In the RPG, Billy asks exactly this. Harry's answer is that it's not technically altering the person's mind or body -- it just lowers inhibitions by a lot, not much different from getting a girl liquored up.
So it's not a violation of the laws of magic, but it's sleazy as hell and not really a good thing to do either.
Taking advantage of anyone liquored up can be seen as rape.. Liquor, drugs, love potions affect one's judgement, thus one's free will to make choices.. So yeah, it is a violation in my book.Oh, it's certainly a violation of something, just not of the Third Law of magic.
Taking advantage of anyone liquored up can be seen as rape.. Liquor, drugs, love potions affect one's judgement, thus one's free will to make choices.. So yeah, it is a violation in my book.
The thing to remember about the laws of magic have nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with protecting humanity from Warlocks, Outsiders, and those who would interfere with the flow of time.
But it is about morality, it is ALL about morality, it is the basis of law.. A lot about black magic is it is a short cut to getting things done, because there are no rules.. You sneak a love potion in, innocent, just want to lower inhibitions... No harm, no foul... Really? Not about morality, it is about protecting humanity from warlocks etc.... Well, consider, the young apprentice who has gotten far enough in his or her studies to make one and use it on someone he or she doesn't care to woo or who won't give them the time of day... Short cut to an end... Harmless? Think again the young wizard gets by with it, no thought of the repercussions for the object... Or the repercussions for the young apprentice who is now tainted by it, may become a bit lazy take more short cuts oh, now we have a warlock on our hands.. Or take Victor, some talent, got a hold of some books, perhaps the wrong books, but his original motives were not evil... But then he found the short cuts, they got out of hand, suddenly he is a very dangerous sorcerer and people are getting their hearts torn out by remote control...
“She was furious that ‘the Laws of Magic have nothing to do with right and wrong.’ She pointed out how wizards could use their abilities to bilk people out of their money, to intimidate and manipulate them, to steal wealth and property from others or destroy it outright, and that so long as the Laws were obeyed, the Council would do nothing whatsoever to stop them or discourage others from following their example. She wanted to reform the Council’s laws to embrace concepts of justice as well as limiting the specific use of magic.”
I frowned. “Wow. What a monster.”
She exhaled slowly. “Can you imagine what would happen if she’d had her way?”
A lust potion in itself is not even immoral. You can share it with your spouse on a nice holliday.
From Turncoat:And Margaret was right, without justice there is no point. Common thugs can give a neighborhood protection, but who wants to live under the rule of thugs? Morgan's long harassment of Harry was about enforcing the Law, in the end as he died he realized it is also about justice and morality and he was wrong.
And it goes on and on. The laws of magic have nothing to do with morality as explained by Captain Luccio.
And Margaret was right, without justice there is no point. Common thugs can give a neighborhood protection, but who wants to live under the rule of thugs? Morgan's long harassment of Harry was about enforcing the Law, in the end as he died he realized it is also about justice and morality and he was wrong.Well, when the thug is charming and intelligent enough, and hangs out with the right people, sometimes people compare him to King Arthur.
And Margaret was right, without justice there is no point. Common thugs can give a neighborhood protection, but who wants to live under the rule of thugs? Morgan's long harassment of Harry was about enforcing the Law, in the end as he died he realized it is also about justice and morality and he was wrong.
And Margaret was right, without justice there is no point. Common thugs can give a neighborhood protection, but who wants to live under the rule of thugs? Morgan's long harassment of Harry was about enforcing the Law, in the end as he died he realized it is also about justice and morality and he was wrong.The laws of magic are a human creation maintained and interpreted by a human organization and that organization does not agree.
I think the closest that a potion (any potion) could come to violating the Third Law would be by tying someone down and forcing them to drink it. And even then, no magic would have been used in that process, so it might not even count.Doesn't matter if it's voluntarily taken or not.
Under any other circumstances, consumption of a potion is voluntary, and therefore does not violate the Third Law.
Doesn't matter if it's voluntarily taken or not.
Altering someone else's mind is a violation.
Besides, you've never heard of someone drugging someone's drink? Choosing to drink something doesn't mean you willfully and knowingly consent to everything that's in that drink.
The White Council disagrees, or else Morgan would have pressed charges against Harry for every potion he had ever brewed (all of which are mind-altering in some way).What? The love potion is the only potentially mind-altering potion we've ever seen him brew.
Since the White Council has the sole authority to enforce its laws, and since it does not ban the production or distribution of potions, it follows that potions cannot be against the Third Law.OK, I really do not know where you're coming from with this. Not every potion is mind-altering or has anything to do with any of the laws.
Fact: Harry Dresden brewed a love potion in Storm Front.You're missing the fact that Morgan didn't know about the love potion in the first place.
Fact: Morgan never passed up an opportunity to get Harry into trouble as of Storm Front.
Fact: Morgan did not use the fact that Harry had brewed a love potion against him at the end of Storm Front.
Conclusion: The White Council does not consider brewing a love potion to be a violation of the Third Law.
You're missing the fact that Morgan didn't know about the love potion in the first place.Exactly, see we do agree once in a while.... ::)
I mean, yes, from Harry's explanation in other sources, it wasn't a violation, but the logic here just does not work.
How could Morgan not have known about the love potion, when his job was to keep tabs on every magical move Harry made?That logic does not hold up at all.
It's safer to assume, in the absence of evidence that Morgan didn't know about the love potion, that he did.
I'll conceded that Morgan probably didn't know about the love potion.The production of the love potion -- and any other potion -- involves using magic. The text is explicit about this.
But as a point of order: The Third Law says "Thou Shalt Not (Use Magic to) Invade the Mind of Another." Neither the production nor the consumption of a love potion violates that law.
The production of the love potion -- and any other potion -- involves using magic. The text is explicit about this.
I don't think there have ever been any "traditional" love potions in the Dresden Files, have there?We haven't seen any, and you're right that that's probably why.
The Third and Fourth Laws might be the reason why not.
Doesn't matter if it's voluntarily taken or not.Actually with mind magic permission is everything otherwise the gatekeeper could not even start helping Peabody's many victims.
Altering someone else's mind is a violation.
Besides, you've never heard of someone drugging someone's drink? Choosing to drink something doesn't mean you willfully and knowingly consent to everything that's in that drink.
Actually with mind magic permission is everything otherwise the gatekeeper could not even start helping Peabody's many victims.I think that depends on whether we're talking about the practical application of the law or the cosmic-application of the law.
