ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Mr. Death on June 29, 2017, 08:02:58 PM
-
I'm probably off on this, but I'm as allowed to get in a good WAG as anyone. And I fully expect the same level of scrutiny I show y'all, so bring it on.
Consider the following:
1. Per Word of Jim, effect is as important -- sometimes more important -- than intent when it comes to breaking one of the laws. I.e., if you mean to kill someone with a fireball, but miss, you're impacted less than if you mean to just trip someone with a wind blast and they fall and break their neck.
2. Harry already has Black Magic taint from using magic to kill; possibly not only Justin, but the deaths at Bianca's house.
3. When he cast the Red Court Explode spell, it affected half-vampires.
4. Some of those half-vampires were really old, and their losing their half-vamp-ness caused them to immediately die.
5. Ergo, Harry caused the deaths of humans en masse when he cast that spell.
So, post Cold Days, what are the chances that his sudden murderous tendencies aren't just the Winter Knight mantle -- what if it's also the Black Magic taint from killing dozens of humans with that spell messing with his head?
Discuss, prove me wrong.
-
I'm probably off on this, but I'm as allowed to get in a good WAG as anyone. And I fully expect the same level of scrutiny I show y'all, so bring it on.
Consider the following:
1. Per Word of Jim, effect is as important -- sometimes more important -- than intent when it comes to breaking one of the laws. I.e., if you mean to kill someone with a fireball, but miss, you're impacted less than if you mean to just trip someone with a wind blast and they fall and break their neck.
2. Harry already has Black Magic taint from using magic to kill; possibly not only Justin, but the deaths at Bianca's house.
3. When he cast the Red Court Explode spell, it affected half-vampires.
4. Some of those half-vampires were really old, and their losing their half-vamp-ness caused them to immediately die.
5. Ergo, Harry caused the deaths of humans en masse when he cast that spell.
So, post Cold Days, what are the chances that his sudden murderous tendencies aren't just the Winter Knight mantle -- what if it's also the Black Magic taint from killing dozens of humans with that spell messing with his head?
Discuss, prove me wrong.
I would argue that Point #4 falls into the same category as lethal Wards, where there was not magic specifically targeting a person Mortal with lethal intentions. I think the key mentioned in that WOJ (a recent one not in the index, Im looking) even if there is an eventual death, there was never a specific Choice made to "Kill". He didnt Kill them, he freed them from a magical parasitic force that was trying to consume their Souls; after that Nature took its course (and it's Due), but Id argue that isnt on him.
-
Intent might not matter much, but belief might. Guilt might? And I don't think Harry feels nearly as guilty about killing those people as his murder of Susan. Who wasn't mortal and thus doesn't really count for lawbreaking. But might because of how he feels.
Either way, the murderousness is winter. He describes it in tandem with the lust(which wouldn't be from lawbreaking) too often. I feel like that would be an unpleasant and cheap twist beneath Jim's talent. A gotcha moment.
-
I would buy this argument. Though, I would like to further posit that the murderous urges are the mantle, and his ability to dismiss killing with magic so easily is due to taint. For example, when he kills the guy in the Hunt during the chase scene, and when Harvey dies*. And, for support, I would like to throw in Molly and Harry's conversation in Denny's during Ghost Story. Molly says something along the lines of "It's easy... it shouldn't be so easy..."
*Yes, he gets upset about Harvey, but he shrugs it off pretty easily compared to beginning-of-the-series Harry.
-
I think the key mentioned in that WOJ (a recent one not in the index, Im looking) even if there is an eventual death, there was never a specific Choice made to "Kill". He didnt Kill them, he freed them from a magical parasitic force that was trying to consume their Souls; after that Nature took its course (and it's Due), but Id argue that isnt on him.
That's why I don't really find the "effects matter more than intentions" WOJ sensible. The explanation of warlock soul tainting is that to cast nasty spells, you have to convince yourself it's right, and causing the warping of ethical standards. How can that be sensibly applied to unanticipated collateral damage?
But in terms of the elimination of the Red Court and the subsequent deaths of most of the Fellowship half-turned losing their protection against aging, no, I don't believe Harry could have acquired any warlock taint from that. Why? Because he didn't cast the spell - the Reds' sorcerers did that themselves; he and Susan just hijacked its targeting by giving it her blood instead. It didn't take any act of magic (the Red King tried to send one of his warriors to sacrifice Maggie, and Susan would have stabbed herself but for losing control of her hands during the transformation) at that point.
Now, that's not to say it didn't have fairly hideous moral repercussions anyway - but it didn't inherently change the specific dimension of how Harry interacts with magic in an addictively mind-altering way.
-
I wouldn't call the deaths at Bianca's house due to black magic, it was plain old Harry kaboom fire magic. It isn't even clear that any of them died because of him according to Michael.. They were already drugged by vamp venom and poison, and sucked dry by Bianca's buds.. Though agreed the line between intent, [Harry didn't intend to kill any of the kids on the contrary] effect is just as bad.. Still if Harry had been responsible for their deaths you'd think when they ghost rose up and killed Bianca, that those kids would have gone after Harry.
