Dark Influences7. Harry dons the mantle of the Winter Knight. That one is pretty dark too.
- Harry is stalked by HHWB, gaining his shadow
- "I felt... Stained, simply by feeling its presence, stained as if it had left some hideous imprint or mark up on me, one that could not be wiped away." GS ch 31
- Harry kills Justin, breaking the First Law.
- Harry Consumes the Nightmare
- Harry Picks up Lasciel's coin
- Harry redirects the Entropy Curse
- "I felt a sudden terror that something had been torn away from me; that in simple contact with that dark energy, I had been scarred somehow, marked.
Or changed. BR Ch 17- Evil Bob marks Harry with Necromantic energy.
And killing Slate on the Stone Table is about the same.Yes, definitely, and it has the benefit of being less ambiguous. It is part of a rite that lets Harry gain magical strength:
Yes, definitely, and it has the benefit of being less ambiguous. It is part of a rite that lets Harry gain magical strength:
"I was a man seeking power. For good reasons, maybe. But I wasn't going to lie to myself or anyone else about my actions. If I killed him, I would be taking a life, something that was not mine to take. I would be committing deliberate, calculated murder...I had no right to take his life, and it was pure, overwhelming, nihilistic arrogance to say otherwise....I just stood there...stared at the remains of the man I'd murdered, wondering what I was supposed to feel. Sadness? Not really....Mostly? I just felt cold." (G, 238-243)
The term "cold" seems to become as much an indicator of new damage to Harry's soul as the term "stain". I really hope that's not the case in Cold Days....
This one might be ambiguous, but Harry's exposure to the Hexenwulf belt in FM? It was a spirit of rage, and given its effect on him, I can imagine it left a mark.
I actually included that one into the 2ndary list.
Harry ressurect Sue's? I know she isn't human but, its necromancy anyway.
"Trixie," I said. "You can't possibly think that this is all right. Why are you doing this?"
"I'm protecting what's mine, Larry," she said. "It's business."
"Business?" I demanded. "Two people are dead already. Giselle and Jake were at death's door, and I don't even want to think about what would have happened to Inari if I weren't there. What the fuck do you think you're doing?"
"I don't feel any need to explain myself to you."
I blinked at her slowly and then said, "You don't know either. You don't know who he's marrying."
She didn't say anything, but her eyes blazed with scorn and fury.
I shook my head, continuing. "So you've just been eliminating all the women around Arturo Genosa. One at a time. You don't even know if you're killing the right person."
"There's only one little girl toy left pretty enough to suit his tastes," she said.
"Emma," I said.
"And once she's gone, I won't have to worry about her stealing what's mine."
I stared at her for a second. "Are you insane?" I said. "Do you think you'll get away with this?"
"I'd love to see some prosecutor try me for witchcraft," she responded.
Trixie was too stupid to believe me about the White Council and too self-absorbed to keep my name straight, but for crying out loud, she had to be human. "Hell's bells, Trixie. Emma's got kids."
"So did Hitler," Trixie snapped.
"No, he didn't," I said. "He had dogs."
"Whatever," Trixie said.
[...]
The adrenaline rushed through me, wild and mindless.
I wanted to kill her.
A lot.
I hadn't ever felt that before-a sudden surge of fury, contempt, and disdain mixed in with a physical excitement only a few degrees short of actual arousal. It wasn't an emotion. It was nothing that tame and limited. It was a force, a dark and vast tide that picked me up and swept me along like a Styrofoam packing peanut. And I liked it.
There was something in me that took a deep and gloating satisfaction in seeing my enemy on the floor and helpless. That part of me wanted to see her screaming. And then see her die screaming.
[...]
I stared at Trixie for a hot, wild second, and the look choked her continued shrieks to whimpers. Trixie may have been female, but as of that moment she wasn't a woman anymore. She'd crossed a line. As far as I was concerned, she and her allies had forfeited their membership card to the humanity club when they killed Emma.
-I don't know if it's too amorphous and un-magicky to count, but his kills in DB seem to haunt him during PG and beyond:
[Murph:]"You look like you're bleeding, somehow...you killed them. It's eating at you....You made the choice cold...[in reference to her own killing of Denton]...but it made me feel stained. To take a life." (PG, 99-100)
[Harry:]"I've never killed, man. Not like that. Cold."...[Michael, in response:]"You feel like nothing is ever going to be right again...you feel stained." (PG, 385)
My reading of that is that the killing hit him harder than picking up the coin. With the coin, Harry had excuses. He had to pick it before Little Harry picked it up, he was fighting the coin's influence, he wasn't planing to use it - he had lots of excuses for that one. For the murder - he had no excuses. He had killed someone and couldn't find an excuse or rationalization for that.