So even if the potion is mind altering (not according to the rpg as quoted earlier) and even if there is no difference between giving someone a potion to drink and using magic directly (there might be no moral difference if you deceive someone into drinking it but the laws of magic are not about morals and technicalities can make a huge difference, that is why the wardens can use magic swords to kill people)
Even then there is consent. If you tell someone what the potion is and what it does the consent is everything. With consent it is not an invasion. It can be seen as a medicine in certain circumstances.
Besides if you make a potion bomb you can kill people but if you use it on fairies it is ok. So you just say to the next warden those love potions are for use on fairies. Or for your own consumption, it certainly will cure your shyness, maybe in small doses it will just give you some courage to do what you want to do anyway.
Getting affirmative consent to look in someone's mind might get the White Council off your back, but that doesn't mean you're not being tainted by the use of black magic.
I think that depends on whether we're talking about the practical application of the law or the cosmic-application of the law.When talking about the laws of magic only the practical application is meaningful.
Getting affirmative consent to look in someone's mind might get the White Council off your back, but that doesn't mean you're not being tainted by the use of black magic.
I'll conceded that Morgan probably didn't know about the love potion.
But as a point of order: The Third Law says "Thou Shalt Not (Use Magic to) Invade the Mind of Another." Neither the production nor the consumption of a love potion violates that law.
A love potion may not directly enter a mind as in going in and reading it.. So in that sense it doesn't violate the Law, however it does alter the drinker's mind and thinking which violates the spirit of the Law.
Doesn't matter if it's voluntarily taken or not.
Altering someone else's mind is a violation.
Morgan clearly and obviously did not know everything magical that Harry did, otherwise Morgan would not have assumed Harry was committing the murders in the first place. He also would have known that Harry didn't summon the demon that he accuses him of summoning.
That Morgan never brings up the love potion means he did not know about the love potion.
I don't think that Morgan didn't know about the love potion. I mean come ON.. miss 2 naked people running around? he did see the demon, and the end of the fight. One girl who was out of her mind, and naked. hmmm. Not hard math there.People can only run around naked when there's a love potion involved?
I don't think that Morgan didn't know about the love potion. I mean come ON.. miss 2 naked people running around? he did see the demon, and the end of the fight. One girl who was out of her mind, and naked. hmmm. Not hard math there.
Mira: Laws are about their letter, not the spirit. According to the ruling bodies anyway.
Harry says in Turn Coat that wards that "suggest" people not notice someplace are generally accepted in the Council as not violating the Law. He says the same thing about the sleep spell he uses on Evelyn Derek (he calls it "grey" magic, but says the Council accepts it).Just like placing an illusion in someone’s head in stead of creating a phantasm but the Merlin did exactly that to explain his battle plan in turncoat.
There seems to be some sort of established distinction here, but it's never clearly explained.
It doesn't seem to be as simple as emotions vs directly forcing actions, either -- the way Molly's spell in PG is described, it seems to be emotion-based (fear), and Harry never even tries to argue at her trial that that makes it a non-violation or even a gray area...
But just flooding someone with some emotion might be acceptable as well. What Molly did was invading a mind to couple an emotion to an action in an effort to change a persons nature, even soul. That is so obvious law breaking that nobody could argue anything else.
People can only run around naked when there's a love potion involved?
There's a dozen other conclusions you could come to based on what he saw.
But the spirit of it kept Morgan on Harry's ass for ten years!Let's just say Morgan is a tender spirit. And completely duty bound.
The production of the love potion -- and any other potion -- involves using magic. The text is explicit about this.
As the potion is magic, any changes it makes in a person are magical in nature, and thus part of the law. Note in Turn Coat, how Peabody's law violations are centered around his inks, i.e., a potion he concocted to break the laws of magic.
So I was re-reading Storm Front (for the first time in a long time) and Bob convinces Harry to make a Love Potion. Isn't this by definition a huge violation of the third law, forcible violation of a human mind?i'd bet since it effects the emotions and physiology over the psyche it's in the same grey area of free will violation that lets Whites be residents here.
I was confused since Harry didn't really object to making it despite Morgan practically hanging over his shoulder and it being a more clear violation of the White Council's laws.
I could chalk it up to being the first book and not everything being thought out but was wondering if Jim ever chimed in on this.
Yes, and based on the fact that Susan is (sorry, was) way out of Harry's league, the first one to come to mind is prostitution. Second would be compulsion.
Yes, and based on the fact that Susan is (sorry, was) way out of Harry's league, the first one to come to mind is prostitution. Second would be compulsion.So an attractive woman could only have been with someone (who you consider to be) less attractive because she's literally being paid or forced?
Brewing a love potion wouldn't violate the Law, but slipping it to someone against their will might count for the purposes of enforcement. Similarly to owning a gun; I have it, but my use of it is restricted. I don't break any laws until I disobey those restrictions.It is definitively Harry’s interpretation but other wizards would see, smell or hear something similar depending on how white, black or grey they themselves are.
Now, here's a question: was the Three-Eye drug Victor Sells brewed illegal by Council Law? Or was it illegal to distribute? Harry says the potions he sees in Sells's clubhouse have a nasty, black-magic-ish aura, but is that just Harry's interpretation of how horribly the potion corrupts the user?
He violated a bunch of other Laws regardless, so he'd be executed no matter what, but if he had just stuck to the drug trade without the murder and demon-summoning, would he have been?Maybe not, it is sometimes difficult to guess how the council sees these things. Adding layers of insulation seems to matter. So if Victor had made a deal with a fairy to make the potion for him? No law would have been broken.
If Morgan thought so (and I hope/presume you're speaking from his point of view and not your own), he would have said so.Yes, I'm speaking from his point of view. And I won't derail the thread further by discussing basic human bias tendencies. My point is: Morgan most likely knew about the potion, and didn't care.
Given he doesn't seem to pay her any mind, I doubt he's jumping to those kinds of conclusions.
Yes, I'm speaking from his point of view. And I won't derail the thread further by discussing basic human bias tendencies. My point is: Morgan most likely knew about the potion, and didn't care.I still don't see anything to support the idea that he could have known about it, let alone that he "most likely" knew.
He wasn't present when it was used -- otherwise he would have known that the Demon was sent to attack Dresden.
i'd bet since it effects the emotions and physiology over the psyche it's in the same grey area of free will violation that lets Whites be residents here.
Now, here's a question: was the Three-Eye drug Victor Sells brewed illegal by Council Law? Or was it illegal to distribute? Harry says the potions he sees in Sells's clubhouse have a nasty, black-magic-ish aura, but is that just Harry's interpretation of how horribly the potion corrupts the user?