3. When he cast the Red Court Explode spell, it affected half-vampires.
4. Some of those half-vampires were really old, and their losing their half-vamp-ness caused them to immediately die.
5. Ergo, Harry caused the deaths of humans en masse when he cast that spell.
Did he really? Or was their fates sealed when they were infected years before? You might also say he saved hundreds of the younger half-turns, insuring that the once again lived normal human lives.. So does one balance out the other?
So, post Cold Days, what are the chances that his sudden murderous tendencies aren't just the Winter Knight mantle -- what if it's also the Black Magic taint from killing dozens of humans with that spell messing with his head?
Harry doesn't have murderous tendencies..
I would argue that Point #4 falls into the same category as lethal Wards, where there was not magic specifically targeting a person Mortal with lethal intentions. I think the key mentioned in that WOJ (a recent one not in the index, Im looking) even if there is an eventual death, there was never a specific Choice made to "Kill". He didnt Kill them, he freed them from a magical parasitic force that was trying to consume their Souls; after that Nature took its course (and it's Due), but Id argue that isnt on him.
I agree totally with this..
-
That's why I don't really find the "effects matter more than intentions" WOJ sensible. The explanation of warlock soul tainting is that to cast nasty spells, you have to convince yourself it's right, and causing the warping of ethical standards. How can that be sensibly applied to unanticipated collateral damage?
Was Jim talking about the cosmic effects of black magic in that WoJ, or the Council's legal view? That is, was he saying your soil is more tainted from result than intent, or that the Council is more likely to whack you if you actually kill someone by accident with magic, than if you meant to kill someone with magic and failed?
-
That's why I don't really find the "effects matter more than intentions" WOJ sensible. The explanation of warlock soul tainting is that to cast nasty spells, you have to convince yourself it's right, and causing the warping of ethical standards. How can that be sensibly applied to unanticipated collateral damage?
But in terms of the elimination of the Red Court and the subsequent deaths of most of the Fellowship half-turned losing their protection against aging, no, I don't believe Harry could have acquired any warlock taint from that. Why? Because he didn't cast the spell - the Reds' sorcerers did that themselves; he and Susan just hijacked its targeting by giving it her blood instead.
That's an interesting point. What constitutes 'using' magic? Also, the fact that their deaths weren't directly caused by the magic is important, I suspect.
-
It probably had an effect but he should have shown the signs earlier, not just because he got the Winter Knight Mantle.
-
There's not a lot of time passing for Harry between the spell and Cold Days -- he's shot dead the next morning, then is a ghost. And my view is, it's not happening in a vacuum. Yes, the murder urges are tied in with the lust, but what I'm thinking is the black magic taint is basically reinforcing it.
Fair points about the intent, and in fact the "distance" between the casting itself and Harry might have buffered him from the black magic taint of it more than if, say, he'd been doing the human sacrifices.
-
The thing that is hanging me up more than anything is my side theory for how the Mantle is actually Pushing him. I theorize that the Mantle itself isn't actually infulencing him, at least not directly. I suspect that the mantle (at least when gifted by Mab this time) doesnt bring along it's own personality/consciousness that Harry is trying to fight like a possessing spirit, rather Mab gave a big ol' ball of power to a "spirit" (using the term loosely here) that was already in Harry, specifically Id-Harry, as represented by the Snowflake Badge of Office Id-harry now wears. All the Urges Harry has gotten since becoming Knight fully align with "base desires" that Id-Harry always says he represents.
So, if that is the case, the notion that some of that is coming from Taint, that Id-Harry specifically is being affected by repeated Black Magic use, is both fascinating and a little frightening.
-
That's an interesting point. What constitutes 'using' magic?
In this context, I'd go with the same description of gathering, shaping and releasing energy that Harry described in BR as analogous to loading, aiming and firing a gun. With the malocchio, Lord Raith's helpers were getting the power from the Walker but splitting those three tasks, with the difference in shaping it with intent accounting for why the curse' killings went from comic-book ridiculous when Trixie was running that step to fast and surgically lethal in the hands of the more competent sorceress.
With the heart-ripper curse, all of that was already automated and set up to go as soon as a compatible ritual knife was used to spill a life's blood sacrifice and trigger propagation along the bloodline. Harry's narration didn't talk about manipulating energy at all, just using the knife.
-
There's not a lot of time passing for Harry between the spell and Cold Days -- he's shot dead the next morning, then is a ghost. And my view is, it's not happening in a vacuum. Yes, the murder urges are tied in with the lust, but what I'm thinking is the black magic taint is basically reinforcing it.
Fair points about the intent, and in fact the "distance" between the casting itself and Harry might have buffered him from the black magic taint of it more than if, say, he'd been doing the human sacrifices.
Oh ok.. I thought you were talking about his spell at Bianca's.... As for the Changes spell. No I don't think it would effect him. He didn't do any spell work. What he did any vanilla mortal could have done. It wasn't magic that he cast so I don't see it doing anything to him.
