Dresden Files: WW2 edition.

[Mr. Death]

It's only a violation of the First Law if you directly kill them with magic.

[Theonlyspiral]

Well...in terms of getting law breaker. Depending on the Warden they might argue that what you did is pushing it. Look at Morgan going after Dresden in Storm Front. All it would take is one zealous Warden for you to loose your head.

And I'm not sure they'd even be wrong.

[fantazero]

It's hard to argue if you have no head.

I've always wanted to make a Warden Character who was a Lawyer.
So he'd argue what the councils interruption of X, Y, and Z means, and thats why you SHOULD have your head cut off
Think Evil Lawful

[Theonlyspiral]

It's hard to argue if you have no head.

I've always wanted to make a Warden Character who was a Lawyer.
So he'd argue what the councils interruption of X, Y, and Z means, and thats why you SHOULD have your head cut off
Think Evil Lawful

It's LN if it's the letter of the Law. Now if he were exploiting the Laws for his own gain, then he'd be LE. And of course if the person deserves it, and they are dangerous, it's LG.

[fantazero]

It's LN if it's the letter of the Law. Now if he were exploiting the Laws for his own gain, then he'd be LE. And of course if the person deserves it, and they are dangerous, it's LG.

True enough.
Or it can be all of the above (and thus why I hate D&D alignments and shouldn't have mentioned them)

You're a Warden, your family was killed by someone using magic to summon something that would kill them. Someone evil is doing the same thing now.
SO it's Lawful Good because you're using the Law to do good, It's Lawful neutral because it's the Law, and it's lawful evil because you're doing it for personal reasons.
AHHHH! D&D!

[Deadmanwalking]

It's only a violation of the First Law if you directly kill them with magic.

There's a fair amount of textual evidence that actually binding creatures and ordering them to kill also counts. Hence Morgan in Storm Front.

Gas chambers, however, do not.

On the other hand, barring violating the Laws, individual White Council members have no restrictions on their behavior...so blowing up Nazis with improvised explosives planted while Veiled is fine. So is slitting the commander's throat with a dagger after knocking him out with a purely physical sleep spell. And none of it will piss off the Council in the least. The Laws exist at least partially to keep Wizards from interfering with mortal governments and organizations too much...but there's no Law against interference per se.

[Mr. Death]

There's a fair amount of textual evidence that actually binding creatures and ordering them to kill also counts. Hence Morgan in Storm Front.

Different law. Morgan was accusing Harry of breaking the law against enthralling someone, not the first law.

[Deadmanwalking]

Different law. Morgan was accusing Harry of breaking the law against enthralling someone, not the first law.

No, actually. Morgan suggested he was breaking the 4th Law with Toot-toot (and was shot down by Harry on like three grounds) and then later the 1st Law with Kalshazzak assuming Harry summoned it...and Harry appeared to agree with Morgan on the second being a valid interpretation if he had indeed summoned a demon to kill somebody.

So, different example than you're thinking of.

There's also a fair amount of evidence it works that way in Proven Guilty.

[Richard_Chilton]

For a totally off the wall look at WWII, checkout a TV show called Danger 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_5).  Parts of it (including episode 0) are on Youtube.  The show is inspired by 60s style pulp and takes it to an extreme level.

There's even a bit of black magic in one episode.

Richard

[Mr. Death]

No, actually. Morgan suggested he was breaking the 4th Law with Toot-toot (and was shot down by Harry on like three grounds) and then later the 1st Law with Kalshazzak assuming Harry summoned it...and Harry appeared to agree with Morgan on the second being a valid interpretation if he had indeed summoned a demon to kill somebody.

I just reread the section where Morgan finds Harry after he dispatches the demon, and nowhere does Morgan mention the First Law. He does assume Harry summoned it, but he doesn't call it a First Law violation. All he says is that he knew it was black magic.

[fantazero]

In the RPG book don't they basically say if you summon a Demon and it kills a human you're boned?

[Mr. Death]

Oh you're certainly in trouble, yeah. I'm just saying it's not a violation of the first law.

[fantazero]

Oh you're certainly in trouble, yeah. I'm just saying it's not a violation of the first law.

hmmm, if I was a Warden, I'd cut your head off for it, I mean who's going to argue with me?

[Mrmdubois]

hmmm, if I was a Warden, I'd cut your head off for it, I mean who's going to argue with me?

This, even if it falls in 1st Law grey territory.  You're stepping so close that the more paranoid Wardens would say it was near enough as to make no difference.

[Deadmanwalking]

I just reread the section where Morgan finds Harry after he dispatches the demon, and nowhere does Morgan mention the First Law. He does assume Harry summoned it, but he doesn't call it a First Law violation. All he says is that he knew it was black magic.

Check Harry's discussions with Sells (where he outright calls summoning a demon to kill Lawbreaking) or Proven guilty when he thinks the Fetches are being summoned. It's clearly Lawbreaking.