Author Topic: Harry's use of Black Magic  (Read 40022 times)

Offline Melriken

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2020, 05:30:44 PM »
I think it’s important to distinguish between violations of the law as written/enforced and black magic.

Killing a mortal with magic is a violation of the first law.  Not because the wardens care if you kill people... but because you can’t do anything with magic that you don’t truly believe.  Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you... what is something Jim is still exploring but at the very least it makes it easier to justify the next murder... the law exists to stop that deterioration.

Killing in Self defense doesn’t violate the first law because believing that someone else doesn’t have the right to kill you for their personal gain doesn’t do the damage to your soul that believing you have the right to kill them for your personal gain does...  I seriously doubt the wardens care where you violate the laws, if you kidnap someone, drag them to Hadies vault, use magic to harvest there life force to make a new shinny toy and they find out about it... I think they will come for a visit.

Do Harry’s various actions constitute black magic (of the corrupt your soul variety) no, I don’t think they do. Has he violated the first law? Yes... isn’t there a WoJ about Harry violating all the laws before the series is done?

The laws are trying to outline black magic, but there are times they carve out too much space and times they don’t carve enough... I expect Harry to violate the laws without using black magic and others to use black magic without violating laws...

Offline noblehunter

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2020, 06:48:06 PM »
I'm pretty sure we're told that turning magic back on its caster is a standard Warden tactic against warlocks.

Offline Bad Alias

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2020, 05:31:23 AM »
I'm pretty sure we're told that turning magic back on its caster is a standard Warden tactic against warlocks.
Closest thing I can think of like that is the "feng shui" Harry does in Blood Rites and the plan he has in Proven Guilty. What Jim has said about standard Warden tactics is that they have swords for a reason and they killed Kemmler with all sorts of mundane methods.

wardens care if you kill people ... because you can’t do anything with magic that you don’t truly believe.  Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you ...
Killing in Self defense doesn’t violate the first law because believing that someone else doesn’t have the right to kill you for their personal gain doesn’t do the damage to your soul that believing you have the right to kill them for your personal gain does.
...
Do Harry’s various actions constitute black magic (of the corrupt your soul variety) no, I don’t think they do.
I disagree with these three points. (I think I agree with everything else you said. Yes Jim did say something about Harry violating, or at least brushing up against every law).

The Wardens wouldn't care if a wizard murders someone, corrupting their soul. They care if someone kills someone with magic because use of black magic irredeemably (in their view) corrupts the practitioner. A murder can be redeemed, but a Warlock can't. (Once again, in the view of the Wardens).

Harry is tainted with black magic. Some of which is his, according to Ulshavaras. I assume this refers to his killing of Justin, in self defense. We see Harry struggling with the corruption from his use of black magic in the early books. Now I could be mistaken in my interpretation and this black magic corruption Ulshavaras refers to comes from some other action that violated the Laws of Magic.

I do think that the 7 Laws as written by Merlin and applied by the Council are different than the "actual universal guidelines," as Jim said. Jim also said that it doesn't, necessarily, have to do with "Right or Wrong." Therefore, it isn't necessarily the case that fatal self defense with magic gives any less of a taint than murder with magic. I think it probably does, and that's why the Council has the defense of self defense against black magic. (Note that it's not even just self defense, but self defense against black magic).

I think we need a short hand for "the Seven Laws of Magic as written by Merlin and applied by the Council" and the "actual universal guidelines."

Offline Mira

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 24359
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2020, 02:50:16 PM »
Quote
Harry is tainted with black magic. Some of which is his, according to Ulshavaras. I assume this refers to his killing of Justin, in self defense. We see Harry struggling with the corruption from his use of black magic in the early books. Now I could be mistaken in my interpretation and this black magic corruption Ulshavaras refers to comes from some other action that violated the Laws of Magic.

   There be the gray area. ;)   Yes, Harry used magic to kill Justin, so he is somewhat tainted.. Harry also replied to the Ulshavaras that not all of it belonged to him and it didn't argue with him, actually complimented him on his honesty and that is why it continued to talk to him.  Back to the gray area, it could very well be that any time magic is used to kill it is considered black.  However it isn't practical,  there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin.  That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on.  So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense.   Now I doubt unless the wizard becomes some kind of "gun slinger" type magic dueler that this will lead to madness.  Simply because Harry had no choice, yes, he knows it is wrong and considered black magic, but on the other hand he knows that it was justified..  However one has to be very careful when judging because how one sees "justified" if off can lead to madness.

Offline Melriken

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2020, 06:02:21 PM »
I disagree with these three points. (I think I agree with everything else you said. Yes Jim did say something about Harry violating, or at least brushing up against every law).

The Wardens wouldn't care if a wizard murders someone, corrupting their soul. They care if someone kills someone with magic because use of black magic irredeemably (in their view) corrupts the practitioner. A murder can be redeemed, but a Warlock can't. (Once again, in the view of the Wardens).
I thought that’s what I said...