-
The thing that is hanging me up more than anything is my side theory for how the Mantle is actually Pushing him. I theorize that the Mantle itself isn't actually infulencing him, at least not directly. I suspect that the mantle (at least when gifted by Mab this time) doesnt bring along it's own personality/consciousness that Harry is trying to fight like a possessing spirit, rather Mab gave a big ol' ball of power to a "spirit" (using the term loosely here) that was already in Harry, specifically Id-Harry, as represented by the Snowflake Badge of Office Id-harry now wears. All the Urges Harry has gotten since becoming Knight fully align with "base desires" that Id-Harry always says he represents.
So, if that is the case, the notion that some of that is coming from Taint, that Id-Harry specifically is being affected by repeated Black Magic use, is both fascinating and a little frightening.
Objection: we don't officially know what the snowflake pin is symbolizing.
As to the rest, I'd argue that the mantle is actually a construct that is nothing more than an Id, which is also trying to influence Harry in addition to his own.
I don't think Id is tied to the mantle's urges, because Id wouldn't have rapey tendencies, nor would he be quite as brutal-minded about Harry's friends. I can't recall when, but I thought there was a moment or two when Harry considered killing Butters. Id would be more likely to see Butters as Harry's pack or family.
-
Technically the curse did not kill the Demi rcv, it restored their humanity. It is not his fault their natural mortality turned them to dust.
Harry Id and the mantle is all about survival, while black magic useful, he knows it leads to insanity, which is not great for continual survival. If he can focus enough on this, he can hold the temptation to use it at bay.
-
Technically the curse did not kill the Demi rcv, it restored their humanity. It is not his fault their natural mortality turned them to dust.
That's a lot like saying, 'The spell didn't kill him. It just tripped him. It's not his fault there was a ledge right there that they fell off." ANd we know that scenario is a law violation.
Harry Id and the mantle is all about survival, while black magic useful, he knows it leads to insanity, which is not great for continual survival. If he can focus enough on this, he can hold the temptation to use it at bay.
It's not about survival. It's about primal urges. Raping Molly and smashing Murphy's head in wouldn't have helped him survive either, but he was a hair's breadth from doing those because of the Mantle.
-
That's a lot like saying, 'The spell didn't kill him. It just tripped him. It's not his fault there was a ledge right there that they fell off." ANd we know that scenario is a law violation.
Harry didn't infect those people, the Red Court Vamps did.. All Harry was trying to do was save his daughter, which in turn given the nature of the spell that the Red King cast, that Harry merely reversed, saved his own life.. Technically it was all self defense which is allowed under the Laws. The Red King didn't think the consequences of his spell through, he never thought it possible that it could be reversed.. So no, no law violation..
It's not about survival. It's about primal urges. Raping Molly and smashing Murphy's head in wouldn't have helped him survive either, but he was a hair's breadth from doing those because of the Mantle..
But the point is, he didn't act on his urges.. The mantle is about survival, it makes Harry stronger, faster, etc, but it comes with a price, urges on steroids.
-
Harry doesn't have murderous tendencies..
No, there was that SG scene in the car where he was tempted to go out and kill some 'threat to his territory' or whatever.
-
Technically it was all self defense which is allowed under the Laws.
I think Hannah Ascher would have liked that, if it were true.
But so far as I know, it's not.
That said - Harry didn't use magic to kill the red court, he used a knife. Ergo, he should be safe from the black magic taint (but not at all from the general mental degradation associated with having to kill a loved one, which may have made him callous about the death of others such as the hunter in Cold Days).
-
I think Hannah Ascher would have liked that, if it were true.
But so far as I know, it's not.
That said - Harry didn't use magic to kill the red court, he used a knife. Ergo, he should be safe from the black magic taint (but not at all from the general mental degradation associated with having to kill a loved one, which may have made him callous about the death of others such as the hunter in Cold Days).
Point is still he did not set up the spell that killed the Red Court, the Red King did.. A spell he used to attempt to take out Eb and his whole family.
Self defense, is still a defense, it was the defense that saved Harry. The Senior Council didn't believe that so young a kid
could fight a full wizard, a retired Warden no less, in a fair fight and beat him.. Granted Harry had Ed defending him and most likely would have lost his head without him. It is also the reason that Harry was declared a full wizard at sixteen, but because he was under age was sent to live with Eb under the Doom. Oh they also wanted Eb to take him out if need be.
The defense may have worked for Hannah Asher as well if she had an advocate, but she didn't. Also the Senior Council's courts by that time had turned more or less into a kangaroo court as we saw in Proven Guilty.
No, there was that SG scene in the car where he was tempted to go out and kill some 'threat to his territory' or whatever.
Again, that he is defending isn't he? Misguided perhaps, but that isn't a tendency...
-
I think Hannah Ascher would have liked that, if it were true.
But so far as I know, it's not
It's not technically 'allowed' but it's a mitigating factor, which is why Harry is still NBA tall. If Hannah had gone in with the Wardens and plead her case she could have had a suspended sentence like Harry did.
Unfortunately without someone on the Council willing to stick their neck out the chance is about .000000001% of it actually happening, but that's just because the Council are a bunch of asshats that actively discourage any attempts to reform Warlocks- even ones like Harry or Molly that were found early enough they might be salvageable.
-
It's not technically 'allowed' but it's a mitigating factor, which is why Harry is still NBA tall. If Hannah had gone in with the Wardens and plead her case she could have had a suspended sentence like Harry did.