When he was alone with Micheal he poured out his heart to the Knight about the murder. He had a real heart to heart. The coin thing was more of an after thought with him - and Harry seemed surprised by that.
His first killing in cold blood - that hit him hard. Very hard. Without that, I don't think he could have forced himself to kill Susan.
Richard
See, I never liked that part. It wasn't his first cold blooded killing. He killed Grevanes drummer (for the life of me I can't remember his name). Granted, the guy had been cutting on him, so it wasn't exactly without cause, but it was certainly a killing not in self-defence. He was already safe by then. Also granted, it was Mouse that did the killing, but Harry was the mind behind the deed.
Not trying to get into an argument about the nature of the killing of slate, but imho Harry is wrong about it being his first cold killing, even if it was a step about what he'd done before.
These nonmagical examples might not count; I'm not sure. I guess I never grasped why murdering by magic does more harm to the soul than just general murder. I get why invading someone's mind/free will does some terrible damage, but it seems to me that murder is murder, and it stains the soul, whatever the weapon.
See, I never liked that part. It wasn't his first cold blooded killing. He killed Grevanes drummer (for the life of me I can't remember his name).
If he had never have done that... I can see Harry killing Slate and telling himself that it was a mercy killing (which it was) and that he was only doing it for his daughter (which he was) and otherwise excusing and rationalising the act.
Richard
See, I never liked that part. It wasn't his first cold blooded killing. He killed Grevanes drummer (for the life of me I can't remember his name). Granted, the guy had been cutting on him, so it wasn't exactly without cause, but it was certainly a killing not in self-defence. He was already safe by then. Also granted, it was Mouse that did the killing, but Harry was the mind behind the deed.Dragoneyes--
Not trying to get into an argument about the nature of the killing of slate, but imho Harry is wrong about it being his first cold killing, even if it was a step about what he'd done before.
- We know that the ruby his mother left him is trouble.
How so?
I think it's because you are using the forces of creation to destroy. If I murder someone, it's bad. But if I take the very essence that shapes and creates life, and twist it in order to kill someone, that's so much worse. At least, that's how I read it.I'm sure you're right and that sounds like Harry's (and JB's) take on it...I just don't get why it's worse to pervert the powers of creation than, say, to use a dog--the absolute quintessence of love, humility, and overall goodness, in my opinion--to maul and kill, somewhat twisting the role of the guardian, protector, and companion.
Doesn't Lea say that the gem comes with some sort of price, and that his mother had headaches after?
I'm sure you're right and that sounds like Harry's (and JB's) take on it...I just don't get why it's worse to pervert the powers of creation than, say, to use a dog--the absolute quintessence of love, humility, and overall goodness, in my opinion--to maul and kill, somewhat twisting the role of the guardian, protector, and companion.
Because dogs have been helping humans maul and kill for longer than human history?And in the Dresdenverse, I'll bet black magic or using magic to harm others has been used for about as long. :) I know I'm not correct or canon in my opinion about killing people with magic in the Dresdenverse, though....but I guess the conclusion is that non-magical killings still count as stains, if potentially less significant ones.
And in the Dresdenverse, I'll bet black magic or using magic to harm others has been used for about as long. :) I know I'm not correct or canon in my opinion about killing people with magic in the Dresdenverse, though....but I guess the conclusion is that non-magical killings still count as stains, if potentially less significant ones.
Mercy killing?
A little OT:
Harry killing Cassius can't truly be considered a "cold blooded killing" in my opinion.
The simple fact that Cassius was a competent sorcerer means that even if he was on his way out in a month (or even the next few minutes) Cassius was an existential threat to Harry until Cassius was dead. In my opinion, that makes it - however cold or not it might have been - self-defense.
I didn't say that it would be a mercy killing - only that Harry could have rationalise it as a mercy killing. He didn't because he didn't have to. Harry had spent years getting used to the self image of "Harry - a cold blooded killer when he has to be". I'm not saying he's completely jaded, but the second one is always easier. That's the stain spreading on his self image if not his soul.
In that case, Harry should have shot Morgan in the back during Summer Knight. Morgan was a wizard and threat - he might not have been an active danger to Harry at the time but he was an existing threat to Harry.