Wardens care about you killing with magic not because they care about you killing (they obviously don’t as they kill), but because in order to do it with magic you must believe it is right and proper that it happen... that belief corrupts you.  You can kill with a sword or gun because while you believe it wrong to kill you understand that it is necessary or you simply don’t care... you can’t do that with magic. Magic requires that you think it’s right, that it is what SHOULD happen.

If you think there is something we disagree on can you restate my thoughts (as you read them) and what you think that is different? Maybe I just wasn’t clear the first time...

I think we need a short hand for "the Seven Laws of Magic as written by Merlin and applied by the Council" and the "actual universal guidelines."

Offline g33k

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2376
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2020, 06:12:33 PM »
   There be the gray area. ;)   Yes, Harry used magic to kill Justin, so he is somewhat tainted.. Harry also replied to the Ulshavaras that not all of it belonged to him and it didn't argue with him, actually complimented him on his honesty and that is why it continued to talk to him.  Back to the gray area, it could very well be that any time magic is used to kill it is considered black.  However it isn't practical,  there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin.  That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on.  So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense.   Now I doubt unless the wizard becomes some kind of "gun slinger" type magic dueler that this will lead to madness.  Simply because Harry had no choice, yes, he knows it is wrong and considered black magic, but on the other hand he knows that it was justified..  However one has to be very careful when judging because how one sees "justified" if off can lead to madness.

Also, I think this is where that "slippery slope" enters the psyche... even if you didn't simply murder your victim in unambiguous evil, you still killed with magic.

Your soul, in that moment, was committed to the idea that you should bend the forces of Creation to the ending of life.

Having killed already -- even in self-defense, even accidentally -- the killer knows in the very core of their being that it's possible... even easy.  It becomes a much more viable option to consider.

That line has already been crossed; the tool is sitting in their toolbox of "ways that I do solve problems."

You won't ever again look at your "problems" and "solutions" in the way you did before.  You are on that slippery slope.  You may be keeping yourself from sliding down... but it's always an extra effort to do so, that it wasn't before.
 

Offline Mira

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 24359
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2020, 08:39:53 PM »
Quote
Also, I think this is where that "slippery slope" enters the psyche... even if you didn't simply murder your victim in unambiguous evil, you still killed with magic.

Your soul, in that moment, was committed to the idea that you should bend the forces of Creation to the ending of life.

 I think that is true no matter how you take a life.   One can argue that killing with magic is akin to killing someone with a Crucifix, but that is more a matter of faith, because the victim is still just as dead and you took his or her life.   Killing with magic for a wizard is easy, too easy, that is the slippery slope, not that it is Black Magic per say.  I can make another analogy but that gets into the Second Amendment and strictly forbidden topics..

Quote
That line has already been crossed; the tool is sitting in their toolbox of "ways that I do solve problems."

But sometimes that is the only tool that can be effectively used..  It shouldn't be the first choice, but sometimes it is the only choice.
Quote
You won't ever again look at your "problems" and "solutions" in the way you did before.  You are on that slippery slope.  You may be keeping yourself from sliding down... but it's always an extra effort to do so, that it wasn't before.
 

I  disagree,  by your own argument it keeps you from falling further...  In my mind, slippery slope means it become easier to justify so there is little to hold you back.. That is the slippery slope..

Offline Bad Alias

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2020, 03:03:18 AM »
because in order to do it with magic you must believe it is right and proper that it happen... that belief corrupts you.
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruption.
Quote
Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you
Here I thought you were saying simply acting on a belief that others should die to benefit you, even without magic, corrupts the soul. Which I assume it would, but this sort corruption isn't the sort the Wardens are concerned with.

there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin.  That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on.  So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense.
I wouldn't say a duel involves any self defense. Self defense is repelling aggression, not mutual combat. The White Council does condemn it. That's why Harry gets the Doom of Damocles instead of execution.

The black magic corruption has nothing to do with a slippery slope of realizing options. If it did, all the veterans of the war with the RCV would be in serious trouble. They've repeatedly killed with magic. Killing humans would be a lot easier than killing vampires.

