Black Magic - Intent, Fact & Knowledge

[wardenferry419]

What causes the taint by using magic to kill?

[huangjimmy108]

What causes the taint by using magic to kill?

From what Harry explain in book 9, it is simply a natural consequences of believing that killing is right. Magic only works when one truly believes in something. So when a wizard kill someone with magic, the wizard beleves that the kill is right, that it should be done, that it is right and proper.

Apparently, such a thing reinforces itself. Unless the wizard actively make choices against this belief, the beliefs will change the wizard.

actually, we saw this process in action. Harry's temper is getting worse due to shadow Lash's influence. In book 8, when he brutally attack the fetch, Harry could still feel the forboding and wrongness of the act, though he does not question himself strongly. In book 9, one year after , it took Murphy's intense questioning before he even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem. He even try to deny it. And this is a problem on the early stage and happened to Harry, a relatively experienced wizard with strong willpower, and it is not even black magic. To a teenager, new to their power, we can imagine what such magic and belief reinforcement could do.

This is probably the only text explanation for the taint available.

[huangjimmy108]

Intent is not a factor in being tainted by black magic.

I seem to recall a WoJ where he said that if a wizard uses magic to light a candle and the candle gets knocked over, burning the house down and humans die, the wizard will be tainted.

I need to see that WoJ.

I doubt it is the case though. If knocking down a candle lighted by magic could cause taint, the warden swords would be far worse.

If a wizard light a candle and intentionally knock it down to cause a fire for the express purpose to kill someone, maybe there will be taint, but in this case there is killing intent.

If Harry light a candle and then he is captured and knock unconscious by a vampire, and then the vampire use that candle to burn someone to death, it will be stupid if Harry is tainted by that.

[wardenferry419]

Could the taint be a spiritual suffering for doing a wrong act that a person believed had to be done?

[huangjimmy108]

Hypothetically,It could be, but we have nothing either in the text or in WoJ to support it. Though what Harry explain in book 9 maybe wrong or incomplete, it is about the only thing we have and actually saw the process in action.

[wardenferry419]

 That is one of those areas that makes me wonder. He was more troubled by the zeal with which he attacked the fetch then with the cold shooting of Corpsetaker in Luccio's body the book before.

[huangjimmy108]

That is one of those areas that makes me wonder. He was more troubled by the zeal with which he attacked the fetch then with the cold shooting of Corpsetaker in Luccio's body the book before.

The point is, Harry shoot Luccio's body with a shotgun, while the fetch he use magic. That should be the difference.

Actually, when Harry shot Luccio's body, he is not even sure corpsetaker is inside. He is not sure the action is correct and right. If Harry use magic with that kind of a mindset, his magic will fail.

If Harry can still call up power when he is not certain that Luccio is not Luccio, it meant that Harry believes that it is better to kill 1000 wrongly rather than letter one escape. He will be like Cao Cao of the 3 kingdoms, and after he casted that kind of magic, he'll become one step closer to becoming something like Cao Cao. A shotgun does not need that kind of a mindset. Harry could be as uncertain and full of doubt, and the shotgun will still fire the bullet as long as Harry pull the trigger. Harry can kill, and there is no taint.

It would explain why the warden swords could work. When Luccio enchanted those swords, her intent is to cut dark magic and break enchantment, not killing people.

When Harry use force magic to attack the fetch, his magic is casted by drawing power from his battle lust. It is drawn from his desire to take revenge, to slate his anger, and to dominate. He wanted to save people, but his power is drawn from those dark emotions and desires whether he consciously realize it or not, so much so he is lost in the act and fail to see that a victim is lying there bleeding to death, and might need help.

I think all magic, black or not, left a mark on it's caster. If you cast magic with a pure benevolent heart, to heal people for example, you'll become more benevolent. It reinforce your benevolent nature. For some reason, perhaps due to the law of "Free will" in this universe, using magic to kill people or invading people's minds resulted in a amplified mark which we call "taint". The wizard does not just cast magic believing that killing their fellow humans is right and proper, the wizard also use arcane forces to rob another free will being from their life and thus their ability to further make choices. That is why black magic makes you go insane fast, while casting magic in anger like Harry did in book 8 and book 9 has a relatively minimal repercussion.

[wardenferry419]

A passionate misuse of magic is more tolerable than a deliberate misuse of magic?

[Vivictus]

From what Harry explain in book 9, it is simply a natural consequences of believing that killing is right. Magic only works when one truly believes in something. So when a wizard kill someone with magic, the wizard beleves that the kill is right, that it should be done, that it is right and proper.

Apparently, such a thing reinforces itself. Unless the wizard actively make choices against this belief, the beliefs will change the wizard.

This is the root of my discomfort with how I perceive things to work.  It would make lots of sense to me if believing it was right to kill/destroy with magic resulted in corruption of the wizard.  My impression from the books, which a couple people have indicated is supported by WoJ is that it's the simple fact of the taking of a mortal human life, regardless of intent or even knowledge. 

