Current tally:
Any other votes?
I think the leading option is a bad idea, but Im feeling too tired to make any further arguments right now.
-
-
-
[X] It's not means to circumvent the Laws. It's means against the corruption brought by breaking the Laws. Murder is murder, no matter if done with a bullet or a fireball. Rape is rape, no matter if done with drugs or mind altering magic. All should be punished accordingly. But if this allows more leeway in punishment? If at least one in ten of those who kill in self-defense will be spared the sword? If just one more law-breaker feels genuine regret? It's worth it.
-
-
[X] Maybe... maybe you're right, this might take too long to roll out
-
-
[X] Harry, I believe in the Ten Commandments, I've also killed people, the Knights of the Cross kill people when they have no other choice, what you are describing is a hurdle ot cross, not a reason to never set off on the road, not when it could save lives
-
-
-[X] "Emotions aside", you pause, taking a breath, both to calm down and to punctuate the change in your argument, "this doesn't make Law violations easier, or force the Council to change their policies at all. If anything, such a separation would make it harder for people to turn into full-on mad cackling warlocks. It just removes one victim from the equation."
-
-
[X] Passenger Pigeon Incarna Plan Go!
-
-
[X] If the flaw is not wrongdoing, but the perception of wrongdoing, then the solution is the adjustment of how it is perceived.
-
Any other votes?
I think the leading option is a bad idea, but Im feeling too tired to make any further arguments right now.