The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Harry's use of Black Magic
Melriken:
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...
noblehunter:
I'm pretty sure we're told that turning magic back on its caster is a standard Warden tactic against warlocks.
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: noblehunter 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Melriken on January 30, 2020, 05:30:44 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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."
Mira:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Melriken:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on January 31, 2020, 05:31:23 AM ---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).
--- End quote ---
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...
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on January 31, 2020, 05:31:23 AM ---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."
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version