The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
WK Mantle or Lawbreaker taint?
Snark Knight:
--- Quote from: Rasins on July 05, 2017, 05:31:22 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Mira on July 01, 2017, 02:42:59 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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).
Rasins:
--- Quote from: Snark Knight on July 05, 2017, 06:27:27 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Shift8:
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.
kazimmoinuddin:
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.
LordDresden2:
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on June 30, 2017, 10:58:55 PM ---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."
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version