Law Breaking Vs Black Magic [Spoilers for everything]

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

As to the distinction you make in (B) necromancy certainly seems to be a distinct subset of the "Thalt not X vs a mortal" parts of the 7 Laws.  I do think that the set of tools I have crafted in this topic to analyze the effects of Black Magic manage to handle the differences nicely though, and I have already commented how the text Count was so good to quote for us seems to support that approach nicely.
Of course you already established that you dismiss that quote's pertinence.

I didn't mean my post here to read hostile or dismissive of your effort and I apologise if it came across that way.

Reading those two quotes again, though, the one from chapter 29 of DB seems to admit of more than one possible interpretation, and to my mind, "I've seen the fruits of that kind of path"  followed by a bunch of examples of murder, suffering and misery skews towards Harry objecting to paths involving murder, suffering and misery rather than using necromancy specifically - I'd cite the main plot of FM as an example of a road paved in the corpses of innocents to what the people involved believed was a greater good, which Harry has previously encountered, that had nothing to do with necromancy.  On the other hand, I am at a loss for a way of reading "It had been used to preserve life, just as the magic I knew could be used either to protect or to destroy." compatible with regarding necromancy as an inherently corruptive force.

[Tami Seven]

I didn't mean my post here to read hostile or dismissive of your effort and I apologise if it came across that way.

Reading those two quotes again, though, the one from chapter 29 of DB seems to admit of more than one possible interpretation, and to my mind, "I've seen the fruits of that kind of path"  followed by a bunch of examples of murder, suffering and misery skews towards Harry objecting to paths involving murder, suffering and misery rather than using necromancy specifically - I'd cite the main plot of FM as an example of a road paved in the corpses of innocents to what the people involved believed was a greater good, which Harry has previously encountered, that had nothing to do with necromancy.  On the other hand, I am at a loss for a way of reading "It had been used to preserve life, just as the magic I knew could be used either to protect or to destroy." compatible with regarding necromancy as an inherently corruptive force.

All magic has the potential to corrupt, though some  (like Necromancy) more so than others. How it is used, and by whom is just as important as the type of magic. However, certain magic (again like Necromancy), feeds into a need to kill people. Which is why it is far more corrupting than most other magic.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

All magic has the potential to corrupt, though some  (like Necromancy) more so than others. How it is used, and by whom is just as important as the type of magic. However, certain magic (again like Necromancy), feeds into a need to kill people. Which is why it is far more corrupting than most other magic.

Both of those characterisations of necromancy as a force. as opposed to necromancy used for crimes against humans are ones I am seeing no support for in the text.

[Serack]

I didn't mean my post here to read hostile or dismissive of your effort and I apologise if it came across that way.

Thanks neuro.  I tend to get a bit defensive when wrangling with you, and your saying that helps a lot.  (I actually dialed the conclusion of my response way back from what I had originally written up)

Reading those two quotes again, though, the one from chapter 29 of DB seems to admit of more than one possible interpretation, and to my mind, "I've seen the fruits of that kind of path"  followed by a bunch of examples of murder, suffering and misery skews towards Harry objecting to paths involving murder, suffering and misery rather than using necromancy specifically - I'd cite the main plot of FM as an example of a road paved in the corpses of innocents to what the people involved believed was a greater good, which Harry has previously encountered, that had nothing to do with necromancy.  On the other hand, I am at a loss for a way of reading "It had been used to preserve life, just as the magic I knew could be used either to protect or to destroy." compatible with regarding necromancy as an inherently corruptive force.

See, and I read it as the murder suffering and misery are the fruits, and necromancy* is the tree/path.

*Or maybe goals like "Or maybe I'm just not quite arrogant enough to start rearranging the universe on the assumption that I know better than God how long life should last."

Harry is having to make a bit of a snap judgement under pressure here.  I'm actually taking his assesment in a different direction in saying that it isn't necessarily necromancy that is the problem but necromancy with respect to human souls/specters/zombies that matters or at least when they are forced to do things it seems... The line between necromancy and "ectomancy" is blurry for me, and we even saw Harry play around with spirits in GP.

On a side note, I have pretty much always had the Doylist opinion that the "you need to be surrounded by necromantic energy to approach the darkhallow vortex" was a bit of hand waving to give Jim an excuse to have Harry raise Sue.  But it helps to show how necromancy vs a non human might not have the same significance.

