Author Topic: Wards and the First Law  (Read 11159 times)

Offline Drachasor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #60 on: January 28, 2011, 08:29:23 PM »
He was still acting instinctively, without thinking.  (btw, the only way I'd let a player get away with that defense is if they blurted out what they were doing without hesitation, during a very intense scene with build-up to a climax.)

Players aren't characters.  If a player has to spend a bit of thought to realize his character would do something without thinking, I'm alright with that.  In any case, acting without thinking doesn't mean you can break the laws of magic.  If a burgler attacks you and you incinerate them without considering it because you didn't have time, then that doesn't mean it is ok as far as the Laws of Magic go.  (This isn't an ethical evaluation, btw).

I would think that Harry would have Lawbreaker (2) for killing a second time, mechanically.  (Although Harry and Billy would probably argue that a game gets to break down events into neat little boxes, whereas real life tends to be untidy, messy, and with occasional conundrums.  Then Bob would chime in with 'I'm all in favor of occasional condoms, if Harry actually needed them.')

Like Sinker said, you have to break it 3 times to get a second stack.  "Trouble comes in threes" I think is the comment on that under Lawbreaker.

Then there was the failed assault on Bianca's house afterward where Harry called up and empowered the ghosts of the dead to kill her (and am I the only one who's wondering why he doesn't have Lawbreaker(fifth) now?).

Ghosts aren't people or their souls.  They are afterimages of them, echoes as the book said.  All Harry did was amplify the echo.  That doesn't cross the border between life and death.  (Zombies are somehow an exception here.  It isn't very clear how they violate the border, imho.  Sure, making a corpse move around is unseemly, but it doesn't seem like it is reaching beyond the border of life and death.  The books don't seem to explain it very well either).

Offline Peteman

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #61 on: January 28, 2011, 11:08:16 PM »
Ghosts aren't people or their souls.  They are afterimages of them, echoes as the book said.  All Harry did was amplify the echo.  That doesn't cross the border between life and death.  (Zombies are somehow an exception here.  It isn't very clear how they violate the border, imho.  Sure, making a corpse move around is unseemly, but it doesn't seem like it is reaching beyond the border of life and death.  The books don't seem to explain it very well either).

My guess is that it likely involves someone using the body as a connection to the soul (the whole sympathetic magic thing), while the ghost is something that has detached and has no real connection anymore.

Offline jadecourtflunky

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • "You are cattle" "Moo" (blows head off)
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2011, 12:13:18 AM »
Like you said, a ghost is an echo of a person, but for zombies, you are literally bringing someone back to life. They still have their minds, but they are near-destroyed and only instinct remains (the need for the heartbeat).

Offline jybil178

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2011, 12:16:00 AM »
Well, very interesting thread so far.. Enjoyed reading into it, and admittedly,  was painful to read at other times.. I just wanted to basically add another little thing thats been on my mind..  But before I go into it, I'm just going to clarify a few things, that I'll be mentioning.

First, when I say ward, I mean the basic ward described in the core book.  A basic, souped up block spell, that bounces back all force directed at it.  It doesn't go into any elements or flavors, it is simply a magically reinforced threshold.

Second, when I say landmine, I'm refering to the traps set into a ward, when it is either breached, or under heavy duress.  These are the fireballs, sleep spells, and general extra defenses of a ward.

Now, I'm normally for the heavy interpretation of law-breaking.  It is not something that the wardens call you into court for, and slap onto you because you did something bad. It is a true, spiritual stain that is left on your soul, whenever your magic is used to break one of the laws.  It is something that doesn't require your intent to effect you, nor will your noble actions protect you from it.  When you use magic, and it breaks one of the laws, it becomes black magic, and it will leave a stain on your soul, whether you realize it or not.

Now, the thing is, is whenever I first read the thread, I immediately began thinking on the Archangel fortress, before its fall.  ((btw, i haven't read past Small Favor yet, just to let you know))  It was stated that it was one of the greatest fortresses of mortal making every designed.  And I'm not going to get into how its magical defenses where layered, prepared or anything like that.  I'm just imagining to myself, a certain set of events.  One doesn't really make a fortress to sit and look pretty in.  They make it to protect themselves and their interests.  Now the thing is, is they also don't make it, if they have no enemies.  So, I would assume the Archangel would have come under assault under many occasions, from many different enemies.  And, I would assume that the basic wards where among the most powerful ever crafted.  Therefore, I would guess, that a decent number of would-be besiegers, many of which were probably fellow wizards, warlocks and or sorcerers, would have quite easily died at the hands of their own failed attempts to breach said wards.  I mean, regardless of all the supernatural enemies out in the dresdenverse, or in any other supernatural setting, humanities own greatest enemy, will be others of it's own race.  Simple as that.. So.. One would assume that the leader of the Archangel (whose name escapes me at the moment) would have technically fell very easily into lawbreaker status at one point, or another, in time...