Unfortunately without someone on the Council willing to stick their neck out the chance is about .000000001% of it actually happening, but that's just because the Council are a bunch of asshats that actively discourage any attempts to reform Warlocks- even ones like Harry or Molly that were found early enough they might be salvageable.
Yeah, Hannah Asher had reason for her initial killing, being raped for heaven sake, but she didn't surrender to the Wardens at that time. If she had a good advocate she might have survived under the Doom. Though as stated these days wizards like Harry who'd take up her cause are few and far between. Actually Harry might have gotten the chop if his grandpa hadn't stepped in, and would Harry have stuck his neck out for Molly if she wasn't Michael's kid? So it is understandable that Hannah ran from the Wardens, but at the same time was she ever able to check her slide into warlockhood? It isn't totally clear whether or not at the time of Changes when her friends died when their vamp halves died that she wasn't already a warlock. She was angry enough that Lasciel was able to tempt her so she could gain revenge.
-
Yeah, Hannah Asher had reason for her initial killing, being raped for heaven sake, but she didn't surrender to the Wardens at that time. If she had a good advocate she might have survived under the Doom. Though as stated these days wizards like Harry who'd take up her cause are few and far between. Actually Harry might have gotten the chop if his grandpa hadn't stepped in, and would Harry have stuck his neck out for Molly if she wasn't Michael's kid? So it is understandable that Hannah ran from the Wardens, but at the same time was she ever able to check her slide into warlockhood? It isn't totally clear whether or not at the time of Changes when her friends died when their vamp halves died that she wasn't already a warlock. She was angry enough that Lasciel was able to tempt her so she could gain revenge.
Well, we know the Fellowship was pretty extremist but sane, so I think Hannah must have stuck to mostly sane while there; and Binder, while on the risky side, seems unlikely to throw in with a gibbering madwoman.
So I suspect she controlled her darker impulses pretty well, and if she'd won a reprieve from the Council she'd probably have reformed.
-
Well, we know the Fellowship was pretty extremist but sane, so I think Hannah must have stuck to mostly sane while there; and Binder, while on the risky side, seems unlikely to throw in with a gibbering madwoman.
So I suspect she controlled her darker impulses pretty well, and if she'd won a reprieve from the Council she'd probably have reformed.
Think so, but sadly she didn't even try, and without an advocate, she could very well have lost given Langtry's attitude towards young budding warlocks.
-
If you violate the first law, even in self defense, you still have the taint. This is evidenced by the kid in SF who could see the taint of HWWB on Harry.
Just because the Council recognizes mitigating circumstances, does not mean that the universe will give you a pass.
That being said, Half-Ramps are not human. The fact that Harry "Pulled the trigger" would not have shielded him from the effects had he killed humans. But they were no longer humans at that point. What happened to them after the spell had it's way is of no consequence to the spell caster (which Harry was.) With that Curse, Harry killed Rampires, and Half Rampires. The effects of the spell destroyed the "Rampire taint" if you will.
Killing non-mortals is not against the first law, and Harry has no additional "taint" on him.
That being said, killing a living being, or beings in this case, DOES have an affect.
It's like when I was in college. Those 8:00 am classes were EARLY in the day. I knew that when I signed up for them. I also knew that the first time I missed a class, it was SO much easier to skip a second and a third and a fourth that eventually I might as well just drop the class.
It's the same way with other things, like killing. It gets easier the more you do it. Or it'll drive you nuts.
I believe that the Black Magic taint is separate completely from the WK Mantle.
That being said, feelings are feelings. Whether they come from the WK Mantle, or from an easing of the ability (to kill in this case) doesn't really matter. You have that feeling.
Could the urges that the WK mantle provides be goaded on by Black magic taint? I see no reasons why not. But What it think is more likely is that the WK mantle says Kill, and Harry is more likely to do it because he already has killed, not because a taint is making him do it.
-
If you violate the first law, even in self defense, you still have the taint. This is evidenced by the kid in SF who could see the taint of HWWB on Harry.
That mark on Harry was a scar from contact with the Walker while it was pursuing him, not the later action of killing Justin in combat. Though given the flashback in GS, the Walker seemed to want to set him on a path to go after Justin, so it's a fine distinction.
Yeah, Hannah Asher had reason for her initial killing, being raped for heaven sake, but she didn't surrender to the Wardens at that time. If she had a good advocate she might have survived under the Doom. ... So it is understandable that Hannah ran from the Wardens, but at the same time was she ever able to check her slide into warlockhood? It isn't totally clear whether or not at the time of Changes when her friends died when their vamp halves died that she wasn't already a warlock.
She was a warlock for killing the Wardens who tried to arrest her, at least. But there seems to be variation in how high-functioning warlocks can be. The paradigm is that rationalizing that it's right to do an act of dark magic warps the caster so they're more likely to do the same thing again, right? So someone like Hannah (or Harry himself) who kills in self-defense is changed by that experience, but I think it's specific to responding to future threats with wrath, rather than a general temptation to burn everybody for shits 'n giggles. Harry even recognizes that tendency in himself - among other mentions, one of the significant realizations in Ghost Story is that he's tended to embrace anger when threatened as an alternative to fear, and he can't really do that when he's watching his friends in physical danger but can't intervene himself. He just doesn't connect those temper issues to his initial experience with killing Justin, but I think that's where they originated.