And just to keep from having to go back to the Count's post with the quote, here it is again (spoilered to condense it)

(click to show/hide)

Maybe that wasn't the point. Maybe this was one of those things in which the effort meant more than the outcome. I mean, if there was a chance, even a tiny, teeny chance that Kumori was right, and that the world could be so radically changed, wouldn't I be obliged to try? Even if I never reached the goal, never finished the quest, wouldn't the attempt to vanquish death itself be a worthy pursuit?

Wow.

This question was a big one. Way bigger than me.

I shook my head and told Kumori, "I don't know about that. What I know is that I've seen the fruits of that kind of path. I saw Cowl try to murder me when I got in his way. I've seen what Grevane and the Corpsetaker have done. I've heard about the suffering and misery Kemmler caused—and is still causing today, thanks to his stupid book.

"I don't know about something as big as trying to murder death. But I know that you can tell a tree from what kind of fruit falls off it. And the necromancy tree doesn't drop anything that isn't rotten." "Ours is a calling," Kumori said, her voice flat. "A noble road."

"I might be willing to believe you if so much of that road wasn't paved in the corpses of innocents." I saw her head shake slowly beneath the hood. "You sound like them. The Council. You do not understand."

"Or maybe I'm just not quite arrogant enough to start rearranging the universe on the assumption that I know better than God how long life should last. And there's a downside to what you're saying, too. How about trying to topple the regime of an immortal Napoleon, or Attila, or Chairman Mao? You could as easily preserve the monsters as the intellectual all-stars. It can be horribly abused, and that makes it dangerous."

I faced her down for a long and silent second. Then she let out a sigh and said, "I think we have exhausted the possibilities of this conversation."

[hassman]

I believe that necromancy, death magic and mind magic all have the common element of directly violating another soul (or in the case of necromancy, remnants thereof)  I think mortals cannot handle this.  Either you leave bits behind or bits stick to you.

Again, I distinguish death magic (Eb waved the staff and people died as life left them) vs. killing with magic.

[Serack]

IIRC, there was also at one point a WoJ that the level of belief in magic for a wizard is such that they'd be flabbergasted if they attempted a familiar spell and it didn't work  (in the same way that vanilla mortals would be shocked if they dropped an object and it didn't fall).  That the reason magic works for them is that this is how they believe the world should work on a fundamental level. 

Which might help explain why killing with magic is bad: the wizard believes on a very deep level that that whatever/whoever they're killing isn't supposed to be alive.

I can't remember this WoJ (not surprising, you've been around a LOT longer than I have ) but this is a great paradigm for why snuffing a life by dropping a building on someone with magic is more significant than doing it with a gun.

[huangjimmy108]

I can't remember this WoJ (not surprising, you've been around a LOT longer than I have ) but this is a great paradigm for why snuffing a life by dropping a building on someone with magic is more significant than doing it with a gun.

This raises another question.

Sure, a wizard dropping a building with the express purpose to kill someone is bad (Cosmically tainting), but what if a wizard is hired to demolish an empty building. Without the knowledge of the wizard, someone else uses that opportunity to kill their enemy by placing their victim inside that building. What kind of karmic balanced are to be levied in that case?

A case similar to this happened in GP. When Harry unleash his great fire spell at Bianca's party, he is targeting vampires. Unfortunately, several human were caught in the crossfire. So far, we did not see any taint happened on Harry for that act. I mean, Harry seems to remain sane enough after that.

This challenges the assumption that only consequences matters. I think intentions matters as well and both intentions and consequences both carries their own weight and functions independantly from each other. You intends bad but your act did no lasting harm, you got a little tainted. You don't intend harm but the act cause major harm, you got tainted. You intends harm and you succeeded, express way to worlockdom.

[peregrine]

It's not that only consequences matter, it's just that consequences matter MORE.

[123456789blaaa]

I can't remember this WoJ (not surprising, you've been around a LOT longer than I have ) but this is a great paradigm for why snuffing a life by dropping a building on someone with magic is more significant than doing it with a gun.

I recall Harry saying it in the books as well.

The problem is that this doesn't explain why doing other horrible things doesn't corrupt you as well. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that  (for example) slowly ripping someone's eyes out to get information has less of an impact on the wizards mind then blowing their head off with a fireball.

