i don't think you can "get away with" breaking the 1st law in any way shape or form.Contract Hit - You summon a creature from the Nevernever (or, more accurately, provide a gateway for said creature). You bargain with the creature to have it kill someone, and offer to pay it with some sort of magical service. However, the actual contract is not imposed by magic, and the killing is not done via the caster's magic. You caused the death, but you didn't cause it via magic - it's a mundane bargain that just happens to have used magic to get the other party present for bargaining, and pays for the killing by providing a magical service at a future date.
Contract Hit - You summon a creature from the Nevernever (or, more accurately, provide a gateway for said creature). You bargain with the creature to have it kill someone, and offer to pay it with some sort of magical service. However, the actual contract is not imposed by magic, and the killing is not done via the caster's magic. You caused the death, but you didn't cause it via magic - it's a mundane bargain that just happens to have used magic to get the other party present for bargaining, and pays for the killing by providing a magical service at a future date.
Things get a bit dicey if the deal is enforced by a magical contract, as that ties magic into the actual killing. But a mundane deal should be fine (even if the deal gives an opening for the creature should it be broken, the same way faeries have power over you when you break a deal with them).
Considering that Binder from Turn Coat routinely gets away with having his bound Grey Men kill people without earning Lawbreaker or even the Wardens' Sword, I'd say that this is needlessly complicated.
Jaxom Faux: I would argue that it is the intent behind the magic that determines if you stain your soul or not. Consider the scenario:
The wizard Q creates a huge weather effect that goes out of control and causes the deaths of a couple of people.
If the guy was acting like a brainless jock and this is the result then it is a lawbreaker.
If the guy was acting out of desperation to take out some monsters (like a flock of harpies or clearing the cloud cover to burn some blamps) and he passes out from backlash (and looses the control), I wouldn't assign lawbreaker to him. Sure he would get in serious trouble with the White Council but thats a different matter.
If you are intention is to kill with magic or magic created effect or if you act irresponsibly (juvenile etc) then it is a lawbreaker. If you are only holding the guy so you can stab him then it is not. If you were trying your hardest and you couldn't hold it together cousing colleteral damage it isn't (it is sure to be a negative aspect change however)
Contract Hit - You summon a creature from the Nevernever (or, more accurately, provide a gateway for said creature). You bargain with the creature to have it kill someone, and offer to pay it with some sort of magical service. However, the actual contract is not imposed by magic, and the killing is not done via the caster's magic. You caused the death, but you didn't cause it via magic - it's a mundane bargain that just happens to have used magic to get the other party present for bargaining, and pays for the killing by providing a magical service at a future date.
Things get a bit dicey if the deal is enforced by a magical contract, as that ties magic into the actual killing. But a mundane deal should be fine (even if the deal gives an opening for the creature should it be broken, the same way faeries have power over you when you break a deal with them).
1. the council doesn't care about intentions, if you were using magic and it results in someones death, you broke the law. period.
2. holding a guy to kill him? lawbreaker, your magic is abetting your murder.
3.(click to show/hide)
i think the wardens would argue using magic to summon up the creature to make the deal in the first place (consorting with demons/blah/blah) would be more than enough to get you on their "kill him" list.
I think it bears mention that for discussion purposes, I'm interested in what avoids the stain on the soul...not what avoids the warden's blade.
#1: The problem here is that Butcher set up the world with a Creator. With the first law your trying to break his basic rule, "Thou shalt not kill" without consequences.
#4: Any enthrallment is a stain, this one is clear. You can't make someone do anything, even love potions without negative effects.
#6 I don't think the 6th stains the soul at all
This is only assuming the Judeo-Christian Creator, which is not necessarily the case.
No, the love potion was explained as grey.And that's exactly what we are talking about grey areas. Sometimes the Laws might be overly strict, others they might actually be to lenient. IMO love potions would be that too lenient area. They stain slightly but the council can't really condemn every high school girl who makes one, they don't have enough time on their hands. Then the question becomes how effective the potion is anyway? Who can test every case to see if the boy fell in love on his own or some girl actually managed to create a potion?
According to the rules it does.
All the Laws could really be filed under one word.
Hubris.
Every Law ultimately deals with the idea of a wizard assuming authority over a matter given solely to Higher Powers.
From another perspective, the Laws simply represent metaphysical reality as currently understood by the White Council. It may not be entirely correct, but it works. (Imagine a Law as being similar to, say the law of Gravity in the mundane world. Now, imagine the Council's understanding of gravity being equivalent to, say, classical Greek thinking. You don't need calculus and Newton to know that falling off a cliff is going to hurt, and the higher the cliff, the bigger the hurt.)
