Dude, that quote fits into this whole paradigm for me like a foot in a shoe.
I'm not sure I read it as intended as a reliable statement of a moral absolute in the DV, though.
I mean, it is coming from Harry, and Harry has strong issues with pretty much all forms of authority, and actively rejects any suggestion of being involved in anything that could be described as political - to the extent that it surprises him in DB when it's pointed out how he's seen by other Council members (during the scene of Luccio trying to convince him to become a Warden) and it surprises him when other Wardens are nervous of him in TC. Harry's perpetually willing to use his power for (what seem to him to be) good ends, and perpetually reluctant to actually examine how and when he does so; I don't think Jim means that to be an unquestioned good - from the loa asking him to think about why he does what he does in DM, to the more reflective scenes he has in GS, and instances like realising how taller entities looming over you feels in CD, I am inclined to hope that Harry actually thinking through when and where he is or should be willing to use his power is a direction the
series is going.
Actually the 7 laws kinda do indicate that the mechanism matters.
To an extent. They have some degree of overlap, not by WoJ exact, with uses of wizard-magic that
cause corruption. I'm not seeing that corruption as being treated in the books as definitive of
evil, though; Harry's no less upset about Kim Delaney being killed in non-Lawbreaking ways than about any of the victims of the heartripper spell in SF.
And Harry's "ye shall know them by their fruits" paraphrase helps reinforce that they have the right idea.
Maybe i am misremembering, but I thought that was specifically about results and motives. Not about the point I am trying to get at here, which is means.
Of course my whole point is that it isn't the laws themselves that make it black, but rather that it's black so they made a law against it,
Against which we have, iirc, Luccio in TC on the Laws and the Council being for keeping wizards from being drawn into mortal-world political conflicts and to restrain their power; to my mind that creates reasonable doubt about the
a priori inherent evilness of any use of power they forbid.
It might not be inherently evil, however it is profoundly reality warping. People die, their souls leave their body, the world continues turning... Except when some necromancer comes along and says, newp I don't want it to happen that way, and I'm going to rewrite reality so that this soul is forced to stay within this dead body and have it get revived.
I'm not seeing how that is qualitatively distinct from the ways in which all DV magic is to some extent rewriting reality in accordance with the caster's will.
Perhaps this isn't a bad thing, but it certainly is HUGE, and probably puts significant stress on the necromancer's humanity because they are playing "god" with mortal souls on a level that is disturbing and maybe even dangerous.
More so than, say, any doctor making any difficult medical decision that affects how long someone can stay alive, or prevent them from dying when they otherwise would ?
Which is kinda Harry's point when he rejected her arguments.
Oh, I entirely agree it's Harry's point, I just think the text intends us to question that point.