Offline Mira

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 24359
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2020, 02:59:47 PM »
Quote
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruptio

Do you have the exact WOJ on this?  If it is what he is driving at, then ultimately Margaret was right about the Council, they are all corrupt and are hypocrites.  Eb might be the most corrupt, how many innocents did he kill when he brought down that satellite?   Those that died weren't all vamps..  I doubt that you can find one wizard not tainted in some way by this standard.. 
Quote
I wouldn't say a duel involves any self defense. Self defense is repelling aggression, not mutual combat. The White Council does condemn it. That's why Harry gets the Doom of Damocles instead of execution.
Not the way I understand it, they didn't put Harry under the Doom for dueling.  Harry is a bit of a unique case and had he not had the likes of Eb defending him, he could have gotten the chop.  The Doom in his case was a bit of a compromise, because half the Council refused to believe that a sixteen year old kid/apprentice could successfully defend himself against a powerful full wizard who was a warden at one time, ergo it had to have been murder.   Harry was placed under the Doom, not for defending himself fairly in a duel, but because half the Council believed it was impossible that he could..  That is how he was rewarded for being that powerful and skilled, with being named a full wizard, but at the same time put under the Doom to placate those who believed it impossible.
Quote
The black magic corruption has nothing to do with a slippery slope of realizing options. If it did, all the veterans of the war with the RCV would be in serious trouble. They've repeatedly killed with magic. Killing humans would be a lot easier than killing vampires.

That sort of blows your first argument..
Quote
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruption.

It is or it isn't...  One can make a stand that all forms of killing with magic deliberate or accidental is black magic, ergo all veterans of the war with the RCVs are indeed in serious trouble.  Or it isn't, there are gray areas...

Offline Arjan

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 13235
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2020, 04:34:07 PM »
That is why they are wearing grey cloaks. Black and white do exist but there are always grey area’s. I do not think you can be a warden and avoid them completely.

WG+++: The White God is Mister.
SH[Elaine+++]

Offline Arjan

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 13235
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2020, 04:47:52 PM »
The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional. We saw that in white night with Harry. Lasciel was firing up Harry to make him more violent. Destroying street furniture is not really black magic but he ran the risk of becoming someone who thought it ik to trash other peoples stuff with magic.

That is why Harry does not heat his shower with magic. Slippery slope.
WG+++: The White God is Mister.
SH[Elaine+++]

Offline Mira

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 24359
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2020, 05:49:37 PM »
The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional. We saw that in white night with Harry. Lasciel was firing up Harry to make him more violent. Destroying street furniture is not really black magic but he ran the risk of becoming someone who thought it ik to trash other peoples stuff with magic.

That is why Harry does not heat his shower with magic. Slippery slope.

  I am not sure how not heating his shower with magic comes in...  As far as that goes an old fashioned water heater with a simple pilot light would heat it just fine, no need for electronic
anything.  Actually that is one aspect of the stories that never made sense, Chicago gets damn
cold in the winter time.  So okay Harry doesn't mind ice cold showers, but I cannot see Thomas
enduring them for the year he lived with him or his other guests who have used his shower...Sorry
to lurch off topic but you did bring it up.

Back to topic, yes, Lasciel did fire him up to be more violent, but once he was made aware of his
behavior by Murphy he handled both Lasciel and himself differently so innocents wouldn't be hurt.  He got off the banana peel before he totally fell on his ass.   However having said that it is hard to believe in some of his greater kaboom moments, like when he stopped Cowl, or the battle at the aquarium, that there wasn't some human collateral damage.. Stranger still that no one in the city
seemed to notice.

Offline Bad Alias

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2020, 02:04:04 AM »
Do you have the exact WOJ on this?
Quote
[Question]: “Actually, Molly’s intentions when she broke that particular law twisted her.”  Here’s where I think you hit the nail on the head Lightsabre.  It’s the intentions of the caster that matter.  Time Travel, Nercomancy, and Mind Control are all tools that can be used to do *bad* things.  I’m fairly sure what we see in the laws of magic is a sort of wizard gun control, trying to limit the existence of these problematic classes of spells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim
Someone proposes that Molly's intent was what twisted her. Jim responds that while intent is important, actual consequences are more important. He uses a bunch of analogies, not stating directly what his statements have to do with the DF. He ends with a paragraph I interpret as saying using black magic makes you evil is more true than not, but it's not that simple. I also think this last paragraph eludes to the theme of the DF of choice vs nature.

I feel like you're insisting that I reject the idea of gray areas when I've repeatedly and explicitly said that I endorse the idea.

I don't believe I'd seen that quote before hearing this idea from Jim. I don't know if the video(s) I recall have been transcribed or I just can't find them on the WoJ site.

If it is what he is driving at, then ultimately Margaret was right about the Council, they are all corrupt and are hypocrites.  Eb might be the most corrupt, how many innocents did he kill when he brought down that satellite?   Those that died weren't all vamps..  I doubt that you can find one wizard not tainted in some way by this standard.
Just to be clear, the standard, as I understand it, is "killing a mortal with magic corrupts." "With magic" and "mortal" appear to be in need of further definition. It also appears that the degree of corruption may be mitigated, but not eliminated, by factors such as intent.

How does this make the WC hypocritical? The Blackstaff protects Eb from black magic corruption. Are you saying that every wizard has killed a mortal with magic?