#1. The Wardens 'circumvent' this one routinely. You can't kill...with magic. But nothing prevents you from rendering a person helpless with magic, and then killing them. A Warden uses a Veil to sneak into a warehouse and lies in wait for a warlock. Warlock enters, warden hits him from behind with sword, fini. There are endless variations of the above. There doesn't seem to be any way you can directly kill someone with magic and avoid the Lawbreaker stunt; but a creative magical type can find all sorts of ways to use magic to get to their target and then kill them.I think the wardens use magic to debuff the warlock (do blocks on spellcasting). And since most crazy evil guys think magic solves all problems, they don't carry guns, swords (maybe knives), or practice karate.
#1: The problem here is that Butcher set up the world with a Creator. With the first law your trying to break his basic rule, "Thou shalt not kill" without consequences. I don't think you can. I'd argue that even when the Wardens kill with a sword it stains their soul, just not in the same way as with magic. The White Council can stop people from killing with magic but not killing without it so they only care about the former, that doesn't mean the latter is any better. Talk to you local religious figure about how you can kill someone and yet not be responsible.
#2: A properly researched, well thought out ritual to transform a person which takes into account all the consequences for storing their soul/mind/personality and allowing them to transform back at their will probably doesn't stain the soul. Spend a few decades doing the research on that one.
#3: The problem here is "invade". There has been a lot of discussion that if the invasion is voluntary then it might be ok, or if its just looking around. Yea sure, some of those particularly the looking into a voluntary subject might not stain the soul. But its too tempting to do a little tweak while in there, or look at secrets the person has. While in someones head can you resist the temptation to see what they really think of you? Probably not and if you do you just crossed the invasion line. The Council has determined that even defensive mind magic seems to be too close to breaking this law so they don't even teach anything beyond the basics. That seems a bit too far but its so the temptation never exists. To break this one I'd say it has to be 100% voluntary, no coercion, no threats, not even a you need to prove you innocent type of thing, and then only looking and only looking at the specific info they allow. Well if you meet all whose conditions there really isn't a reason to look is there?
#4: Any enthrallment is a stain, this one is clear. You can't make someone do anything, even love potions without negative effects.
#5: The stain only seems to apply to crossing the borders for things with souls. Sue was an abomination, but not a killable offense. Raising an army of zombie bunnies seems to at least tolerated. Again this comes back to the Creator issue. He won't like you bringing back the dead, what Koumari does will noble probably violated the Creator/Universes rules about that.
#6 I don't think the 6th stains the soul at all, its just such a bad idea to go back in time that it has to be stopped. To many actions messing with the past lead to breaking the "thou shalt not kill rule", even if you don't use magic beyond the time travel part. Changing history means someone out there died who didn't before and you were the cause. You could probably go back, veiled, levitating and incorporeal leaving no trace and record events without causing a stain but extreme precautions would need to be taken not to influence anything. Precautions which are probably so difficult as to be impossible.
#7 The 7th has a lot of leeway. Research that never contacts an outsider probably doesn't hurt at all, its just that those who start to research write it down and other people pick up that work with bad consequences.
Dealing with one is just a road to corruption.
I think "outsider knowledge" is a lot like Jon Doe citizen seeing Top Secret CIA stuff (in this case the CIA are the "outsiders"). It is okay to know the CIA exists, it isn't okay to know what they know.
Actually the 7th doesnt' have any leeway. Knowledge about the outsiders is strictly forbidden. IN any capacity. Technically harry is breaking the 7th law simply by knowing HWWB's name.
I think "outsider knowledge" is a lot like Jon Doe citizen seeing Top Secret CIA stuff (in this case the CIA are the "outsiders"). It is okay to know the CIA exists, it isn't okay to know what they know.
And HWWB isn't actually its name. It is more of its "name you want facebook to display." Sort of like how the CIA is also referred to as "The Company" or "The Agency."
The rule about Outsiders is more that "Don't try to summon them to gain knowledge since your magic probably won't work! They'll step right through your circle and eat your face, then your neighbor's face, then that cute girl down the street's face... Don't do it!"
I don't recall wardens directly immobilizing or imprisoning anyone with magic during execution. They might cut off their spellcasting, but they're bound and hooded by completely mundane means otherwise.
Actually the 7th doesnt' have any leeway. Knowledge about the outsiders is strictly forbidden. IN any capacity. Technically harry is breaking the 7th law simply by knowing HWWB's name.
This thread is dedicated to trying to determine how one can accomplish certain results that would otherwise be possible only through violation of one of the seven Laws of Magic, without actually "staining" your soul.
Did you read the first post?
Knowing HWWB would in no way stain you but could be a violation. The 7ths has lots of leeway you can learn a lot of things about the Outsiders that would get you killed by the Council but wouldn't stain you.