It's a qualitatively different personality change from someone who kills for personal gain, or in anger that's not connected to a direct threat to their own safety (e.g. the young Korean warlock Langtry used as an example). The option of leniency in self defense cases probably exists because there's more of a chance of rehabilitation for those who have become wrathful when genuinely threatened than there is for those who have changed to believe in using their magic to initiate aggression. I don't think it was an accident that Ebenezar kept Harry largely isolated to a safe environment on his farm (aside from the one encounter with teenage bullies in town, where Harry remembers just staring them down because he knew they weren't a real threat - in hindsight, I suspect Eb was treating that as a test).
-
That mark on Harry was a scar from contact with the Walker while it was pursuing him, not the later action of killing Justin in combat. Though given the flashback in GS, the Walker seemed to want to set him on a path to go after Justin, so it's a fine distinction.
Haven't others commented on the Dark Magic mark on Harry. Didn't the spirit that Harry talked to, the on that needed a Body and Harry gave her a cabbage patch doll, say he had dark magic on his spirit?
-
I think the issue here is clearly the WK mantle.
I am personally of the opinion based on WOJ and the narrative so far that the 1st law taint is either complete nonsense or a half truth.
The black staff in particular raises alot of questions regarding the true nature or validity of the 1st law.
I have already mentioned in an another thread how I think the users belief in the magic they create doesnt make a huge amount of logical sense with regards to how killing with magic would somehow taint the user. I wont repost that here, but Ill add something else I thought of.
People who use magic to kill are supposed to be tainted because they believed in the effects of their magic. This is also the explanation for why someone like Molly has totally different talents than Dresden. Etc. Etc. The problem here being that I dont need to "will" a death or believe in it to make it happen. The only time this would presumably happen is if I used some kind of death curse specifically. That is, a spell that kills a specific person and only that. But just like how Wardens use of magic swords and other indirect magic are not considered law violations, I cannot see how any non-death specific magic would be.
If I push you off a cliff with a gust of wind, I dont need to believe in or will your death. I just need to believe in wind. Same with a fireball etc. Especially since it might not kill you. Just like how a bullet will not necessarily kill you.
-
The ritual was aimed at killing him, all he just did was redirect it at his enemy. Destroying their power of his inhuman enemy. Classic white council doctrine. The thing is those rcv were sustaining mortals, so when removed, they aged die.
-
That's a lot like saying, 'The spell didn't kill him. It just tripped him. It's not his fault there was a ledge right there that they fell off."
The Council might actually let you get by with that, depending on the exact situation and who did it.
Remember, when they took down Kemmler, the Council used magic to make him helpless and then whacked him with mundane weapons like swords, nooses, fire, etc. It all depends.
-
She was a warlock for killing the Wardens who tried to arrest her, at least. But there seems to be variation in how high-functioning warlocks can be. The paradigm is that rationalizing that it's right to do an act of dark magic warps the caster so they're more likely to do the same thing again, right? So someone like Hannah (or Harry himself) who kills in self-defense is changed by that experience, but I think it's specific to responding to future threats with wrath, rather than a general temptation to burn everybody for shits 'n giggles. Harry even recognizes that tendency in himself - among other mentions, one of the significant realizations in Ghost Story is that he's tended to embrace anger when threatened as an alternative to fear, and he can't really do that when he's watching his friends in physical danger but can't intervene himself. He just doesn't connect those temper issues to his initial experience with killing Justin, but I think that's where they originated.
It's a qualitatively different personality change from someone who kills for personal gain, or in anger that's not connected to a direct threat to their own safety (e.g. the young Korean warlock Langtry used as an example). The option of leniency in self defense cases probably exists because there's more of a chance of rehabilitation for those who have become wrathful when genuinely threatened than there is for those who have changed to believe in using their magic to initiate aggression. I don't think it was an accident that Ebenezar kept Harry largely isolated to a safe environment on his farm (aside from the one encounter with teenage bullies in town, where Harry remembers just staring them down because he knew they weren't a real threat - in hindsight, I suspect Eb was treating that as a test).
I don't know if leniency is the right word for the Doom, true, it is a second chance, but screw up and both the apprentice and the sponsor get the chop. So just for that fact alone it rarely happens, because so few full wizards believe in the rehab of those who merely made a mistake out of ignorance towards warlockhood.. The only two examples we know of were Eb [his grandson] taking responsibility for Harry, and Harry, for Molly, daughter of his best friend. Also of note, Eb, as Blackstaff, had orders to kill Harry if he stepped out of line, so one wonders if Eb was really expected to take the chop with Harry if he went astray.
I would argue that Hannah in killing Wardens that came to arrest her, did it out of fear, and also ignorance of her right to a trial.. But then again who'd sponsor her? We also don't know how many wizards are of the zealous bent like Morgan was, who flat out didn't believe that rehab was possible. So in essence, Hannah is a very tragic case, killing at first in self defense and anger at being raped, then in fear of the Wardens and the White Council's judgement, it was a slippery slope towards full warlockhood that didn't come from her being evil.. The Korean kid may not have started out evil either, it speaks to the addictive nature of black magic. As seen with Molly, even under the Doom and the consequences not just to her but to Harry as well, she broke the laws because she thought she knew better than the laws.. Or maybe she never fully understood or agreed why the laws were put in place to begin with..