A possible mechanic I could imagine for this would be active magic connecting the victim and the wizard at the moment of death causing some kind of mentally damaging feedback loop.  No moral considerations are required if that's the case.  It would also explain why killing with a magical weapon doesn't have the same issue since no actively cast magic is involved.  Lastly it could also cover why killing a good and noble non-human doesn't have the same effect.  They wouldn't necessarily be on the right "wavelength" to result in the taint.

[wardenferry419]

So, you think killing someone with magic kills the caster a little due to a magical link?

[Vivictus]

So, you think killing someone with magic kills the caster a little due to a magical link?

Just guessing really, but that would seem to work.  It can't be based on the morality of the action or the caster because we've said a well intentioned spell that kills will taint the wizard and conversely using magic to unjustly kill an innocent non-human doesn't result in a taint.

The only other option I can think of would be that the system itself has some kind of built-in intelligence.  That is, magic is aware or the results of its use and the taint is punishment for breaking it's somewhat arbitrary rules.

[huangjimmy108]

A passionate misuse of magic is more tolerable than a deliberate misuse of magic?

Not exactly. If what Harry say and my understanding of it is correct. intent i.e:  Passionate or deliberate, is only a part of the equation.

Magic, at least the kind Harry is using, works on the principal a kin to the 3 fold law we know in many witch novels.

Whatever you send out, eventually comes back to you. If you send out good things, you get good things back. If you send out vile things, you get vile things in return. However, it is a bit more complex. The intent of the wizard only play a part.

The final backlash a wizard receives depends on how much is reflected back to the wizard. In witchy novels, it is often said to be 3 times what you send out, but in the Dresdenverse, the backlash a wizard receives depends on the consequences of the magic not on the intent of the caster.

Example: a wizard is attempting to use magic to heal a person. The wizard has about 97% good intent and only 3% dark intent. If the result of the magic is good, and the person is healed right and proper, the wizard will receive the backlash from the 97% good karma. If the person is not healed properly and get crippled, the wizard will be penalize by the 3% negative karma. If the person is killed due to the wizard's magical healing attempt, the wizard won't just get the 3% negative karma, he'll get 3% negative karma multiplied by the black magic, let say 10 times, so the wizard will get 30% negative karma even though he has 97% good intent when he casted the magic originally. This is probably what happens to Molly, though in her case, I estimate the intent is about 80% good and 20% dark.

Now, let's say that the wizard is only pretending to heal the person. He actually trying to kill the person instead. In this case, the wizard has 3% good intent and 97% bad intent. Assuming the wizard did kill the target, he'll get 970% negative karma. He'll go insane fast this way, but even if the magic fail to kill, the wizard still get the 97% negative karma from the original intent.

In theory, if the wizard can have 100% good intent, even if the target get killed due to the magic, the wizard won't be tainted at all. But it is impossible. Not to mention that it is impossible for a mortal to have 100% pure intent, if the magic is truly casted using 100% pure benevelont intent, the magic won't be able to harm anyone in the firstplace.

[huangjimmy108]

Just guessing really, but that would seem to work.  It can't be based on the morality of the action or the caster because we've said a well intentioned spell that kills will taint the wizard and conversely using magic to unjustly kill an innocent non-human doesn't result in a taint.

The only other option I can think of would be that the system itself has some kind of built-in intelligence.  That is, magic is aware or the results of its use and the taint is punishment for breaking it's somewhat arbitrary rules.

The council say that killing non humankind does not violate the 7 laws, whether or not it cause taint however is another matter entirely.
 
Harry use forzare to kill the fetch in book 8, and he get lost in battle lust. The fetch is non human, but it is shown to us in book 9 that Harry's control of his temper is growing steadily worse by the day.
 
It is entirely possible that unjustly killing a supernatural being, say killing a bigfoot like river shoulders, will cause some kind of taint even though the council won't acknowledge the act as a law violation. It seldom happens though. When it comes to supernaturals and wizards. The ones who has good intentions won't come, and those who come don't have good intentions. The way things are going, it is well nai impossible to unjustly kill a supernatural.
 
I don't think we can ignore the factor of morality / intent entirely when talking about black magic taint. It does not make sense otherwise. It will be all too easy to turn a good wizard into a warlock if consequences is all that matters. If harry cast fuego and burn something, all a vampire need to do is to make a torch with the resulting fire and use that fire to kill someone. Harry will be tainted and the council will be force to behead him or risk a new warlock. The vampire can do this everytime they fight a council warden and soon all wizards become warlocks and the council will be too busy handling them.

[Rasins]

Intent is not a factor in being tainted by black magic.

I seem to recall a WoJ where he said that if a wizard uses magic to light a candle and the candle gets knocked over, burning the house down and humans die, the wizard will be tainted.

Serack - Can you help find this one?

[LordDresden2]

The WoJ on the subject is that intent has no bearing on dark magic corruption.  If you do something bad for the right reasons, you're corrupted.

We already know intent makes a big difference.  It's not the only factor, but it's relevant.  A warlock who kills with magic by accident is far more likely to be able to avoid permanent damage than someone who acts with malice aforethought.

Molly was damaged by what she did to Nelson and Rosie...but if she'd done it purely out of bad intent, she'd be far more damaged (and dead, because the Council wouldn't have spared her in that case anyway).