Dark influences on Harry

[KurtinStGeorge]

Not that the killing of Quintas Cassius isn't an interesting topic, but I'd like to get back to the original question. (Personally, I think Harry just did what a Warden would do when taking a prisoner into custody isn't really practical.  I suspect the way he did in Corpsetaker affected him more deeply.)

I think the deal young Harry made with Lea might have stained him a bit.  After all he traded himself for the POWER to take on Justin and win.  Maybe Harry didn't really need Lea's help, maybe she tricked him into making a bad deal, but he made it and it probably had an effect on him.

[Richard_Chilton]

I hope that the stains from the deal with Lea are gone.  They were pretty bad there for a while (his powers were fading) but in the last few books he's gotten his oath obligations back in order.

As for stains for what some people think is a justifiable action - remember that when someone commits "suicide by cop" the cop involved generally has to take some therapy before they can go back to duty.  Killing someone can leave a stain, a dark influence.

Richard

[dimpwnc]

I wonder if summoning demons leaves some sort of black magic stain.  IIRC (but I don't have the book currently), somehow Aurora knew about Harry having called up Chauncy.

[King Ash]

I'm not sure if killing Cassius counts as cold. He was locked up with Thorn Manacles that prevent him from using magic, he is badly wounded and doesn't know that Lasciel can teach him a method to allow him to block off pain, Cassius is being held by Mouse but there is nothing to say he couldn't use some form of magic to kill either himself or Butters (he can afterall use enough time to perform his death curse). What happens if Butters can release his manacles, how long can Mouse hold Cassius immobile before he tries something. I think it could be justified as self defence in this case.

Harry feels guilty about it sure, but Harry isn't really a killer and has before this only killed in the heat of battle, killing Cassius and Corpestaker in these ways was bound to make him feel guilty especially given the presence of a fallen angel he is terrified will make him a monster. Is it enough to stain him, probably, but it is nowhere near as bad as killing Slate and on the other side, certainly not the same as justifying killing Marcone.

[Arjan]

I got the impression Harry killed Cassius because he said he would do so. he had let him go once and he came back.

And indeed. Cassius would alleys be a threat. But Harry soul gazed Marcone and he knows how to work with him or around him. Marcone does not have to be a danger for Harry. From a practical point the cases are quite different.

[King Ash]

I wonder if summoning demons leaves some sort of black magic stain.  IIRC (but I don't have the book currently), somehow Aurora knew about Harry having called up Chauncy.

I would find it extremely likely.

[dimpwnc]

I would find it extremely likely.

Hm...it occurs to me that in Grave Peril, Harry actually explicitly bound Kravos's ghost to his own will, forcing Kravos to only be able to go after Harry rather than any other mortal.  That's probably a violation of the 4th law, and violations of the laws of magic, even with good intentions, probably count as dark influences.

[DragonEyes]

Hm...it occurs to me that in Grave Peril, Harry actually explicitly bound Kravos's ghost to his own will, forcing Kravos to only be able to go after Harry rather than any other mortal.  That's probably a violation of the 4th law, and violations of the laws of magic, even with good intentions, probably count as dark influences.

Do you mean 5th law since it was Kravos's ghost and not a mortal. I'm really fuzzy on the 5th law and why what Harry did in GP doesn't count

[Arjan]

Do you mean 5th law since it was Kravos's ghost and not a mortal. I'm really fuzzy on the 5th law and why what Harry did in GP doesn't count

There isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game 

[dimpwnc]

There isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game 

Actually I was thinking the 4th law, the prohibition against enthrallment.  Apparently even summoning Toot comes close to breaking that one, and Toot doesn't have a soul either.  When Victor Sells summons and binds a demon, according to Harry and Morgan, that also breaks the 4th law.  Demons and fey don't have souls, but it isn't ok to bind them to your will, so I assume the same goes for ghosts.  I could be wrong, though.

...Oh, and 100 posts!...it only took me 3 months or so :/

[DragonEyes]

Actually I was thinking the 4th law, the prohibition against enthrallment.  Apparently even summoning Toot comes close to breaking that one, and Toot doesn't have a soul either.  When Victor Sells summons and binds a demon, according to Harry and Morgan, that also breaks the 4th law.  Demons and fey don't have souls, but it isn't ok to bind them to your will, so I assume the same goes for ghosts.  I could be wrong, though.

Okay. I thought that Harry said the laws only applied to mortals?

There isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game 

That's a tempting answer, but there are still questions. If that's the case, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the Dark Hallow, since they were pretty much all shades, except the humans that would be killed in the process. Do it without loss of life and its okay. Raising an army of undead ghosts is okay as well.

[dimpwnc]

Okay. I thought that Harry said the laws only applied to mortals?

That's a tempting answer, but there are still questions. If that's the case, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the Dark Hallow, since they were pretty much all shades, except the humans that would be killed in the process. Do it without loss of life and its okay. Raising an army of undead ghosts is okay as well.

I think that's just the necromancy thing.  Enthrallment doesn't specify a mortal or a human, and Harry explicitly accuses Victor of breaking it in the 1st book for having summoned and bound the trenchcoatted toad demon. (Morgan also accuses Harry of the same, claiming that it is against the 4th law)
I think he also reiterates the point in book 1, book 4, and book 10, saying how careful he is to imbue the words he uses to call Toot with as little will as possible to avoid breaking the law.

[prince lotore]

I think in killing cassius harry was in the right by all the rules but the fact that harry felt that cassius should die because of the life he led and that harry was the one to pull the trigger is where his guilt comes from

[Jay051684]

No, but he does apparently need a trial when there isn't an immediate danger, otherwise the trial at the beginning of PG makes no sense.

I don't think that "trial" was needed for anything other than to make Harry uncomfortable. I thought Harry even said that.

[DragonEyes]

I don't think that "trial" was needed for anything other than to make Harry uncomfortable. I thought Harry even said that.

I think the trials are mostly a formality because the Warden's testimony is so absolute, but they are still a formality. If a Warden wants to kill a warlock he can say whatever he needs to to be able to do it.