-
If you violate the first law, even in self defense, you still have the taint. This is evidenced by the kid in SF who could see the taint of HWWB on Harry.
Just because the Council recognizes mitigating circumstances, does not mean that the universe will give you a pass.
But the degree varies enormously. For that matter, the universe doesn't necessarily give you a pass for some stuff the Council doesn't forbid.
That being said, Half-Ramps are not human. The fact that Harry "Pulled the trigger" would not have shielded him from the effects had he killed humans.
We don't know that he pulled the trigger. That was a complicated mess and it's not clear who is guilty, in either the eyes of the Council or the universe.
We do know that the half-rampires are human. Humans with a parasite planted irremovably (at least by any known means) within them, but until they cross that line and the parasite displaces them, they are most certainly humans.
-
But the degree varies enormously. For that matter, the universe doesn't necessarily give you a pass for some stuff the Council doesn't forbid.
We don't know that he pulled the trigger. That was a complicated mess and it's not clear who is guilty, in either the eyes of the Council or the universe.
We do know that the half-rampires are human. Humans with a parasite planted irremovably (at least by any known means) within them, but until they cross that line and the parasite displaces them, they are most certainly humans.
Okay, my bad. They are still humans, but they are no longer Mortal, and thus do not fall under the preview of the Laws of Magic.
Now Harry will still have to deal with his guilt over the killing of Susan, but as far as taint is concerned, I believe he's free of it for this act.
-
Okay, my bad. They are still humans, but they are no longer Mortal, and thus do not fall under the preview of the Laws of Magic.
Now Harry will still have to deal with his guilt over the killing of Susan, but as far as taint is concerned, I believe he's free of it for this act.
I dont know about this, I think it's a part that merits further clarification... Bear with me here:
While the legal aspect of the Laws do not necessarily line up with the universal function of them and of the Taint, I think we can rely on them to be based on a certain amount of accumulated Truth. If the killing formerly human monsters with Magic caused the same Taint, I think it would quickly become a common ailment among the Wardens, to the point where the flaw in the Law's enforcement would eventually be corrected. So that's the best I have for in-world evidence.
As for how I personally think it works is that it's another instance of the Intentions winning out over the actual Outcome. I dont think that Morgan or Luccio or really most Wardens would be breaking the Laws to kill a White Court vampire, largely for the reason above. But I fully expect that Harry might in general, and would certainly in the case of a handful of Wampires that he now considers actual People (like Thomas or that girl from Bigfoot on campus). And along those lines I dont think McCoy would need the Blackstaff's protections to kill Thomas, but ONLY so long as he's unaware of Thomas' true lineage.
-
Q - do you think the "taint" is completely separate from the insane driving nature of the guilt of Breaking the Laws?
Meaning, if you kill someone, you should feel some guilt. As Harry has noted, it's been gnawing at him for some time. For some people this will eventually drive them to do insane things.
As opposed to, for instance, the Korean kid. It seemed like his breaking of the law against invading the mind of others drove him deeper into his self-deluded godhood, rather than the guilt of doing bad stuff.
Granted we don't know how long either take to show sings of being nutty, but it seems like the taint works more quickly than the guilt route.
-
Q - do you think the "taint" is completely separate from the insane driving nature of the guilt of Breaking the Laws?
Meaning, if you kill someone, you should feel some guilt. As Harry has noted, it's been gnawing at him for some time. For some people this will eventually drive them to do insane things.
As opposed to, for instance, the Korean kid. It seemed like his breaking of the law against invading the mind of others drove him deeper into his self-deluded godhood, rather than the guilt of doing bad stuff.
Granted we don't know how long either take to show sings of being nutty, but it seems like the taint works more quickly than the guilt route.
Yes indeed, I'd say they are specifically distinct per this WOJ:
Does the blackstaff have any powers that relate to the dead?
Other than making people dead? Really, that's kind of the point [Crowd Laughs] Really but the staff itself what it really does is it keeps Eb sane while he's doing insane things. Lucky him, he gets to deal with a hideously guilty conscious and nightmares later, but that's better than later being like *Muahahahahahahahaha* Which is sort of the other option if your going to go around using magic like that.
-
Okay, my bad. They are still humans, but they are no longer Mortal, and thus do not fall under the preview of the Laws of Magic.
Even that isn't necessarily true. I suspect the Council would say that in general, yeah, it applies, and I'm pretty sure the universe thinks it's killing a human with magic. I think the universe would consider it to apply with White Vampires, too.
But there are a grey areas in play at Chichen Itza. For ex, Harry killed a Red Vampire, with a knife. No violation. The death of that Red Vampire, in that specific place and at that specific time, triggered a magical effect, but Harry didn't set any of it up, didn't charge it, none of his personal magical energy was involved.
So was Harry casting the magic, or did the Red Vampires cast the magic using somebody doing the sacrifice as a component? First Law status unclear in terms of Council legality, unclear in terms of cosmic law.