The Laws of Magic are irrelevant to the White Court. The Council can't go after them for enthralling people because of the Accords.Yep, and I didn't say a word about the white council, I speak of resident of reality as in not pissing off the supervisor by straight up breaking free will by forcing them into psychic sex. They don't actually effect the mental persona, it can be resisted. compare that to Susan on Love potion ecstasy. Our great leader says 'free will in my sandbox' those who violate that tend to get evicted. Also, this free will violation is the impermeable truth behind the 7 laws anyway, so they similarity is not entirely wrong of you.
Also, the White Court feeding isn't a spell. White Court vampires are basically humans with Hunger spirits/demons glued to their souls; the Hunger gives the vampire powers and draws life from people through emotions.
Yep, and I didn't say a word about the white council, I speak of resident of reality as in not pissing off the supervisor
Morals are not universal. Maybe they should be, and it should be my set of morals of course, but in practice not everybody has the same set but people believe in their own morals above those of everyone else
The love (or more accurately lust) potion I think would be awesome to have if there weren't any side effects. I'd say that on more than one occasion a married couple, or just a couple in general want to get that "spark" back in their relationship. How better than to both take a swig of the potion and then spend the night having incredible sex?Are there side-effects to the one Harry brewed?
Probably much better than something like viagra without the side effects of medicines. There is a huge market for it.So long as nobody asks what's in it...
So long as nobody asks what's in it...Ah, marketing. The paranet.
So long as nobody asks what's in it...
You know I think for something like this it would only be going around the Hollywood, or private society types... A kind of secret potion that you must know someone to get a hold of. Those types of people don't care as long as it works... One of the reasons so many are hooked on drugs. Also a wizard puts a lot of energy into a single potion. If they were selling it they would probably want big bucks, another reason it would be going around the high society groups.
But where does it cross the line? One can argue that making a love potion, though it clearly affects how the drinker thinks and acts, is a gray area because the maker really doesn't go into the drinker's head...
But where does it cross the line? One can argue that making a love potion, though it clearly affects how the drinker thinks and acts, is a gray area because the maker really doesn't go into the drinker's head... But how about Peabody's ink? One can argue it is really no different from a love potion, but Peabody used it to control or affect most of the White Council, including the Senior Council and Wardens, to the point where any decision made by that body in the past ten years had to be revisited.. That is mind control, Luccio was clearly being controlled by Peabody to do things she would never do, from murdering LaFortier to taking Harry as a lover.. If not outright breaking the 3rd Law, it comes very close to it.Peabodies ink just helped Peabody with his mind magic. Peabody invaded minds and changed them, Peabody enthralled wizards. The ink just helped him.
Peabodies ink just helped Peabody with his mind magic. Peabody invaded minds and changed them, Peabody enthralled wizards. The ink just helped him.
The potion is completely different because the drinker acts himself, it is his own decision.
Not so fast, if the drinker has no clue as to what he or she is drinking, it isn't his or her own decision... You can say that about the ink, Harry chose not to sign any paperwork Peabody presented him.. However that wasn't because he chose not to be influenced by the ink, ergo Peabody couldn't get into his mind.. Susan didn't chose to drink the love potion either, it was a mistake, if events hadn't gone down as they did, or if Harry had been a jerk, he could have taken full advantage of her, even made her his love slave if he continued to slip it to her...The ink was never described as a potion, more like a material component of a spell. The ink on itself did nothing, it just made Peabodies work easier. It is more like Harry’s blasting rod. The ink would have no effect if Peabody was not around doing his magic.
A test of the inks he used to attain the signatures of the Senior Council for various authorizations revealed the presence of a number of chemical and alchemical substances that are known to have been used to assist psychic manipulation of their subjects.
"Hexenwolf," Bob said, with a strong Germanic accent. "Spell wolf. The Church declared war on anyone who chose to become a Hexenwolf, and burned a huge number of people at the stake."
The ink was never described as a potion, more like a material component of a spell. The ink on itself did nothing, it just made Peabodies work easier. It is more like Harry’s blasting rod. The ink would have no effect if Peabody was not around doing his magic.
A test of the inks he used to attain the signatures of the Senior Council for various authorizations revealed the presence of a number of chemical and alchemical substances that are known to have been used to assist psychic manipulation of their subjects. It is my belief that Peabody has been drugging the ink for the purpose of attempting greater mental influence over the decisions of the member of the Senior Council, and that it is entirely possible that he has compromised the free will of the younger members of the Council outright."
The potion is different. We were discussing selling it as a drug which you can do only if you tell what it does, if you advertise it. It works without Harry even there.
It works more like the hexenwulf belts though I don’t think you get possessed by a spirit of lust. It brings a layer of isolation between you and the target of the magic, takes away the choice from you to that target.
It was not said with so many words but I did not get the impression that those belts were illegal. It was not the white council who stopped it.
However he couldn't do it at all without the ink.. The ink did a lot, it made whoever got some on them vulnerable to Peabody's mind magic. That is why he tried so hard to get Harry to sign something, which he refused and was the only one not affected. Harry says the fact that he didn't hang around headquarters much was a stroke of luck otherwise he too would have eventually have come in contact with the ink and fallen under the spell.Legal does not mean morally right. You sometimes hear the argument that something is OK because it is legal, that can point to a lack of morality in the person using that argument.
Whether or not you want to call it a potion or not, the ink had elements of one... Testimony during the trial.... Turn Coat page 386 the Merlin is talking here
So the ink was more than a device like the wooden tube Harry uses as a blasting rod..
Really? Interesting that if the belts were so legal that they were all burned...
What does whether or not you sell a love potion as a drug have to do with violating the 3rd Law?I do not know but I got the impression that it was argued otherwise.
Spirit of lust? No, but it does increase carnal lust pushing the drinker to want sex when they might not want sex, a violation of free will.I don't know. What is enough of a violation of free will to matter seems to differ sometimes. Uriel would say that Susan still had free will. Just somewhat lowered inhibitions.
I say Harry wasn't a jerk because he didn't violate Susan's free will to decide whether or not she wanted sex with him under the influence of the potion... That has nothing to do with morals, it is whether he wanted to be a rapist or not..Wanting to be a rapist or not definitively has something to do with morals but nothing to do with the laws of magic. Morals have everything to do with emotions and a lack of these emotions like guilt and shame can be seen as a mental defect.