Not the way I understand it, they didn't put Harry under the Doom for dueling.  Harry is a bit of a unique case and had he not had the likes of Eb defending him, he could have gotten the chop.  The Doom in his case was a bit of a compromise, because half the Council refused to believe that a sixteen year old kid/apprentice could successfully defend himself against a powerful full wizard who was a warden at one time, ergo it had to have been murder.   Harry was placed under the Doom, not for defending himself fairly in a duel, but because half the Council believed it was impossible that he could..  That is how he was rewarded for being that powerful and skilled, with being named a full wizard, but at the same time put under the Doom to placate those who believed it impossible.
We definitely don't know how or why the vote played out as it did. We just know a result was that Harry was placed under the Doom instead of being beheaded. That said, I don't think Harry's probation was a matter of compromise. The wizards who believed Harry didn't defend himself voted to kill him. Or at least Harry is fairly certain that's what LaFortier did. The wizards who thought he killed in defense against black magic voted for the Doom. Harry was given to Eb because Harry was still a child and couldn't be left to his own devices. It's never suggested that Eb was under the Doom like Harry is with Molly. It's never suggested that Morgan is going to go after Eb when he catches Harry breaking the Laws. In fact, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if Harry misbehaved. This suggests to me that Eb wasn't under the Doom at all.

Another reason I think the Doom was applied to Harry because he killed in defense against black magic (instead of as a compromise) is that he has black magic corruption from somewhere. Ulshavaras feels black magic on Harry. Harry claims it's "mostly" not his. Ulshavaras replies "Some of it is." It's arguable that he got the taint from killing MacFinn or the "children" at Bianca's.

That sort of blows your first argument..
No. It demonstrates that since all the Wardens aren't going warlock, the slippery slope argument isn't the same thing as black magic corruption. If we are to take the Merlin's word as even mostly true, people who've crossed the line that much are generally doomed to be totally corrupted warlocks.

I'm not saying conditioning yourself to properly use violence to solve problems won't create a risk of spilling over into improper use of violence to solve problems. Especially if we're talking about the fictional situation of magical violence in the DF. If everybody wants to label this as a "slippery slope" argument, then I'm fine with that.

The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bidirectional," but if you mean that believing in something and acting on that belief with magic makes you believe it more, then I don't see any support for that. I mean habits are a thing, and if you have to believe in your magic, then using magic to do a thing is demonstration of that belief. That's what the scene outside the brothel tells us.

As far as that goes an old fashioned water heater with a simple pilot light would heat it just fine, no need for electronic anything.
Until it explodes. That was Harry's concern for using gas anything.
Quote
And I;m not even about to take chances with with the gas heater.
Storm Front Ch. 8

Offline Mira

  • Needs A Life
  • ***
  • Posts: 24359
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2020, 03:58:01 AM »
Quote
The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn’t something limited to wizards and gods.  Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.

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

Sounds a lot like our arguments, lots of gray areas..
Quote
We definitely don't know how or why the vote played out as it did. We just know a result was that Harry was placed under the Doom instead of being beheaded. That said, I don't think Harry's probation was a matter of compromise. The wizards who believed Harry didn't defend himself voted to kill him. Or at least Harry is fairly certain that's what LaFortier did. The wizards who thought he killed in defense against black magic voted for the Doom. Harry was given to Eb because Harry was still a child and couldn't be left to his own devices. It's never suggested that Eb was under the Doom like Harry is with Molly. It's never suggested that Morgan is going to go after Eb when he catches Harry breaking the Laws. In fact, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if Harry misbehaved. This suggests to me that Eb wasn't under the Doom at all.

Yes, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if he stepped out of line, but that doesn't mean that Eb wouldn't then lose his own head.  No one is above the law not even the Black Staff..  I also don't completely
buy that the staff protects him from the effects of "the black magic" of making a kill.  Other that perhaps a righteous feeling that he did what had to be done, killing someone eats a little away from Eb's mind, heart, and soul and has nothing to do with black magic. No, Eb isn't protected from his own conscience.

Offline g33k

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2376
    • View Profile
Re: Harry's use of Black Magic
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2020, 06:56:52 AM »
I think that is true no matter how you take a life.   One can argue that killing with magic is akin to killing someone with a Crucifix, but that is more a matter of faith, because the victim is still just as dead and you took his or her life.   

There is no RL simile or parallel.  Humans cannot do anything as hideous.

Magic isn't just a tool, like a gun or a knife or a screwdriver or calculus... Magic is, per WoJ, a little piece of the fundamental fires of Creation.  It is a piece of your very soul that still resonates with that joyous and Divine act...  Fiat Lux!

You took that most-Divine and most-sacred piece of your soul, and warped it into being a murder weapon.

There really isn't anything more hideous and profane that you could do to yourself.  It's twisted, warped... And it's YOU, a piece of your very soul is warped.

That's what makes it Black Magic.  That's why it shows up as a "stain" for those with eyes to see it.