And he should have arranged for a deadly accident for Marcone - who is also a threat. And (by extension) Hendricks. And he should have killed that White Court Vampire that was stalking him before Thomas revealed that he was Harry's brother. And Fitz - Fitz should have died for shooting at Molly.
But Harry isn't a killer who neutralises threats like that. He's deal with a danger while the danger exist and then tries to prevent the danger from coming back. At least that's who he was before he killed a woman he loved to protect the daughter he never knew. That's who he still was when he didn't have glans interfering with his thought process. Will he be the same person in a few books time? Who knows?
Those dark influences keep adding up and he hasn't had the chance to interact with any light influences (Micheal, Maggie, etc) for a while.
Richard
"If I see you again - ever - I'll kill you."
I rasped, "I told you."
He paused, eyebrows lifted, and rolled a hand. "Pray continue."
"Told you," I said, and it was marred with a groan. "Told you if I ever saw you again I would kill you."
Mercy killing? Look I like Harry but Harry only killed slate for power to rescue his daughter. Harry did not care about Slate's suffering. In PG Slate literally begs Harry to kill him ( Slate has his sanity at this point). Harry didn't want to kill him because he wanted Slate to suffer. I don't have my copy of PG but that was how the scene played out at Arctis Tor. He thinks to himself that he would like to see ways in which Slate's suffering is prolonged. I found the scene where he was hesistating killing slate in Changes weird. Now when Slate's mind is gone is when he kills Slate instead of giving Slate the mercy in PG.It would have been a mercy killing if Harry had killed him in Arctis Tor during Proven Guilty. But then he did not have mercy.
Again I like Harry but I find his monologue in Changes about taking Lloyd Slates life hypocritical when in PG he was more than happy to let slate be tortured for as long as Mab wanted.
In that case, Harry should have shot Morgan in the back during Summer Knight. Morgan was a wizard and threat - he might not have been an active danger to Harry at the time but he was an existing threat to Harry.The others were vague, potential threats, with motivations that he could understand, and who could reasonably be dissuaded from hurting him or those around him. Cassius was a psycho on a vengeance kick, who had just cut his abdomen open with a hook knife and was very close to killing him.
And he should have arranged for a deadly accident for Marcone - who is also a threat. And (by extension) Hendricks. And he should have killed that White Court Vampire that was stalking him before Thomas revealed that he was Harry's brother. And Fitz - Fitz should have died for shooting at Molly.
In that case, Harry should have shot Morgan in the back during Summer Knight. Morgan was a wizard and threat - he might not have been an active danger to Harry at the time but he was an existing threat to Harry.Neither Morgan nor Marcone are active threats of that magnitude.
And he should have arranged for a deadly accident for Marcone - who is also a threat. And (by extension) Hendricks. And he should have killed that White Court Vampire that was stalking him before Thomas revealed that he was Harry's brother. And Fitz - Fitz should have died for shooting at Molly.
But Harry isn't a killer who neutralises threats like that. He's deal with a danger while the danger exist and then tries to prevent the danger from coming back. At least that's who he was before he killed a woman he loved to protect the daughter he never knew. That's who he still was when he didn't have glans interfering with his thought process. Will he be the same person in a few books time? Who knows?
Those dark influences keep adding up and he hasn't had the chance to interact with any light influences (Micheal, Maggie, etc) for a while.
Richard
Cassius on the other hand, was perfectly happy to use magic to try to kill. Cassius was not bound by the laws of magic, had obviously been planning on killing Harry for quite some time, and he would not be stopped short of his own death. Cassius is a big, mean hungry rabid dog that has gotten inside your house, and thinks you look yummy, and that you make interesting noises when you're in pain.
Harry was now a Warden. He could have taken Cassius captive, bound him, and turned him over to Morgan, who would have succinctly beheaded him anyways. He had a choice on what to do, and he chose to kill Cassius personally rather than through the screwed up yet official channels of the Wardens. It was a death he chose, not one he needed to give.As a warden harry doesnt need morgan to kill a warlock
As a warden harry doesnt need morgan to kill a warlock
Considering how wardens have a cut the head off first and ask questions and harry was in the middle of trying to stop the dark hallow I think harry actually followed warden procedure on this oneIn terms of whether Harry is darkened by the experience, I'm not sure how much it matters, in the end, whether he objectively had the right to do what he did. He certainly believes that what he did was justified ("'If you had it to do again, would you?' 'Twice as hard.'") but that doesn't stop him from feeling haunted and stained by the "cold" killings.