Fwiw, the TWG side doesnt seem to view being "Pushed" alone as a violation of Free Will (this is the Thrall distinction, methinks), given that a half-vamp that succumbs to their vampiric Blood-lust was still Choosing of their own Free WillThat is what Uriel's 7 words in Ghost Story seems to make somewhat hollow. Sure, only Harry can change who he is but Mab knows from experience that if you push hard enough it will happen.
Fwiw, the TWG side doesnt seem to view being "Pushed" alone as a violation of Free Will (this is the Thrall distinction, methinks), given that a half-vamp that succumbs to their vampiric Blood-lust was still Choosing of their own Free WillGah, this whole thread seems to be forgetting one huge key, fae give out laced food all the time and they can't abrogate free will. Taking the food, even unknowingly, isn't violating free will. offering it, using it to your advantage, ect. If you look at the wording of the laws nothing about the potion is a mentally invasive presence, it doesn't bind or effect your mind directly, your not suddenly smitten with someone you dislike, feeling horny your not trying to jump a toad demon or similarly offensive being, Susan wanted Harry, the potion just made the idea louder, which we know is far from violations apparently. It's not like Merope inspelling Tom Riddle, it doesn't actually change your thought patterns at all...
That is what Uriel's 7 words in Ghost Story seems to make somewhat hollow. Sure, only Harry can change who he is but Mab knows from experience that if you push hard enough it will happen.I dont see your meaning with that comparison, Hollow how? The Shadow (Lasciel) spoke seven words at the right Time and Place to convince Harry that it was inevitable that he would eventually fall, so Uriel spoke seven words at the right Time and Place to convince him of the opposite (and since Harry had already died he was given some leeway to arrange said moment).
I dont see your meaning with that comparison, Hollow how? The Shadow (Lasciel) spoke seven words at the right Time and Place to convince Harry that it was inevitable that he would eventually fall, so Uriel spoke seven words at the right Time and Place to convince him of the opposite (and since Harry had already died he was given some leeway to arrange said moment).They were the right words to counter Lasciel and strictly speaking right from Uriels point of view but Mab was not wrong either.
Not so fast, if the drinker has no clue as to what he or she is drinking, it isn't his or her own decision...
Point of order: Susan didn't know what she was drinking.You don't catch Uriel that easily. Since when is actually being well informed part of the human free will experience? Sometimes you get the idea that knowing everything leaves you no choice so no free will. It was her choice to drink something from a wizards lab.
They were the right words to counter Lasciel and strictly speaking right from Uriels point of view but Mab was not wrong either.How so? Because all indications Ive seen (text and WOJ) is that she was very much mistaken. Not a bad thing, she's allowed to misunderstand Human Nature, supposedly that part of why she used Sarissa as a forced-BFF giving her Human Cultural Interaction lessons.
You don't catch Uriel that easily. Since when is actually being well informed part of the human free will experience? Sometimes you get the idea that knowing everything leaves you no choice so no free will. It was her choice to drink something from a wizards lab.She was aware that it was a Dangerous place and Chose to go Anyway; Harry was aware that he was hiding the full scope of that danger from her, but did it Anyway out of misguided protectiveness (by his own current evaluation). Fair Play from a Free Perspective.
How so? Because all indications Ive seen (text and WOJ) is that she was very much mistaken. Not a bad thing, she's allowed to misunderstand Human Nature, supposedly that part of why she used Sarissa as a forced-BFF giving her Human Cultural Interaction lessons.Hat does not stop her from being right for the wrong reasons, she has a lot of experience in changing people or from Uriel’s perspective pushing people to change themselves. For Mab those things are the same and for all intense and purpose they are.
Hat does not stop her from being right for the wrong reasons, she has a lot of experience in changing people or from Uriel’s perspective pushing people to change themselves. For Mab those things are the same and for all intense and purpose they are.She can TRY. That was the whole point, she will always have the chance to Fail, despite what Harry was led to believe. She can Push him, torture and con him, but only he can Choose to Change himself, she cant do it for him.
She can change Harry and reading Cold Days she nearly did.
You either do, or do not. There is no try.People try to do things all the time and sometimes they succeed. If you only do what you know you can do you will never succeed in something new.
You either do, or do not. There is no try.There is absolutely try. Trying is required for doing. And sometimes not doing. But there is always try.
There is absolutely try. Trying is required for doing. And sometimes not doing. But there is always try.Yea, that 'not try' bull is just a zen paradox to make you have an epiphany of intention. It has to be taken in the right context.
So how would people feel about a truth potion? Would that violate the laws?Luccio used a truth spell in dead beat to check if Harry was lying or not. It probably depends on what it exactly does and how.
Luccio used a truth spell in dead beat to check if Harry was lying or not. It probably depends on what it exactly does and how.
She can try is very different from she can not.Indeed, the former makes her statements incorrect, because it does not carry guarantee of success that she was claiming. I can TRY to push over my office building all day long. Doesnt mean I can succeed without outside intervention. I can TRY to convince you of something, but succeeding does not mean I removed your ability to decide for yourself.
"An entire life, an entire personality, can be permanently altered by just one sentence." -An Accidental VillainAgents of Shield, during their LMD story arc.
What's this from, Quantus?
Another good quote is from Lex Luthor on Smallville: In life, the road to darkness is a journey, not a light switch
Agents of Shield, during their LMD story arc.(click to show/hide)
Since Harry is good at making magical items, for his age, wouldn't it be interesting for him to spend some time with Klaus the toymaker. I would like to see snakes in a can but with real snakes.He honestly, nerdily loves to design and make his little magic gadgets, I would really love to see him actually study with any one of the masters of that Craft. I want o see Klaus under any circumstances, but if Harry had to learn Craft-Magic I think it would be more (sadistically) entertaining if he were to study with Mai instead... ;D
Mai would not tolerate Harry's lack of etiquette.Mmm, another thing he could learn from the same source lol
Mmm, another thing he could learn from the same source lolOr give her high blood pressure, coronary and probably a blood clot while trying.
Mai would not tolerate Harry's lack of etiquette.Exactly!! ;D ;D
The production of the love potion -- and any other potion -- involves using magic. The text is explicit about this.
As the potion is magic, any changes it makes in a person are magical in nature, and thus part of the law. Note in Turn Coat, how Peabody's law violations are centered around his inks, i.e., a potion he concocted to break the laws of magic.
Actually, Peabody's potion in itself does not violate any laws of magic.And even that is not a violation of the law if the wizard has an invitation. It also depends on what the wizard does. Changing or deleting an uncomfortable or even false memory is one thing but enthrallment is always a violation.