If Harry was casting the magic in the eyes of the Council and/or the Cosmos, then was it a case of self-defense? Or at least defense of others? A good argument can be so made. The Council acknowledges self-defense exceptions, and the Cosmos seems to consider it am extenuating circumstance, killing with magic in self defense seems to leave less 'taint', less damage, on the person doing it.
Self-defense status: Unclear in both Council and Cosmic terms.
The magic ripped away and destroyed parasites from the humans who were being preserved and sustained by said parasites. Most of those humans then died of old age when the preserving effect was removed. But was this a case of death from magic, or from natural causes long delayed? Council Law status unclear, Cosmic law status unclear.
It's just not clear who was guilty of what or innocent of what in that Charlie Foxtrot.
-
I think the thing to remember is that the Laws of Magic (Council Edition)=/=Laws of Magic(Universe Edition)
Sometimes, the Council will allows things, even though they might taint a person. Sometimes, they might kill you, even if you're in the clear on Magic Corruption.
In the specific case of Harry Nuking the Rampires, I'd say that he's in the clear in terms of corruption- Harry did nothing magical at all, he just killed a Half-Ramp with a knife, in a time and place that triggered someone else's spell. And on top of that, what Harry did didn't kill them- it just took away what had prevented them from aging, causing them to die of natural causes shortly after.
If there was any taint, I'd expect it to land on the hands of the Spellcaster (in this case whichever Rampires performed the ritual) but they're in the clear by virtue of being Rampires anyway.
So magically he's probably fine. Which leaves us with the Council's views on the matter.
Under normal Circumstances they'd very much like to kill him, much like they'd kill a Ritualist that murdered with Magic, even if those are essentially cosmic Bribery used to have a God/Gods kill for you, and arguably don't result in Black Magic taint at all as a result, because the Laws aren't necessarily about avoiding Warlocks, they're about restraining power.
However, Harry in this case has just Cosied up to the biggest bitch in the Prison Yard (Mab) and his stunt has wiped out Public Enemy #1- the Rampires. Which means that it's a bad move to go after him unless you A) have no other Choice and B) Have an Iron-Clad-Case.
So while the Council will give him a pass on this, they're probably quietly sharpening their axes and waiting for the first opportunity to swing.
-
Let's add Wardens to the list while we are at it. What of Morgan? He was the executor for the White Council.. Ordered under the Laws or not, he still killed.. Was he protected from the taint or not? What of those youngsters that were still salvageable, but executed anyway because no one would step up for them? What of Langtry and those who ordered their deaths knowing they were salvageable?
-
RE. the Chitzen Itza stuff.
I strongly suspect that he's in the clear in cosmic terms, and that being the case he's got a strong defense on the legal side. The Human Sacrifices were killed long before by others, and the fact that the Red King was planning to do it himself and still was willing to delegate the final sacrifice to random guards at one point leads me to believe that /that/ part of the ritual requires no personal magic. Though the argument could probably be made that the same is the case for the BR outsider ritual curse, which I expect to Taint (though maybe only because of the particular nature of it's power source?). Had it required a Magical user to trigger, I think he'd be in more trouble; I doubt the transition to Soulessness (the Bar of Humanity Im using) would be instant, and I know Harry views it as a Murder. In much the same way I think Harry would get Taint for killing Thomas, where Carlos likely would not (I think Carlos used Lara's Soulgaze to define Wamps as Monsters to himself).
On the Legal side I think he's firmly in the clear. Not his personal magic used and No Human's were killed. The legal status of Half-Ramps was ambiguous, but all he did was remove what Im sure the council considered a hostile parasite. After that Nature reasserted itself and they lived or died as they were initially intended. It might be different if all Half-ramps died, even the young ones. And Separately, the politics of pushing the Charge make no sense: a)he Won the War, Personally, B)Pushing it in spite of both 'A' and the Reasonably legal defense stated Above would cause unnecessary internal council Strife, and c)Mab.
I think the real thing that will make a difference in Harry's case is his personal views on the events. Harry Loves Magic, and he Loved Susan and he Sacrificed her in a Spell. I doubt he really cares about the metaphysical philosophy, even if it's not the normal mustache-twisting Taint, it still has/had the real chance of tangibly damaging his magic.
Let's add Wardens to the list while we are at it. What of Morgan? He was the executor for the White Council.. Ordered under the Laws or not, he still killed.. Was he protected from the taint or not? What of those youngsters that were still salvageable, but executed anyway because no one would step up for them? What of Langtry and those who ordered their deaths knowing they were salvageable?
I think it's safe to say there was all the normal fallout of guilt and personally felt responsibility would apply (to the limits of each's own personality, anyway), but since none of those example actually involve magic they wouldnt apply to the Taint, specifically. Look to Luccio as an example: Forcing her to Kill was one thing, but he wasnt able to force her to Kill with her /magic/.
That being said, a lot of this conversation is founded on this WOJ that is specifically highlighting the ambiguity of all that (regarding the fine line between killing with magic and capturing with magic to immediately kill with a sword), so it remains possible that there are deeper mechanisms at work here that we've not been shown.
Look at it this way.
