The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
WK Mantle or Lawbreaker taint?
Quantus:
--- Quote from: Rasins on July 10, 2017, 07:55:27 PM ---Q - do you think the "taint" is completely separate from the insane driving nature of the guilt of Breaking the Laws?
Meaning, if you kill someone, you should feel some guilt. As Harry has noted, it's been gnawing at him for some time. For some people this will eventually drive them to do insane things.
As opposed to, for instance, the Korean kid. It seemed like his breaking of the law against invading the mind of others drove him deeper into his self-deluded godhood, rather than the guilt of doing bad stuff.
Granted we don't know how long either take to show sings of being nutty, but it seems like the taint works more quickly than the guilt route.
--- End quote ---
Yes indeed, I'd say they are specifically distinct per this WOJ:
--- Quote ---Does the blackstaff have any powers that relate to the dead?
Other than making people dead? Really, that's kind of the point [Crowd Laughs] Really but the staff itself what it really does is it keeps Eb sane while he's doing insane things. Lucky him, he gets to deal with a hideously guilty conscious and nightmares later, but that's better than later being like *Muahahahahahahahaha* Which is sort of the other option if your going to go around using magic like that.
--- End quote ---
LordDresden2:
--- Quote from: Rasins on July 10, 2017, 04:01:07 PM ---Okay, my bad. They are still humans, but they are no longer Mortal, and thus do not fall under the preview of the Laws of Magic.
--- End quote ---
Even that isn't necessarily true. I suspect the Council would say that in general, yeah, it applies, and I'm pretty sure the universe thinks it's killing a human with magic. I think the universe would consider it to apply with White Vampires, too.
But there are a grey areas in play at Chichen Itza. For ex, Harry killed a Red Vampire, with a knife. No violation. The death of that Red Vampire, in that specific place and at that specific time, triggered a magical effect, but Harry didn't set any of it up, didn't charge it, none of his personal magical energy was involved.
So was Harry casting the magic, or did the Red Vampires cast the magic using somebody doing the sacrifice as a component? First Law status unclear in terms of Council legality, unclear in terms of cosmic law.
If Harry was casting the magic in the eyes of the Council and/or the Cosmos, then was it a case of self-defense? Or at least defense of others? A good argument can be so made. The Council acknowledges self-defense exceptions, and the Cosmos seems to consider it am extenuating circumstance, killing with magic in self defense seems to leave less 'taint', less damage, on the person doing it.
Self-defense status: Unclear in both Council and Cosmic terms.
The magic ripped away and destroyed parasites from the humans who were being preserved and sustained by said parasites. Most of those humans then died of old age when the preserving effect was removed. But was this a case of death from magic, or from natural causes long delayed? Council Law status unclear, Cosmic law status unclear.
It's just not clear who was guilty of what or innocent of what in that Charlie Foxtrot.
forumghost:
I think the thing to remember is that the Laws of Magic (Council Edition)=/=Laws of Magic(Universe Edition)
Sometimes, the Council will allows things, even though they might taint a person. Sometimes, they might kill you, even if you're in the clear on Magic Corruption.
In the specific case of Harry Nuking the Rampires, I'd say that he's in the clear in terms of corruption- Harry did nothing magical at all, he just killed a Half-Ramp with a knife, in a time and place that triggered someone else's spell. And on top of that, what Harry did didn't kill them- it just took away what had prevented them from aging, causing them to die of natural causes shortly after.
If there was any taint, I'd expect it to land on the hands of the Spellcaster (in this case whichever Rampires performed the ritual) but they're in the clear by virtue of being Rampires anyway.
So magically he's probably fine. Which leaves us with the Council's views on the matter.
Under normal Circumstances they'd very much like to kill him, much like they'd kill a Ritualist that murdered with Magic, even if those are essentially cosmic Bribery used to have a God/Gods kill for you, and arguably don't result in Black Magic taint at all as a result, because the Laws aren't necessarily about avoiding Warlocks, they're about restraining power.
However, Harry in this case has just Cosied up to the biggest bitch in the Prison Yard (Mab) and his stunt has wiped out Public Enemy #1- the Rampires. Which means that it's a bad move to go after him unless you A) have no other Choice and B) Have an Iron-Clad-Case.
So while the Council will give him a pass on this, they're probably quietly sharpening their axes and waiting for the first opportunity to swing.
Mira:
Let's add Wardens to the list while we are at it. What of Morgan? He was the executor for the White Council.. Ordered under the Laws or not, he still killed.. Was he protected from the taint or not? What of those youngsters that were still salvageable, but executed anyway because no one would step up for them? What of Langtry and those who ordered their deaths knowing they were salvageable?
