for some reason. When possible I would expect that Wardens would use normal/conventional weaponry if they needed to fight/kill other mortals.
And I tend to agree, though the books have not stated this as fact yet, that the original Merlin created the Laws of Magic as a response to the potential effect the now prohibited actions had. Not necessarily the effect had upon the violator, but on people/mortals in general. While I can imagine that a 7th Law violation could have pretty extreme consequences for the violator (nevermind possibly becoming a Warden snicker-snack) but what impact would there be if the Outer Gates were breached or thrown open completely?
Ramirez used it on grevane. Chopped his head clean off with one stroke without knocking his head off. That means he sheared through his flesh bone muscle and tendons like it was nothing. Which doesn't happen in real life (especially with a willow sword like ramirez uses. it lacks the cutting power of a katana or a kilij that could realistically take someones head off in one stroke) ergo it must be DV magic.
If the outer gates get open the outsiders come back. that would be Bad.
-
I favor the Laws of Magic being a response to a metaphysical reality. Whether or not the White Council says killing a mortal with magic is wrong, there are consequences for doing so; internal consequences to the soul of the caster, regardless of any external penalty. (Which is why in our group, we focus on intent as being crucial to the Lawbreaker penalty, although reckless disregard for the safety of others counts too.)