The entire council banded together to kill Kemmler.
All the Wardens did, and the Senior Council, and several of the more responsible/combat-capable wizards who weren't either of the former (like Ebenezar, Klaus the Toymaker, and the Germans). But it wasn't literally the entire Council. Plenty of the wizards there have got precious little gift when it comes to actual combat magic--like Ancient Mai. Their strengths simply lie in other areas. Others . . . just aren't suited to it, mentally, and could probably prove to be more of a liability than an asset. Some of them are just plain chicken.
But it was a more sizeable chunk of the Council than had, at that point, ever been all together in one place to take on /one/ guy.
They murdered, with magic.
They broke the laws. Are they all tainted?
Technically, they didn't actually kill him with magic. They rendered him helpless with magic and then found other ways to execute him. (Swords are the usual. For Kemmler, they also used guns, axes, shovels, ropes, a flamethrower, and a number of other extremes.) It's a semantic difference, in some ways, but an important technical distinction in others.
Note also the killing law only applies to Humans.
You can kill as many faeries as you want with magic.
Bingo. It hardly seems fair, does it?
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.
Jim
PS--"sinister" as in "bend sinister" or "bar sinister" is a general term originally meaning "left," and not "evil." However, there's some overlap in traditional magickal terms, with references to the "left hand path" or black magic, and so on. Left handed people were often viewed with suspicion during the middle ages. In Islamic belief, the left hand is considered to be unclean. For that matter, the entire concept of "right" is tied in with the negative connotations to "left."
And I agree. Harry has some sinister leanings. :)
-
Let's add Wardens to the list while we are at it. What of Morgan? He was the executor for the White Council.. Ordered under the Laws or not, he still killed.. Was he protected from the taint or not? What of those youngsters that were still salvageable, but executed anyway because no one would step up for them? What of Langtry and those who ordered their deaths knowing they were salvageable?
Magically, no taint, because they didn't use magic to carry out the executions, they used a sword. You can kill with a gun, a knife, a nuke, your bare hands, a garden weasel, whatever, and there's no First Law issue and no cosmic/magical taint from it.
Morally it's cloudier because the whole issue is morally cloudy.
-
RE. the Chitzen Itza stuff.
I strongly suspect that he's in the clear in cosmic terms, and that being the case he's got a strong defense on the legal side. The Human Sacrifices were killed long before by others, and the fact that the Red King was planning to do it himself and still was willing to delegate the final sacrifice to random guards at one point leads me to believe that /that/ part of the ritual requires no personal magic. Though the argument could probably be made that the same is the case for the BR outsider ritual curse, which I expect to Taint (though maybe only because of the particular nature of it's power source?). Had it required a Magical user to trigger, I think he'd be in more trouble; I doubt the transition to Soulessness (the Bar of Humanity Im using) would be instant, and I know Harry views it as a Murder. In much the same way I think Harry would get Taint for killing Thomas, where Carlos likely would not (I think Carlos used Lara's Soulgaze to define Wamps as Monsters to himself).
Slight disagreement, I don't think it's about your own definitions. Carlos might get less taint than Harry, but what matters ultimately is not what Carlos believes, but what the Cosmos is built around. If White Vampires are objectively human, (as I suspect), there's probably always some taint involved in killing one with magic, regardless of personal beliefs. Though knowingly doing it would almost surely make it worse.
-
I like Thomas too, but I think the universe considers him a monster, so killing him wouldn't leave a magical taint.
-
I like Thomas too, but I think the universe considers him a monster, so killing him wouldn't leave a magical taint.
I dont disagree, but I do think Killing somebody you honestly consider your Own Brother with your Own Magic will bring Taint, almost entirely regardless of what they technically are. Especially since you can literally give the (a piece of) a Soul if you care about them enough (ie the Lash stuff).
-
I dont know about this, I think it's a part that merits further clarification... Bear with me here:
While the legal aspect of the Laws do not necessarily line up with the universal function of them and of the Taint, I think we can rely on them to be based on a certain amount of accumulated Truth. If the killing formerly human monsters with Magic caused the same Taint, I think it would quickly become a common ailment among the Wardens, to the point where the flaw in the Law's enforcement would eventually be corrected. So that's the best I have for in-world evidence.
I would posit that the magic and Harry did NOT kill the half-ramps. It killed the parasite, and the parasite ended up killing the human half because it had integrated itself into the human so thoroughly. It was the parasite half that had essentially killed the human half - rendering it unable to live on its own - not Harry's spell. For the younger half-ramps, they could survive the trauma of losing the ramp half because they were still "alive enough".
-
Magically, no taint, because they didn't use magic to carry out the executions, they used a sword. You can kill with a gun, a knife, a nuke, your bare hands, a garden weasel, whatever, and there's no First Law issue and no cosmic/magical taint from it.
Morally it's cloudier because the whole issue is morally cloudy.
Yeeeeahh.... Skeptically speaking, render someone immobile or helpless with magic so you can kill him/her with a sword, and you are safe from the taint because you didn't do it with magic? So kind of like tossing someone without immunity into a room filled with a deadly virus, if they catch it and die it really didn't have anything to do with you because the catching of the virus was all on the person that caught it..