Now, as I said before, I do believe strongly in a more stern interpretation of the laws.  I won't be too much of a hard-ass on them to my players, but the point I'm making is this... I would normally consider the death of another by my own wards, regardless of whether the force that killed them was their own or mine, would be a breach of the first law of magic.  But... with the idea of the Archangel and other magical fortresses in place, and the idea of how many people could have died upon them.. I really can't say for certain..  This, to me then, would have to fall under a very greyish kind of area in the law, something I really don't like to say... Whats for certain, is it DOES go into a very hard to pin down area on the law.  So, in all honesty, I'd probably, in my own game, rule any death-by-ward on a case by case basis... Now, if the death isn't caused by the ward itself, but a landmine placed into the ward, well... That is a far easier matter in my own mind, and in the rules.. So... This is what I thought when I looked at the thread... Anyone who doesn't go TLDR, go ahead and give me your own input.. I'd like to see what other's think of, and how they may expand upon my own line of thinking...
my 2 cents

Offline Drachasor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2011, 12:27:03 AM »
Like you said, a ghost is an echo of a person, but for zombies, you are literally bringing someone back to life. They still have their minds, but they are near-destroyed and only instinct remains (the need for the heartbeat).

Zombies in the books don't seem to be bringing someone back to life.  Overall they don't seem to have much intelligence (and remember constructs have intelligence).  I think we can come up with a lot of ways a zombie MIGHT be breaking the 5th law, but my point was that the books (novels or RPG) don't really clarify how they do this.

Offline Drachasor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2011, 12:30:13 AM »
Now, as I said before, I do believe strongly in a more stern interpretation of the laws.  I won't be too much of a hard-ass on them to my players, but the point I'm making is this... I would normally consider the death of another by my own wards, regardless of whether the force that killed them was their own or mine, would be a breach of the first law of magic.  But... with the idea of the Archangel and other magical fortresses in place, and the idea of how many people could have died upon them.. I really can't say for certain..  This, to me then, would have to fall under a very greyish kind of area in the law, something I really don't like to say... Whats for certain, is it DOES go into a very hard to pin down area on the law.  So, in all honesty, I'd probably, in my own game, rule any death-by-ward on a case by case basis... Now, if the death isn't caused by the ward itself, but a landmine placed into the ward, well... That is a far easier matter in my own mind, and in the rules.. So... This is what I thought when I looked at the thread... Anyone who doesn't go TLDR, go ahead and give me your own input.. I'd like to see what other's think of, and how they may expand upon my own line of thinking...

That's why, imho, I think if the warder took good precautions to make sure no human would be killed by them accidentally, then they are ok.  Same way if someone makes a wall of fire and a human decides to commit suicide by jumping into it, then the caster didn't break a law.  If you make your wards so easily fired off that someone can unknowingly get themselves killed, then if it kills someone you should be treated as a lawbreaker.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2011, 01:33:28 AM »
Zombies in the books don't seem to be bringing someone back to life.  Overall they don't seem to have much intelligence (and remember constructs have intelligence).  I think we can come up with a lot of ways a zombie MIGHT be breaking the 5th law, but my point was that the books (novels or RPG) don't really clarify how they do this.

They do state in the books why zombies are against the fifth law. Because you are actually bringing someone back to life. That's why they need a heart beat.

Now, the thing is, is whenever I first read the thread, I immediately began thinking on the Archangel fortress, before its fall.  ((btw, i haven't read past Small Favor yet, just to let you know))  It was stated that it was one of the greatest fortresses of mortal making every designed.  And I'm not going to get into how its magical defenses where layered, prepared or anything like that.  I'm just imagining to myself, a certain set of events.  One doesn't really make a fortress to sit and look pretty in.  They make it to protect themselves and their interests.  Now the thing is, is they also don't make it, if they have no enemies.  So, I would assume the Archangel would have come under assault under many occasions, from many different enemies.  And, I would assume that the basic wards where among the most powerful ever crafted.  Therefore, I would guess, that a decent number of would-be besiegers, many of which were probably fellow wizards, warlocks and or sorcerers, would have quite easily died at the hands of their own failed attempts to breach said wards.  I mean, regardless of all the supernatural enemies out in the dresdenverse, or in any other supernatural setting, humanities own greatest enemy, will be others of it's own race.  Simple as that.. So.. One would assume that the leader of the Archangel (whose name escapes me at the moment) would have technically fell very easily into lawbreaker status at one point, or another, in time...

As for Archangel I can think of one possibility but it involves post Death Masks spoilers.
(click to show/hide)
Seems a little paranoid to me, but the white council has been around for a long time so I wouldn't put it past em.

Offline Drachasor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2011, 02:20:09 AM »
They do state in the books why zombies are against the fifth law. Because you are actually bringing someone back to life. That's why they need a heart beat.

There's a distinction between the mechanical processes of a being (e.g. the heart beating) and metaphysical processes.  It isn't like zombies are actually alive....it's a simulated state and as described in the books doesn't seem much different from attaching some strings to the corpse to make it do what you want it to.  The books don't present a clear argument for how ghosts are ok, but zombies aren't.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2011, 02:30:53 AM »
Yes but there is no reason for constructs to need a heartbeat. The reason zombies need a heartbeat is because they were once living and need that to simulate a state of life.

Offline Drachasor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Wards and the First Law
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2011, 02:56:12 AM »
Yes but there is no reason for constructs to need a heartbeat. The reason zombies need a heartbeat is because they were once living and need that to simulate a state of life.

Aye, but if we took a human corpse and animated it using minimalistic robotics (including a heart and so forth)...it would be disgusting perhaps but not necromancy.  The description in the books doesn't sound like necromancy anymore than healing a bullet wound or implementing a magic pacemaker would be necromancy (since wizards can't use a technological pacemaker, we'll assume they needed the magic version because of an extreme consequence).