You can also kill lots of beings without souls/Free Will and you won't get corrupted either (at least not in the black magic sense). Given how similar and friendly Little Folk are to humans, it seems strange to me that killing them doesn't warp your mind just as much as killing a human. Maybe you could make a argument for a Red Court vamp or ghoul or whatever but the Little Folk? Or an angel? 

I'm not saying it's completely wrong but I think there's something else causing the corruption as well. I'm partial to the RPG theory that the first few Laws are based around Free Will and the last few are just "wrong" in the sense of "Things That Man Was Not Meant To Do".

[King Ash]

This raises another question.

Sure, a wizard dropping a building with the express purpose to kill someone is bad (Cosmically tainting), but what if a wizard is hired to demolish an empty building. Without the knowledge of the wizard, someone else uses that opportunity to kill their enemy by placing their victim inside that building. What kind of karmic balanced are to be levied in that case?

A case similar to this happened in GP. When Harry unleash his great fire spell at Bianca's party, he is targeting vampires. Unfortunately, several human were caught in the crossfire. So far, we did not see any taint happened on Harry for that act. I mean, Harry seems to remain sane enough after that.

This challenges the assumption that only consequences matters. I think intentions matters as well and both intentions and consequences both carries their own weight and functions independantly from each other. You intends bad but your act did no lasting harm, you got a little tainted. You don't intend harm but the act cause major harm, you got tainted. You intends harm and you succeeded, express way to worlockdom.

We don't actually know if Harry killed these people, or if the vampires had killed them prior to his spell.

[huangjimmy108]

I recall Harry saying it in the books as well.

The problem is that this doesn't explain why doing other horrible things doesn't corrupt you as well. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that  (for example) slowly ripping someone's eyes out to get information has less of an impact on the wizards mind then blowing their head off with a fireball.

You can also kill lots of beings without souls/Free Will and you won't get corrupted either (at least not in the black magic sense). Given how similar and friendly Little Folk are to humans, it seems strange to me that killing them doesn't warp your mind just as much as killing a human. Maybe you could make a argument for a Red Court vamp or ghoul or whatever but the Little Folk? Or an angel? 

I'm not saying it's completely wrong but I think there's something else causing the corruption as well. I'm partial to the RPG theory that the first few Laws are based around Free Will and the last few are just "wrong" in the sense of "Things That Man Was Not Meant To Do".

Torture for information and other mandane ways of doing evil i.e: violating free wil carries its own taint. In PG, Murphy admits feeling tainted when she shots agent benton.

The point is, when you add magic to the equation, the taint becomes much, much worst.

It makes sense. In PG, it is stated that the reason god gave human the 3 swords is to balanced the enormous advantages the supranatural have over the vanilla human. Providing an extra penalty for wizards that violate free wil does make sense for the balance.

Wizards are humans, they have free wil. If they choose to use their free wil to kill and enslaved, it is their choice, so long as they pay the penalty.

If a predanatural creature violates free wil i.e" eating people, they cannot pay the penalty by losing their humanity/sanity. They are not human in the first place. These creatures are penaltied by different means. The little folk are weak and cannot do much harm, but they are virtually imppossible to find without magic. Lesser fei i.e: Bridge trolls, are teritorial and can easily be avoided or chase away, even by vanilla methods. If humanity choose to stay in denial and refuse to believe in the supranatural and therefore caught off guard, it is the human's own fault.

Other predators like the rampires and the blampires are the real evils. For these creatures penalty comes in the form of weakness to sunlight, weakness against faith based magic and inability to cross threshold. And if they got too active, they'll have either the KotC or some wizards hunting and killing them.

Demons/creatures from the nevernever cannot cross without being summoned.  And those creatures who is powerful enough to cross without invitation i.e" Mab, have an equal power balancing them i.e: Titania.

All in all, Butcher have created a quite balanced and realistic supranatural world.

[peregrine]

Also, magic has a far greater requirement for investment to work.  The wizard has to believe the thing is right, and will work, or it won't.  You can't half-ass it.

However, you can entirely half-ass taking someone's eyeballs out with a melon baller.  You can do that even if you're 49% opposed, as long as you're 51% for it.  No sense of justification required in order to be able to do that horrible thing.