The potion ink is designed to lowered a person's mental defenses. Makes them more vulnerable to manipulation. It does not however, manipulate the person's mind by itself. A wizard has to directly use mind magic to do that.
I think it's still a violation, permission or not.How would you feel if you found that someone had broken into your house, sat down on your couch, watched TV, had a shower, maybe poked through your cabinets?
Put it this way -- if someone sticks a knife in me and slices from my bellybutton to my ribcage, it's going to affect me and them in a profound way for days, weeks or even years.
That applies whether it's someone who knifed me during a robbery gone wrong or whether it was a doctor to whom I not only gave explicit permission, but paid good money to do so.
Giving permission doesn't change the nature of the act as an invasion into a place that's not meant to be invaded.
How would you feel if you found that someone had broken into your house, sat down on your couch, watched TV, had a shower, maybe poked through your cabinets?A house has doors and such that are intended to be opened and closed to let people in and out.
Would you feel as bad if you had a guest over?
I think it's still a violation, permission or not.That is exactly what happens if a surgeon uses his scalpel to remove a stone from your bladder.
Put it this way -- if someone sticks a knife in me and slices from my bellybutton to my ribcage, it's going to affect me and them in a profound way for days, weeks or even years.
That applies whether it's someone who knifed me during a robbery gone wrong or whether it was a doctor to whom I not only gave explicit permission, but paid good money to do so.
Giving permission doesn't change the nature of the act as an invasion into a place that's not meant to be invaded.
A house has doors and such that are intended to be opened and closed to let people in and out.You can "let someone into your heart." And if you can get into someone's mind, then obviously you can get out of your own. Unless it's a theft for you to leave your own mind by your own decision.
The human brain does not. The only way for someone to access the information in there is to "break in."
A house has doors and such that are intended to be opened and closed to let people in and out.Your eyes are the doors to your soul, that is how a soul gaze works.
The human brain does not. The only way for someone to access the information in there is to "break in."
Your eyes are the doors to your soul, that is how a soul gaze works.To the soul, not the mind. And they're a window, not a door -- you can see in, but that doesn't mean you can go in.
And you can open that door for someone else as we have seen several times. Any help for peabodies victims would have been impossible otherwise. Some of them were changed into walking suicide bombs.
You can "let someone into your heart." And if you can get into someone's mind, then obviously you can get out of your own. Unless it's a theft for you to leave your own mind by your own decision.The heart is also not the mind.
Mmm and yet the law specifically cites invading the mind of another, a denotation of force, instead of saying entering into another's mind or even breaking it.I am positing that any "entering" is by nature an invasion.
I am positing that any "entering" is by nature an invasion.There is something called free will in the dresdenverse. You can invite someone.
You're going into a place you're not intended to be, and it is traumatic by nature because you have to break through natural barriers to get in.There is no evidence in the books about that. It starts getting traumatic when emotional drives and so on are changed but that is logical.
We haven't seen any such interactions described as one person "opening the door" for another, or the person being "entered" doing anything to facilitate or bring the other person in. It's always the other way around -- the person doing the entering is doing something to get in.That does not matter as long as you are invited. If the door is unlocked you can open it if you have an invitation.
There is something called free will in the dresdenverse. You can invite someone.If there's no door, they still have to break in.
There is no evidence in the books about that. It starts getting traumatic when emotional drives and so on are changed but that is logical.It's putting yourself where you otherwise are incapable of going. That kind of thing is traumatic by nature. Same reason owning ways makes the fabric of reality weaker.
That does not matter as long as you are invited. If the door is unlocked you can open it if you have an invitation.But there isn't a door. The mind is not a thing people can get into in normal circumstances. There isn't away for people to put others into their minds. That's part of the point Dresden is making when he tells molly that looking-- just looking-- in Luccio's head is breaking the laws.
I do not think Harry would break the laws in weekly training sessions with Molly after all the effort he did to help her not to break it anymore. These sessions were legal.Harry outright says that the white council relaxed its normal restrictions on mind magic to make those training sessions legal.
The Gatekeeper must have entered minds to help wizards. There was too much information around about what Peabody had done.Remember that the White Council's enforcement of the laws does not necessarily match the cosmic nature of them. Sticking a knife into someone is traumatic. Even if it's "allowed" because that person is a doctor.
And entering someones mind with an invitation should not be that difficult. Harry and Elaines communication spell seems to work that way. Harry was really in Elaines mind in White Night.Communicating over surface thought appears to work differently. Harry didn't get any deeper that the literal conscious thoughts she was having in the moment. Like the Merlin's communication spell in Turin Coat.
Compare it with the normal body. Sure most of the time it is illegal to stab someone but sometimes it is a surgeon with a scalpel and he tries to heal you.Yes. But, the important thing is, you still need weeks to heal until the hole in you closes.
And that surgeon is invited. You usually don't do surgery if the patient really does not want it.And that permission does not change the fact that the knife is doing damage to your body that is traumatic and takes considerable time to heal, whether the procedure was ultimately beneficial or not.
If there's no door, they still have to break in.Molly and Corpsetaker engage in mental combat via a soul gaze. The eyes link to the mind, to the soul. It's simply physiology that, mirror neurons fire in response to eye contact.
Molly and Corpsetaker engage in mental combat via a soul gaze. The eyes link to the mind, to the soul. It's simply physiology that, mirror neurons fire in response to eye contact.There corpsetaker didn't need the soulgaze. Molly initiated that. And besides, what the corpsetaker does is soul based in the first place. It's necromancy, not just mind magic.
There corpsetaker didn't need the soulgaze. Molly initiated that. And besides, what the corpsetaker does is soul based in the first place. It's necromancy, not just mind magic.Straw man.. Watsonian- Molly did so, intentionally, purposefully. she uses mind magic specifically Doyalist-Was done to show a parallel towards their next action a mental battle to displace the soul.
The concept being struggled with here is called consent If a love potion, or lust potion if it suits you better, actually works, then by definition you are operating without consent. If he/she wanted wild monkey sex with you then you wouldn't need it. And straights like me can't make love potions. Which says magic to me. I guess it only counts if you use magic words and a blasting rod. Which fits WC thinking I guess. He should have stayed with the printing on Harry's business card.How old are you? As a young boy I could have wild monkey sex any time I wanted but only with myself. If you get older and your body deserts you in small ways and pressure builds up with job and family and you get tired sooner and not enough sleep anyway.
I am positing that any "entering" is by nature an invasion.
You're going into a place you're not intended to be, and it is traumatic by nature because you have to break through natural barriers to get in.
