Hypothetical First Law/Second Law Problem

[Tallyrand]

Ok, so here's a hypothetical and I'm curious as to what people think.

Say that you have a human that was magically transformed into a dog against their will and is now for all intents and purposes a dog (no human mind remaining).  If a Wizard kills that dog with magic would he gain the Law Breaker power?

Does it matter if the Wizard knows or suspects the dog was once human?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

To me, that depends: is it dramatically appropriate for that to happen in your story?

I mean, really, the laws don't (and probably never will) cover this sort of thing, but that's because they are story devices more than anything else. I had a player recently violate the second law and take lawbreaker in a game, but it was for a tremendously awesome narrative that the group decided would be a lot of fun.

Really, I never could imagine a law being broken completely by accident. You may not have meant for those people to die in the fire, but you still lit the building to begin with. The notion of catching a player off guard with lawbreaking would never sit well with me. It sounds like those horrible DMs who surprise paladin players with their character falling without any warning beforehand.

Anyway, I realize that your post was a philosophical one, but I don't know that it can be easily answered to begin with.

[sinker]

Ooh, that's a good question. I like it.

My first instinct is to say that it's a first law violation simply because it's been implied that someone may be able to be rehabilitated if they are transformed back quickly (hasn't it?). That would mean that that person is still a person, even if he's gone crazy or is severely messed up.

Of course if you haven't sufficiently given the wizard the idea that the dog is a human, then you get into "Surprise your character's dead" territory. Although why the wizard would kill the dog I have no idea.

[sjksprocket]

I'd say to answer that question you have to decide whether or not the dog has a soul. If the answerer is no, then no. If the answer is yes, whether that soul is human or canine, then I'd say yes. You still destroyed a soul. IMO the first law would cover that. But interesting point. I hadn't thought about that before,

[Tallyrand]

My first instinct is to say that it's a first law violation simply because it's been implied that someone may be able to be rehabilitated if they are transformed back quickly (hasn't it?). That would mean that that person is still a person, even if he's gone crazy or is severely messed up.

That's interesting, because I always had the impression that if someones mind is lost in transformation it's good for good, that in fact transformation is actually a more permanent demise of the mind that even death in the Dresden files.

[Becq]

The Lawbreaker would go to the one who cast the transformation magic, I'd say.  These laws focus on seperating the mortal mind/spirit from the mortal body, and that had already been done by the transformation.  If there was no mind left, then presumeably the soul would have departed with it, and no Law was broken.

That said, the Wardens might have a different take on the matter.  If, for example, the Dog Formerly Known As Human was someone important, and the mind and soul had been stored in the hopes of reuniting them with the body in some restorative ritual ... well, they might take offense to destroying the chance to repair the damage done, and might have their own interpretation as to whether or not the Law had been broken.

Note, by the way, that if you alter the situation a bit, there *could* be the problem you are talking about.  For example, if a Wizard had shapechanged himself into a dog (but was still quite definitely a human underneath the shape of the dog), then someone who killed him would still be breaking the First Law.

[Tallyrand]

I'd say to answer that question you have to decide whether or not the dog has a soul. If the answerer is no, then no. If the answer is yes, whether that soul is human or canine, then I'd say yes. You still destroyed a soul. IMO the first law would cover that. But interesting point. I hadn't thought about that before,

I'm not sure I would get into the whole soul discussion, but I'm curious does this mean that if in your world all mammals have souls then even killing a chipmunk or a rat with magic would inflict Law Breaker?

[Tallyrand]

Note, by the way, that if you alter the situation a bit, there *could* be the problem you are talking about.  For example, if a Wizard had shapechanged himself into a dog (but was still quite definitely a human underneath the shape of the dog), then someone who killed him would still be breaking the First Law.

Oh, I don't think this is in question at all, although if someone disagrees I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Brand]

Although why the wizard would kill the dog I have no idea.

Maybe the dog kept making messes on the wizard's lawn and it finally became too much. 

Seriously, though, it really depends on the GM and players since this seems to be one of those situations that falls into the grayer areas of the Laws.  I probably wouldn't say it deserves Lawbreaker since such transformation in the Dresdenverse fundamentally alters the target, so I wouldn't consider such a dog to still be human.

YMMV

[sjksprocket]

I'm not sure I would get into the whole soul discussion, but I'm curious does this mean that if in your world all mammals have souls then even killing a chipmunk or a rat with magic would inflict Law Breaker?

I Don't know. I'm flip flopping on the answer my self. I see points both ways.

[Moriden]

I would say you've got a couple of different sceneries

1] The persons mind is permanently gone. the transforming character gets lawbreaker, the killing character does not.

2] the persons mind is not yet completely gone. Both get lawbreaker.

3] The persons mind is permanently gone, the pc tries to turn him back. The one who first changed him gets
lawbreaker, the one turning him back does not but will probably mess it up as biomancy is hard.

4]  the persons mind is not yet completely gone, the pc tries to turn him back. The one who first changed him gets
lawbreaker, the one turning him back also gets lawbreaker.

[Tbora]

I Don't know. I'm flip flopping on the answer my self. I see points both ways.

The question with Lawbreakers is "is it human" its why you can transform or resurrect animals without getting a Lawbreaker. Giving it for killing even something comparatively intelligent like a dolphin or a whale makes no sense, atleast if your sticking to the setting.

[sjksprocket]

The question with Lawbreakers is "is it human" its why you can transform or resurrect animals without getting a Lawbreaker. Giving it for killing even something comparatively intelligent like a dolphin or a whale makes no sense, atleast if your sticking to the setting.

Yea I guess so. It still makes my head hurt.

[Tallyrand]

The question with Lawbreakers is "is it human" its why you can transform or resurrect animals without getting a Lawbreaker. Giving it for killing even something comparatively intelligent like a dolphin or a whale makes no sense, atleast if your sticking to the setting.

Actually you bring up an interesting point here.  The books do ask the question 'Is it human?' but I think that that is to distinguish from Monster as opposed to Animal.  I don't know how to do spoiler tags but in Death Masks there is an indication that Law Breaking is a problem when dealing with things of the animal kingdom at least in certain circumstances.

[riplikash]

Typically I'd say no. Changing a person is described as being so total you might as well call it murder. The mind is gone, the soul is distorted, they ARE a dog, not a transformed person.

As has been brought up, you could certainly make more elaborate scenarios where the mind/soul was in tact, but if you start doing that your just defeating the point of the discussion.