Fistful of Warlocks -- Law Notes

[groinkick]

Come to think of it, if Wardens were allowed to kill Warlocks with magic, that might explain the sort of fanaticism we see from Morgan. Remember that the root of the First Law is that when you use magic for something, you believe that usage was right and correct. So if, say, Morgan uses magic to kill a Warlock, he believes more and more that killing Warlocks is correct -- and moreover, that he is right and righteous in deciding who is a Warlock and who isn't, and thus who deserves to die.

I mean, take the word "warlock" out of that last sentence and it's word-for-word the justification for the First Law's existence.

I disagree with this because Morgan was fanatical about upholding the laws of magic.  Even though he believed with every fiber of his being that Harry was guilty, he still did not kill him.  I'd say Morgan was probably just about as strong in his belief about upholding the laws as Michael was in his Faith. 

Also when killing with magic it isn't just your belief that makes it easier.  The wizard is twisting the creative forces of the universe, and that abomination of creation goes through the wizards being.  Harry used his magic in self defense, but in Storm Front he nearly gave in to his desires to kill, and not in self defense, but for power. 

"I prepared to destroy the lake house, the Shadowman, and any of the pathetic underlings he had with him.  With such power, I could cast my defiance at the Council itself, the gathering of white-bearded old fools without foresight, without imagination, without vision.  The Council, and that pathetic watchdog, Morgan, had no idea of the true depths of my strength.  The energy was all there, gleeful within my anger, ready to reach out and reduce to ashes all that I hated and feared."

Now this could have been from using his Sight on the home of Sells, I don't know.  He didn't mention it causing his feelings.

Come to think of it that gives me an idea...  new thread!

[huangjimmy108]

Most of our information about the interpretation of the laws comes from Morgan and Harry and both of them have very strict interpretations usually. Lucio's interpretations seem to be slightly more flexible as she showed when she did not act when Molly looked into Harry's brain for meddling in Small favor. She was also not that hung up about Sue either.

It is quite possible that different schools of law interpretation exist(ed) in the white council. They are a conservative bunch but also a group with far more traditions than rules. Different senior council members might have had different opinions.

There is also that clause of "Self defense". The same clause EB use to bail teenage Harry out of the white council beheading after Harry kill Du'Morn.

Killing a warlock using magic can be considered "self defense""

A warlock is extremely dangerous. Maybe dangerous enough that using magic directly to kill them can be deemed as "Self defense"

I personally won't bother with Luccio's thought too much too much. As long as she only thought about it and does not actually do it, the point is mute. Besides, Harry also burned down Bianca's home and probably a bunch of vanilla along with it and even though Lafortier make insinuations out of it during book 4, the council as a whole does not really take any real action.

This is probably one of those grey areas of the law. The kind of thing you can get away with as long as:

1. you don't do this kind of thing very often.
2. You have a plausible deniability and
3. You have enough clout and status.

[vultur]

. The laws are deceptively simple but the first law won't bring you that far if you do not know what human is and that also has a grey area. And whatever that definition may be the white council does not look at souls. Probably because that is not practical, they are difficult to handle.

Not in a moral sense, but the Council does have Soulgazes, which tell you whether a creature has a mortal soul or not. (For example, Harry sees that Tera doesn't in FM since he can stare into her eyes without a Soulgaze happening).

The Council therefore must know that Whampires have mortal souls. Carlos Soulgazed Lara in WN, so he absolutely knows. Yet he's OK with killing Whampires with magic.

So a mortal soul alone doesn't automatically make a being "First Law applicable". Thus, it doesn't seem that bizarre to suggest that at one time necromancers (who draw on a power source other than normal mortal magic) weren't "First Law applicable".

[Arjan]

Not in a moral sense, but the Council does have Soulgazes, which tell you whether a creature has a mortal soul or not. (For example, Harry sees that Tera doesn't in FM since he can stare into her eyes without a Soulgaze happening).

The Council therefore must know that Whampires have mortal souls. Carlos Soulgazed Lara in WN, so he absolutely knows. Yet he's OK with killing Whampires with magic.

So a mortal soul alone doesn't automatically make a being "First Law applicable". Thus, it doesn't seem that bizarre to suggest that at one time necromancers (who draw on a power source other than normal mortal magic) weren't "First Law applicable".

It is also not practical. How do you determine if someone had a soul after he is dead? Far easier to have broad categories of beings you can lump into one category or another.

[jonas]

There's a reason on the White Council Wardens are Garbed in Grey Robes(WOJ!), this is that, they are meant to straddle the line out of necessity.

[groinkick]

There's a reason on the White Council Wardens are Garbed in Grey Robes(WOJ!), this is that, they are meant to straddle the line out of necessity.

Well that could mean they use lethal magic...  It could also be because they kill people (without magic, use sword).  That is the biggest part of being a warden...  Intimidating people from using black magic, capturing warlocks for the purpose of execution, killing warlocks, fighting wars...  Not a whole lot of charity work going on as a warden lol

I mean there is hardly a reason for the Blackstaff if wardens are allowed to violate the first rule of magic whenever they come up against a warlock.  There is also no real reason for swords if again they can just kill the warlock with magic.

[Fcrate]

There is also that clause of "Self defense". The same clause EB use to bail teenage Harry out of the white council beheading after Harry kill Du'Morn.

Killing a warlock using magic can be considered "self defense""

A warlock is extremely dangerous. Maybe dangerous enough that using magic directly to kill them can be deemed as "Self defense"

I personally won't bother with Luccio's thought too much too much. As long as she only thought about it and does not actually do it, the point is mute. Besides, Harry also burned down Bianca's home and probably a bunch of vanilla along with it and even though Lafortier make insinuations out of it during book 4, the council as a whole does not really take any real action.

This is probably one of those grey areas of the law. The kind of thing you can get away with as long as:

1. you don't do this kind of thing very often.
2. You have a plausible deniability and
3. You have enough clout and status.

That's a solid argument, I agree with you there.
So Luccio couldn't throw the first punch and roast the warlocks alive, but once the fight started, as there's no reasonable way she could incapacitate 4 warlocks by herself in a direct confrontation; going for the kill seems only sensible, and -more importantly- justifiable.