As for it being justified - Marcone has been just as big as a threat since Storm Front. Having soul gazed the man, Harry knows that Marcone could kill Harry and feel nothing. Since sometime between Turn Coat and Changes, Harry has known that Marcone builds anti-Harry death traps.
But rather than kill the threat, Harry saves Marcone in Fool Moon. Rather than react to the anti-Harry death trap, Harry arranges to meet the man on neutral territory.
[...]
Richard
I'm not sure I follow this line of logic.
You seem to be assuming that everything that's dangerous is also a threat, and should be dealt with using a pre-emptive strike.
No, just pointing out that since day one in Storm Front, Marcone has been a bigger threat than Cassius was at the moment that Harry killed him. If people feel that Harry killing Cassius was the right thing to do then Marcone should have died as well.
Instead, Harry repeatedly risked his life to save Marcone in Fool Moon. When Harry got to the estate and saw the downed wolves Harry knew that Marcone now saw Harry as a threat and may have already sent out countless hitmen, but Harry still did what he had to in order to save Marcone.
I wonder if summoning demons leaves some sort of black magic stain. IIRC (but I don't have the book currently), somehow Aurora knew about Harry having called up Chauncy.I would find it extremely likely.
I would find it extremely likely.Hm...it occurs to me that in Grave Peril, Harry actually explicitly bound Kravos's ghost to his own will, forcing Kravos to only be able to go after Harry rather than any other mortal. That's probably a violation of the 4th law, and violations of the laws of magic, even with good intentions, probably count as dark influences.
Hm...it occurs to me that in Grave Peril, Harry actually explicitly bound Kravos's ghost to his own will, forcing Kravos to only be able to go after Harry rather than any other mortal. That's probably a violation of the 4th law, and violations of the laws of magic, even with good intentions, probably count as dark influences.
Do you mean 5th law since it was Kravos's ghost and not a mortal. I'm really fuzzy on the 5th law and why what Harry did in GP doesn't countThere isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game :D
There isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game :DActually I was thinking the 4th law, the prohibition against enthrallment. Apparently even summoning Toot comes close to breaking that one, and Toot doesn't have a soul either. When Victor Sells summons and binds a demon, according to Harry and Morgan, that also breaks the 4th law. Demons and fey don't have souls, but it isn't ok to bind them to your will, so I assume the same goes for ghosts. I could be wrong, though.
Actually I was thinking the 4th law, the prohibition against enthrallment. Apparently even summoning Toot comes close to breaking that one, and Toot doesn't have a soul either. When Victor Sells summons and binds a demon, according to Harry and Morgan, that also breaks the 4th law. Demons and fey don't have souls, but it isn't ok to bind them to your will, so I assume the same goes for ghosts. I could be wrong, though.
There isa difference between a ghost and a shade. A ghost does not have a soul and is fair game :D
Okay. I thought that Harry said the laws only applied to mortals?I think that's just the necromancy thing. Enthrallment doesn't specify a mortal or a human, and Harry explicitly accuses Victor of breaking it in the 1st book for having summoned and bound the trenchcoatted toad demon. (Morgan also accuses Harry of the same, claiming that it is against the 4th law)
That's a tempting answer, but there are still questions. If that's the case, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the Dark Hallow, since they were pretty much all shades, except the humans that would be killed in the process. Do it without loss of life and its okay. Raising an army of undead ghosts is okay as well.
No, but he does apparently need a trial when there isn't an immediate danger, otherwise the trial at the beginning of PG makes no sense.
I don't think that "trial" was needed for anything other than to make Harry uncomfortable. I thought Harry even said that.
I think the trials are mostly a formality because the Warden's testimony is so absolute, but they are still a formality. If a Warden wants to kill a warlock he can say whatever he needs to to be able to do it.
I believe that there is supposed to be a trial, but that when a Warden says "The Warlock was killed while resisting arrest" everyone just nods and called it a clean shot.
Richard
I think there's mention in the text, that when Harry pulled out the barbed wire spell (Grave Peril) it tainted him as well.
In case you want to add this.
maybe this was brought up alreadt but did anyone else notice
(click to show/hide)
I think that's just the necromancy thing. Enthrallment doesn't specify a mortal or a human, and Harry explicitly accuses Victor of breaking it in the 1st book for having summoned and bound the trenchcoatted toad demon. (Morgan also accuses Harry of the same, claiming that it is against the 4th law)
I think he also reiterates the point in book 1, book 4, and book 10, saying how careful he is to imbue the words he uses to call Toot with as little will as possible to avoid breaking the law.