We haven't seen any such interactions described as one person "opening the door" for another, or the person being "entered" doing anything to facilitate or bring the other person in. It's always the other way around -- the person doing the entering is doing something to get in.
How old are you? As a young boy I could have wild monkey sex any time I wanted but only with myself. If you get older and your body deserts you in small ways and pressure builds up with job and family and you get tired sooner and not enough sleep anyway.
There is a huge market in viagra. If your partner tells you not now it can just mean that she is too stressed, too tired or emotionally empty after a long day at work. You would both like wild monkey sex but it is just not possible.
Now Harry makes that nice potion.
Really, Ill doers are ill deemers.
How old are you? As a young boy I could have wild monkey sex any time I wanted but only with myself. If you get older and your body deserts you in small ways and pressure builds up with job and family and you get tired sooner and not enough sleep anyway.I'm old enough. Oddly enough Wikipedia has an entry on the topic. Go figure. And for the record I don't think Viagra works like a lust potion. Here are Harry's thoughts from Storm Front.
There is a huge market in viagra. If your partner tells you not now it can just mean that she is too stressed, too tired or emotionally empty after a long day at work. You would both like wild monkey sex but it is just not possible.
Now Harry makes that nice potion.
Really, Ill doers are ill deemers.
No. That would be too much. That would be like admitting I couldn't get a woman to like me on my own, and it would be unfair, taking advantage of the woman.That doesn't sound like consent. Just for the record, I would die to have wild monkey sex one more time. And given the state of my pump that statement might be prophetic.
I'm old enough. Oddly enough Wikipedia has an entry on the topic. Go figure. And for the record I don't think Viagra works like a lust potion.No it does not but it targets similar people. There is even more market for something better.
Here are Harry's thoughts from Storm Front.That doesn't sound like consent.It was an accident which underlines again that the problem is not the potion itself but how it is used.
Just for the record, I would die to have wild monkey sex one more time. And given the state of my pump that statement might be prophetic.It needs instructions for use.
Straw man.. Watsonian- Molly did so, intentionally, purposefully. she uses mind magic specifically Doyalist-Was done to show a parallel towards their next action a mental battle to displace the soul.What strawman? Please keep your arguments based on the facts and keep that kind of attack out of this.
Even us common folk know the eyes are the gateway to the soul. GS shows us in the DF it is indeed through the mind one must attack the soul. Molly cast no counterspell to stop some hidden necromancy, she fought it with her Will through constructed defenses.
As far as what info the books gave us, entering by itself pose no harm. Rewiring things inside is the problem.In Turn Coat, Harry tells Molly that just looking into Luccio's head is a violation. Because it is an invasion, same as if you're getting into a tree to watch someone getting undressed.
in book 13, Harry mentioned that he and Molly practiced entering each other's mind. Nothing bad came out of it.Yes. After the White Council specifically made allowances for that practices, which they hadn't before because it was a law violation. Corpsetaker even says as much in Dead Beat, that Council mind defenses are weak because they are too afraid of breaking the law to practice.
Entering another's mind without permission seems to be harmless also. Molly did that to Harry in book 10 and to Luccio in book 11. It is however forbidden by the council's laws of magic. But as far as I can see, just entering another mind cause no arcane damage. It might cause psychological damage, but not arcane damage.Morgan tried to shoot Molly for it, and Harry outright says that it's a law violation what she did, and therefore the Wardens will want to kill her for it.
Spells of suggestions are the most common examples. Even Harry uses it to ward his temporary hideout in book 11 and Morgan himself accepted the use of such spells. Veils also influenced people's mind" "Nothing going on here", "Just a background" and so on. Suggestion, distraction, seduction, temptation are all influencing minds, and to a certain extent such things are sort of allowed.They're influencing the mind in the way that camoflage would -- they're not going in and either looking at or rewriting things; they're just making suggestions. The mind is not changed; the memories are intact, and the spellcaster does not gain knowledge.
Which is why I can accept love potions as legal in the eyes of the 7 laws. Apparently influencing another's mind is considered all right to a certain extent.The love potion that Harry brews has no mind-changing component; it lowers inhibitions the way alcohol does, but it doesn't go in and say, "Love this person."
It is all depends on how the wizard achieve his or her goals. Illusion magic that directly input images into another's mind is illegal, but use hollomancy and similar results are considered legal. Hypnotizing a woman to be a seks slave is a big no no, but magic or potions that cause sexual overdrive on the physical body or cause addiction could make a woman into a seks slave just the same and I think the council's 7 laws does not cover that.Yep. The laws are fiddly like that.
Same with the first law. Burning someone with fire magic is a capital crime, but immobilize someone with air magic and than shoot them dead with a gun is legal.
What's the point for the 7 laws then?Yup, this exactly. As Luccio says, the laws aren't about right and wrong; to an extent, the first four are about maintaining free will. The last three are wrong in the, "This is cosmically a bad idea" sense, if not a moral sense.
The point is damage control. Practically speaking, it is not that the council does not want to include the concept of justice in it's laws, but I think they simply does not has the strength to enforce such a law.
It is said that there is about 5000 wizards in the world. Practically 5000 super humans.
You simply cannot constrain such a power. If you restrict wizards too much, they'll rebel. There'll be a war.
Merlin's 7 laws of magic is about the most the wizard community could tolerate, and I strongly suspect wizardkind initially accepted such a rule because Merlin is simply too powerful to defy openly at the time.
In Turn Coat, Harry tells Molly that just looking into Luccio's head is a violation. Because it is an invasion, same as if you're getting into a tree to watch someone getting undressed.Because Molly had no invitation. Though to be sure about that you have to ask Luccio who is somewhat less strict in these things than Morgan or Harry as her behaviour in small favor showed when she did not protest when Molly looked in Harry's mind.
Yes. After the White Council specifically made allowances for that practices, which they hadn't before because it was a law violation. Corpsetaker even says as much in Dead Beat, that Council mind defenses are weak because they are too afraid of breaking the law to practice.I doubt the white council can change the laws that easily.
Morgan tried to shoot Molly for it, and Harry outright says that it's a law violation what she did, and therefore the Wardens will want to kill her for it.Morgan and bunny warlocks. I don't take his word as the last word on it. He wanted to kill Harry for Sue as well and Lucio clearly thought otherwise.
It might well be that "just" looking causes less damage, but it is still an invasion of one's privacy.An invasion is only an invasion if there is no invitation. Otherwise why use the word invasion at all? That only makes sense if there is a non invading way to get in.