Quantus:
RE. the Chitzen Itza stuff.
I strongly suspect that he's in the clear in cosmic terms, and that being the case he's got a strong defense on the legal side. The Human Sacrifices were killed long before by others, and the fact that the Red King was planning to do it himself and still was willing to delegate the final sacrifice to random guards at one point leads me to believe that /that/ part of the ritual requires no personal magic. Though the argument could probably be made that the same is the case for the BR outsider ritual curse, which I expect to Taint (though maybe only because of the particular nature of it's power source?). Had it required a Magical user to trigger, I think he'd be in more trouble; I doubt the transition to Soulessness (the Bar of Humanity Im using) would be instant, and I know Harry views it as a Murder. In much the same way I think Harry would get Taint for killing Thomas, where Carlos likely would not (I think Carlos used Lara's Soulgaze to define Wamps as Monsters to himself).
On the Legal side I think he's firmly in the clear. Not his personal magic used and No Human's were killed. The legal status of Half-Ramps was ambiguous, but all he did was remove what Im sure the council considered a hostile parasite. After that Nature reasserted itself and they lived or died as they were initially intended. It might be different if all Half-ramps died, even the young ones. And Separately, the politics of pushing the Charge make no sense: a)he Won the War, Personally, B)Pushing it in spite of both 'A' and the Reasonably legal defense stated Above would cause unnecessary internal council Strife, and c)Mab.
I think the real thing that will make a difference in Harry's case is his personal views on the events. Harry Loves Magic, and he Loved Susan and he Sacrificed her in a Spell. I doubt he really cares about the metaphysical philosophy, even if it's not the normal mustache-twisting Taint, it still has/had the real chance of tangibly damaging his magic.
--- Quote from: Mira on July 11, 2017, 11:01:08 AM ---Let's add Wardens to the list while we are at it. What of Morgan? He was the executor for the White Council.. Ordered under the Laws or not, he still killed.. Was he protected from the taint or not? What of those youngsters that were still salvageable, but executed anyway because no one would step up for them? What of Langtry and those who ordered their deaths knowing they were salvageable?
--- End quote ---
I think it's safe to say there was all the normal fallout of guilt and personally felt responsibility would apply (to the limits of each's own personality, anyway), but since none of those example actually involve magic they wouldnt apply to the Taint, specifically. Look to Luccio as an example: Forcing her to Kill was one thing, but he wasnt able to force her to Kill with her /magic/.
That being said, a lot of this conversation is founded on this WOJ that is specifically highlighting the ambiguity of all that (regarding the fine line between killing with magic and capturing with magic to immediately kill with a sword), so it remains possible that there are deeper mechanisms at work here that we've not been shown.
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Lightsabre on February 12, 2007, 12:20:42 AM ---Look at it this way.
The entire council banded together to kill Kemmler.
--- End quote ---
All the Wardens did, and the Senior Council, and several of the more responsible/combat-capable wizards who weren't either of the former (like Ebenezar, Klaus the Toymaker, and the Germans). But it wasn't literally the entire Council. Plenty of the wizards there have got precious little gift when it comes to actual combat magic--like Ancient Mai. Their strengths simply lie in other areas. Others . . . just aren't suited to it, mentally, and could probably prove to be more of a liability than an asset. Some of them are just plain chicken.
But it was a more sizeable chunk of the Council than had, at that point, ever been all together in one place to take on /one/ guy.
--- Quote ---They murdered, with magic.
They broke the laws. Are they all tainted?
--- End quote ---
Technically, they didn't actually kill him with magic. They rendered him helpless with magic and then found other ways to execute him. (Swords are the usual. For Kemmler, they also used guns, axes, shovels, ropes, a flamethrower, and a number of other extremes.) It's a semantic difference, in some ways, but an important technical distinction in others.
--- Quote ---Note also the killing law only applies to Humans.
You can kill as many faeries as you want with magic.
--- End quote ---
Bingo. It hardly seems fair, does it?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
Jim
PS--"sinister" as in "bend sinister" or "bar sinister" is a general term originally meaning "left," and not "evil." However, there's some overlap in traditional magickal terms, with references to the "left hand path" or black magic, and so on. Left handed people were often viewed with suspicion during the middle ages. In Islamic belief, the left hand is considered to be unclean. For that matter, the entire concept of "right" is tied in with the negative connotations to "left."
And I agree. Harry has some sinister leanings. :)
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version