[123456789blaaa]

Torture for information and other mandane ways of doing evil i.e: violating free wil carries its own taint. In PG, Murphy admits feeling tainted when she shots agent benton.

The point is, when you add magic to the equation, the taint becomes much, much worst.

It makes sense. In PG, it is stated that the reason god gave human the 3 swords is to balanced the enormous advantages the supranatural have over the vanilla human. Providing an extra penalty for wizards that violate free wil does make sense for the balance.

Wizards are humans, they have free wil. If they choose to use their free wil to kill and enslaved, it is their choice, so long as they pay the penalty.

If a predanatural creature violates free wil i.e" eating people, they cannot pay the penalty by losing their humanity/sanity. They are not human in the first place. These creatures are penaltied by different means. The little folk are weak and cannot do much harm, but they are virtually imppossible to find without magic. Lesser fei i.e: Bridge trolls, are teritorial and can easily be avoided or chase away, even by vanilla methods. If humanity choose to stay in denial and refuse to believe in the supranatural and therefore caught off guard, it is the human's own fault.

Other predators like the rampires and the blampires are the real evils. For these creatures penalty comes in the form of weakness to sunlight, weakness against faith based magic and inability to cross threshold. And if they got too active, they'll have either the KotC or some wizards hunting and killing them.

Demons/creatures from the nevernever cannot cross without being summoned.  And those creatures who is powerful enough to cross without invitation i.e" Mab, have an equal power balancing them i.e: Titania.

All in all, Butcher have created a quite balanced and realistic supranatural world.

Murphy saying she felt "tainted" is just the natural reaction to doing something she considers wrong for the first time. No evidence of the supernatural "turn you insane" type of corruption. 
 
Can I get that PG quote? I always thought the swords were given to balance out the Denarian coins. One sword for 10 coins each.

Also, magic has a far greater requirement for investment to work.  The wizard has to believe the thing is right, and will work, or it won't.  You can't half-ass it.

However, you can entirely half-ass taking someone's eyeballs out with a melon baller.  You can do that even if you're 49% opposed, as long as you're 51% for it.  No sense of justification required in order to be able to do that horrible thing.

I meant using magic to take someone's eyes out for the explicit purpose of torturing them. You'd have to believe the torture was right.

[Serack]

This raises another question.

Sure, a wizard dropping a building with the express purpose to kill someone is bad (Cosmically tainting), but what if a wizard is hired to demolish an empty building. Without the knowledge of the wizard, someone else uses that opportunity to kill their enemy by placing their victim inside that building. What kind of karmic balanced are to be levied in that case?

A case similar to this happened in GP. When Harry unleash his great fire spell at Bianca's party, he is targeting vampires. Unfortunately, several human were caught in the crossfire. So far, we did not see any taint happened on Harry for that act. I mean, Harry seems to remain sane enough after that.

This challenges the assumption that only consequences matters. I think intentions matters as well and both intentions and consequences both carries their own weight and functions independantly from each other. You intends bad but your act did no lasting harm, you got a little tainted. You don't intend harm but the act cause major harm, you got tainted. You intends harm and you succeeded, express way to worlockdom.

I basically tried to address this in this earlier reply:

Let me take this analogy a bit further and say Rodreguez uses his magic to disencorporate (like he did to the bullets in WN with his gauntlet) a building that he has every reason to believe is empty, and never ever finds out that it actually had a mortal in it.  His magic directly shreaded a mortal and he never knows.

The "Wizards are card carrying members of humanity" portion of my reasoning for "Vs a Mortal Matters" would not kick in because he didn't chose to do it, however, the "Mortal Will has Metaphysical Mass" portion would still matter.  It is concievable that because a mortal will was snuffed out by magic, the metaphysical ramifications of a free will being snuffed out by magic could affect this wizard.  I can see the mechanics for this working being much like if a wizard gives his word by his magic that he would return something to someone before they die, Fed-Exes it to the person and never hears from them again because they had a heart attack before it was shipped.

Also, see the first WoJ I quoted in the first response in the topic which illustrates how consequenses matter a whole lot, even if intent isn't there.

[Sully]

We have the swords being on the job for non-denarian reasons though.

I think there's a WoJ somewhere that says the sword equalize conflicts, taking away supernatural advantages.