Influencing another's mind is trickier. Influencing is one step closer to rewiring, but the books gave us examples where such influencing is either accepted practiced or tacidly allowed.By the White Council, yes. Who, again, are not necessarily on the money when it comes to the laws and how they work in a cosmic sense.
They're influencing the mind in the way that camoflage would -- they're not going in and either looking at or rewriting things; they're just making suggestions. The mind is not changed; the memories are intact, and the spellcaster does not gain knowledge.
The love potion that Harry brews has no mind-changing component; it lowers inhibitions the way alcohol does, but it doesn't go in and say, "Love this person."
Yep. The laws are fiddly like that.
Yup, this exactly. As Luccio says, the laws aren't about right and wrong; to an extent, the first four are about maintaining free will. The last three are wrong in the, "This is cosmically a bad idea" sense, if not a moral sense.
What strawman? Please keep your arguments based on the facts and keep that kind of attack out of this.Quiet simply, No. That's is an attack upon your argument, not your character, if you don't like being called on it don't try to go from "the mind has no natural door way so it's always invasion" to "It's necromancy, not just mind magic.". Your sentence I quoted was your attempt to redirect without confronting the issue, that it does indeed and DF has subtly showcased this fact, because you found your position lacking, Non sequitur aka straw manning. *shrugs* i'm sorry if you've never realized this about your debate style but it tends to be the reasoning I can't communicate with you. BUT LETS ATTACK THE ISSUE HEAD ON! ... by simply drawing it forward into the light for the action itself... It is MINE style.
A straw man argument is absolutely not a non-sequitur.And if you assume their argument is left of where it is(strawmanning) and then reply to that(non sequitur) instead of centerfield it becomes both...
Which is to say that a straw man is setting up an opinion that the other person never actually gave so that you can argue against what you want, rather than what the other person said.
And if you assume their argument is left of where it is(strawmanning) and then reply to that(non sequitur) instead of centerfield it becomes both...No. No. Absolutely not.
No. No. Absolutely not.Yes, absolutely. The reply to your own straw man is not sequitur to your opponents actual points, ergo they tend to happen in tandem becoming an inseparable entity, aka the same thing in execution.
Plus, you know, he wasn't actually setting up a straw man, he was just plain arguing with you. Nothing about that involved declaring what you were thinking.This
There corpsetaker didn't need the soulgaze. Molly initiated that. And besides, what the corpsetaker does is soul based in the first place. It's necromancy, not just mind magic.has nothing to do with
If there's no door, they still have to break in.This statement to which I replied. I was supplied a straw man by omission in a reply that was non sequitur to the convo at hand. I really don't care what kind of magic it was corpsetaker did, it in no way gainsays the original point of my reply. The mind has it's own way's in, it always has as per even our own real world knowledge towards empathy, which describes Molly before the idea of magical telepathy.
Because Molly had no invitation. Though to be sure about that you have to ask Luccio who is somewhat less strict in these things than Morgan or Harry as her behaviour in small favor showed when she did not protest when Molly looked in Harry's mind.From what I recall, what Molly did in SF was under the table, too -- a violation that Luccio ordered and allowed -- but didn't report.
I doubt the white council can change the laws that easily.In Ghost Story, Harry explicitly says the Council, in response to what I presume are the events of Turn Coat, changed how it does things in regard to mind magic:
The White Council hated mind magic, generally speaking. If you
beat someone’s defenses, you could do a lot of things to them,
and precious few of them were good. Events, however, had forced
them to acknowledge the necessity of giving all of its members
lessons in psychic self-defense that were more comprehensive
than the simple wall technique that I’d been briefly introduced to. A
couple of old-timers who knew how to play the game had begun
dispensing the basics to everyone interested in learning.
Morgan and bunny warlocks. I don't take his word as the last word on it. He wanted to kill Harry for Sue as well and Lucio clearly thought otherwise.That's fair. But we also have Harry considering it a violation:
“You broke one of the Laws of Magic, Molly. Willfully. Even
though you knew it could cost you your life. Even though you knew
that it could also cost mine.” I shook my head and looked away
from her. “Hell’s bells, kid. I choose to trust Anastasia Luccio
because that’s what people do. You don’t ever get to know for
sure what someone thinks of you. What they really feel inside.”
An invasion is only an invasion if there is no invitation. Otherwise why use the word invasion at all? That only makes sense if there is a non invading way to get in.That's like saying, "Why use the word stabbing at all? That only makes sense if there's a non-stabbing way to stick a knife in someone."
Entering someones mind is not that different from how the fallen from the coins enter your mind. From what we have seen of how Lasciel operates she needs an invitation to get into your mind. She can bribe, threaten, blackmail and trick you to get that invitation but she needs it or at least it makes things easier for her.I don't think Bob went in Butters' mind, but in his body, like he rode along with Mister.
Bob went with butters for a ride. He got an invitation and a contract. Bob is the product of a human mind. and something else.
The mind can let things in and invitation matters. one of those things is the mind of another wizard.
The mind has it's own way's in, it always has as per even our own real world knowledge towards empathy, which describes Molly before the idea of magical telepathy.That's not what empathy is. Empathy is being able to understand how another's feeling, i.e., seeing signs in their behavior, or in what they tell others; in Dresden, it's the ability to feel what others are radiating out or otherwise broadcasting. Harry refers feeling emotions "coming off" of people. So does Molly. To my knowledge, neither of them refer to empathy or sensing emotions as them looking into someone.
That's like saying, "Why use the word stabbing at all? That only makes sense if there's a non-stabbing way to stick a knife in someone."Well, it'd be like calling any surgical procedure "assault," rather than "stabbing." The consent makes a huge difference. Stabbing someone with a knife includes both assault and surgery, in the same way that entering someone's mind includes both invasion and being a guest.
All I'm actually doing is making separate points.Oh, you'd just intended to ignore my own points apparently. While making non Germaine ones about the type of magic corpsetaker uses...
The same Lucio who could not use magic to kill LaFortier even as a completely enthralled half sleeping bomb? The captain of the wardens? I think that is unlikely.
From what I recall, what Molly did in SF was under the table, too -- a violation that Luccio ordered and allowed -- but didn't report.
And again -- just because the Council allowed it doesn't mean it doesn't break the laws.These are the council's laws. If they explicitly allow it then it is allowed. Don't confuse the effects of black magic on the wizard interpreted as some sort of natural law of how black magic works with the actual laws which are just a human construct created and maintained by humans.
Harry's mentioned "grey magic" before,As something that is still allowed but has a certain smell. Unless Morgan handled it because he can be anal about it.
and we've also had Luccio in a short story considering killing a bunch of warlocks with a fire spell.That was temptation. And she did not do it.
