Harry's use of Black Magic

[Yuillegan]

I am not sure if this has been discussed in it's own thread, so I am going to create this one.

Harry has been accused of killing a mortal with magic from the very first book (his duel with Justin that ended with Justin's death).

Harry also may have killed mortals during his rage moment in Grave Peril ("Fuego, Pyrofuego") as collateral damage. It was never fully investigated therefore it was left alone, but Harry suspects he did kill at least some of the young people.

He uses necromancy to raise Sue, which while apparently is technically fine as it only applies to mortal humans for some odd reason, was still actually necromancy. The rule literally is Thou Shall Not Reach Beyond The Borders Of Life. Nothing about whether human or not. Perhaps there is a whole section interpreting this rule - the same way people manage to find exceptions in the 10 Commandments...

He also skirts the law of enthrallment when binding Toot-toot initially, as apparently it only applies to mortals. Yet still Morgan was prepared to execute him.

Finally, the only other incident I can think of is when he raises the Ghosts in Bianca's house to kill her. Now you might argue he merely attracted them and they were already around, but he actually pours magic into them to make them corporeal to a degree. Sounds like necromancy to me. Definitely only involved humans.

Can you think of any other instances where Harry uses dark magic or any other shady actions?

[morriswalters]

The curse at Chichen Itza. 

[Yuillegan]

As good a one as any - I wonder a ritual, even if he didn't specifically use magic himself will affect him (in terms of black magic taint and madness). I think he pays the price enough that he had to physically murder Susan. Can't get more personal than that. Although admittedly she had just become a vampire, even if he had used magic to kill her he would have been safe from violating the First Law.

Also - raising Chauncy.

[Mira]

As good a one as any - I wonder a ritual, even if he didn't specifically use magic himself will affect him (in terms of black magic taint and madness). I think he pays the price enough that he had to physically murder Susan. Can't get more personal than that. Although admittedly she had just become a vampire, even if he had used magic to kill her he would have been safe from violating the First Law.

Also - raising Chauncy.

    Just the thought, could now being Winter Knight protect him somewhat?  Just as the Black Staff protects Eb?  It is Mother Winter" stick after all.

[Kindler]

    Just the thought, could now being Winter Knight protect him somewhat?  Just as the Black Staff protects Eb?  It is Mother Winter" stick after all.

I think the real question is "If it does start messing with his head, will it be qualitatively different from the way the Winter Knight's Mantle does?" I mean, would Harry even notice if he started getting impulses based on mental domination/death/destruction/sexual assault from using Black Magic? Or would he just be like, "Damn Winter, gettin' in my head again!"

[Mira]

I think the real question is "If it does start messing with his head, will it be qualitatively different from the way the Winter Knight's Mantle does?" I mean, would Harry even notice if he started getting impulses based on mental domination/death/destruction/sexual assault from using Black Magic? Or would he just be like, "Damn Winter, gettin' in my head again!"

   But does it matter how he knows as long as he knows?  If he knows it is in his head, he can fight it as he has all along...  That is also what his friends are for and they have tapped him on the shoulder a time or two about his actions and made him think.

[Bad Alias]

"This Law covers the research and practice of necromancy, described as the summoning, binding, and exploitation of the unwilling dead." https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic#cite_note-DF03ch09-19. Citing Grave Peril, Ch. 9. So the ghosts in Grave Peril weren't unwillingly exploited. The existence of Mort proves there is some distinction between ectomancy and necromancy.

If Thomas is mortal enough to count for Mab, then is killing a WCV with magic a violation? What about a Denarian? What about the "mortal" from the hunt in Cold Days? He also probably killed a few of the people on the barges.

How is raising Chauncey a violation?

[Snark Knight]

If Thomas is mortal enough to count for Mab, then is killing a WCV with magic a violation? What about a Denarian? What about the "mortal" from the hunt in Cold Days? He also probably killed a few of the people on the barges.

Mab explicitly said Thomas was 'mortal enough' because he's in love. He's not a normal BCV.

The human transformed into a hound that he killed in the wild hunt may not count because of being shapeshifted at the time. Harry has never shown any qualms about attempted or actual magical killing of transformed Denarians, like he might be buying himself a death sentence.

[Bad Alias]

The point about Thomas is if he can be mortal, then what's stopping some other wamp from being "mortal enough."

Obviously the shapeshifted mortal doesn't necessarily count. (There is a reason I put a question mark on all these). He might not even have been a mortal in the first place. I know no one has said anything about the Denarians in the books, but my question is why? The mortal half of the Denarian equation is necessary, so he's definitely killing a mortal with magic.

The first law of magic is "thou shall not kill." The implication is "a mortal with magic." The Denarian example proves that one or more of these words is colored with shades of gray. Or he's violating the first law when he kills Denarians.

[segaily]

The point about Thomas is if he can be mortal, then what's stopping some other wamp from being "mortal enough."

Obviously the shapeshifted mortal doesn't necessarily count. (There is a reason I put a question mark on all these). He might not even have been a mortal in the first place. I know no one has said anything about the Denarians in the books, but my question is why? The mortal half of the Denarian equation is necessary, so he's definitely killing a mortal with magic.

The first law of magic is "thou shall not kill." The implication is "a mortal with magic." The Denarian example proves that one or more of these words is colored with shades of gray. Or he's violating the first law when he kills Denarians.

I would say a killing a Denarian directly with his magic would count as black magic.  I can not remember if Harry has actually done that however.  For example he used wind to push a falling Denarian into the Denarian magic barrier.  The magic barrier killed them not directly Harry's wind magic so that would not be black Magic.   

[Bad Alias]

According to Jim, that definitely counts as killing with magic. The exact scenario he uses in the WoJ is pushing someone off a building with a gust of magically generated wind.

[Mira]

I would say a killing a Denarian directly with his magic would count as black magic.  I can not remember if Harry has actually done that however.  For example he used wind to push a falling Denarian into the Denarian magic barrier.  The magic barrier killed them not directly Harry's wind magic so that would not be black Magic.

  I think there is a real gray area here.  Has Harry killed Denarians using his magic? Yes, but in a battle where it is killed or be killed.  Is that really considered killing by using black magic?  He used his magic to bring down a ton of molten rocks on Hannah Asher who was trying to kill him at the time..  He didn't directly kill her with his magic, but her death was the result of it and it was self defense.   

[Bad Alias]

This is basically everything Jim says about violating the laws of magic that I can find on https://wordof.jim-butcher.com/.

The Laws of Magic don’t necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as “magic” behaves.

The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don’t all come from people wearing grey cloaks.

And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.

Which exist.  It’s finding where they start or stop existing that’s the hard part.

But if the substance of the consequences of the act itself does not have its own inherent quality of good or evil, then how can the /intentions/ behind it determine a similar quality?  “Really, I was only trying to provide a better quality of life for my family and my employees.  It wasn’t my intention to destroy that particular species of flower in the rain forest that cures cancer.”  “I was just trying to give those Injuns some blankets.  It wasn’t my intention to expose them to smallpox and wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”  “I just wanted to get that book finished while working two jobs and finishing a brutal semester of grad school.  It wasn’t my intention to screw up the name of Bianca’s personal assistant whose death had motivated her to go all power hungry to get revenge on Harry.”

There’s some old chestnut about good itentions serving as base level gradiant on an expressway that goes somewhere, but I can’t remember the specifics right now.    While I agree that the /intentions/ of the person taking action are not without significance, they carry far less weight than the /consequences/ of that action.

“I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder,” is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation.  You had the weapon.  You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion.  (Or if you DIDN’T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people’s lives, something really no less excuseable.)  But you chose to employ the weapon anyway.  The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.

Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions.  You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn’t like anyone *died* or anything.  He’s fine (at least in the long term), you’re fine, and there are fewer repercussions–regardless of your hideous intentions.

The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn’t something limited to wizards and gods.  Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.

As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well.    There’s something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other.  But it’s going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there’s no sense in ruining the fun.

The WoJ I remember isn't on there, I can't find it on there, or it doesn't exist. It might have been one of those "Jim said this, turns out Jim never said that" things that do come up on here a lot.

[Mira]

   Seems to me what Harry does follows very closely with what the WOJ says..

[g33k]

... He used his magic to bring down a ton of molten rocks on Hannah Asher who was trying to kill him at the time..  He didn't directly kill her with his magic, but her death was the result of it and it was self defense. 

Technically, it was Hannah's deadly magic; Harry was just redirecting it away from himself.

I'm not sure how much that technicality counts, but it's something.  Maybe.

Also, I'm quite sure the Wardens don't feel they have jurisdiction over the inside of Hades' vault.  Whether there's some megalomaniacal black-magic-y cackling madness inching closer because of Harry's action... I guess that remains to be seen.