In Ghost Story, Harry explicitly says the Council, in response to what I presume are the events of Turn Coat, changed how it does things in regard to mind magic:They changed their practices, they did not change the laws. They were just prepared to get closer to the line which brings some risks they were not prepared to face earlier. But they did not change the laws. It is not that easy to declare that something is now allowed that always got your head chopped of. Besides older wizards knew how to do it so they practiced before.
That's fair. But we also have Harry considering it a violation:And Molly was under the doom. Harry can be as bad ass Morgan when he has reason to and he has. He learned that from his grandfather. When we have Lucio's actions directly contradicting it I don't take it for sure anymore.
That's like saying, "Why use the word stabbing at all? That only makes sense if there's a non-stabbing way to stick a knife in someone."It is written law, words are important and we must assume that they are carefully chosen. If every entering was bad the law would have been worded differently. All other things you can invade you can also enter peacefully if invited.
Just because you use a word for something doesn't mean there has to be an opposite.Invading is entering without invitation usually with hostile intent. This is not the opposite of entering but just a word with a narrower meaning. If all entering was forbidden they should have chosen a word with a wider meaning.
I don't think Bob went in Butters' mind, but in his body, like he rode along with Mister.And we make a sharp distinction in the forums but in practice in the books these words are loosely used, these things are interwoven with each other. Mab just uses one word for all of them together, your essence.
And Lasciel was in Harry's soul -- part of it, even -- not his mind. They might be linked, and they might be related, but they're distinct things.
Molly has a talent for mind magic; Mortimer has a talent for spirit and soul magic; they're treated as different specialties, with different types of spells that affect people in different ways.
That's not what empathy is. Empathy is being able to understand how another's feeling, i.e., seeing signs in their behavior, or in what they tell others; in Dresden, it's the ability to feel what others are radiating out or otherwise broadcasting. Harry refers feeling emotions "coming off" of people. So does Molly. To my knowledge, neither of them refer to empathy or sensing emotions as them looking into someone.
The same Lucio who could not use magic to kill LaFortier even as a completely enthralled half sleeping bomb? The captain of the wardens? I think that is unlikely.And yet, apparently, it happened. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept the position that going into someone's mind with consent is OK, Molly went into Harry's mind without Harry's consent, and Luccio did not have the right to consent for him.
These are the council's laws. If they explicitly allow it then it is allowed. Don't confuse the effects of black magic on the wizard interpreted as some sort of natural law of how black magic works with the actual laws which are just a human construct created and maintained by humans.The Council's laws are directly based on the cosmic laws, and are deliberately and explicitly meant to cover the same thing.
That was temptation. And she did not do it.The story does not present it as a "temptation," but just as her calmly and rationally going over her options. And the reasons she gives for not doing it are that people might see, and that the fire could kill civilians. During her calm, rational reasoning, the whole topic of, "This would break the laws of magic" is simply not brought up.
They changed their practices, they did not change the laws. They were just prepared to get closer to the line which brings some risks they were not prepared to face earlier. But they did not change the laws. It is not that easy to declare that something is now allowed that always got your head chopped of. Besides older wizards knew how to do it so they practiced before.Apparently it is that easy, because that's what Harry describes: First, the White Council "hated" mind magic and thus didn't even practice defense against it because doing so involved breaking the laws; then, after seeing how easily their meager defenses could be overcome (Warden Luccio, "old hand" that she was, was both easily taken out by Corpsetaker and then even Morgan and the Senior Council were subverted), they deliberately changed their practices so that a thing that could get your head cut off (using mind magic) was now allowed.
And Molly was under the doom. Harry can be as bad ass Morgan when he has reason to and he has. He learned that from his grandfather. When we have Lucio's actions directly contradicting it I don't take it for sure anymore.Harry does not qualify his statement that it was only a violation because she's under the Doom. He only says, "You broke a law of magic, willingly." Luccio doesn't directly contradict that Molly broke a law, and in the book, Molly only gets away with it because Morgan doesn't report her; he admits as much.
It is written law, words are important and we must assume that they are carefully chosen. If every entering was bad the law would have been worded differently. All other things you can invade you can also enter peacefully if invited.The laws are written poetically as much as, if not more than, legally. Take the Sixth Law's admonition that one not "swim against the currents of time." Does that you could, say, "walk" against the current (on the riverbank, perhaps), and not violate it? Or fly over it? Perhaps going against the current in a "boat" is fine?
Invading is entering without invitation usually with hostile intent. This is not the opposite of entering but just a word with a narrower meaning. If all entering was forbidden they should have chosen a word with a wider meaning.Again, the laws are written as much poetically. Calling it an invasion is to emphasize how wrong it is -- I do not think it's there to leave argument wiggle-room about consent, because if we know anything about how the Council enforces their laws, they hate things like arguments and wiggle room.
And we make a sharp distinction in the forums but in practice in the books these words are loosely used, these things are interwoven with each other. Mab just uses one word for all of them together, your essence.Even so, they are distinct -- Molly's psychomancy doesn't let her do anything with spirits or souls, and Morty's ectomancy doesn't let him do anything to minds.
It is your essence that corpstaker casts out and replaces though Lucio remarks she left some traces of the original occupant. It is Harry's essence that enters Molly's mind and spirit in ghost story while she battles with corpstaker.
Who apparently needed an invitation from Mortimer to take over, it matters.
And yet, apparently, it happened. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept the position that going into someone's mind with consent is OK, Molly went into Harry's mind without Harry's consent, and Luccio did not have the right to consent for him.Or looking for tampering is a grey area that is OK according to the captain of the wardens and Morgan is a zealot and Harry is over concerned because Molly is a warlock and he is tutored by Ebenezer who wanted to instill the fear for black magic into him for obvious reasons.
The Council's laws are directly based on the cosmic laws, and are deliberately and explicitly meant to cover the same thing.Lucio was pretty clear about it. The laws are there to regulate the use of wizard power and nothing else. Black magic may have been one of the reasons for doing so but to confuse the cosmic laws invented on this forum with the real laws maintained by the council is wrong.
That the Council allows certain violations of the Cosmic laws doesn't change that they are, still, violations of the cosmic laws.The cosmic laws are not codified, the council laws are. For the council laws invitation makes a huge difference and we know that for a lot of things in the dresdenverse invitation makes a difference so if you have an invitation it is OK according to the laws of magic.
The story does not present it as a "temptation," but just as her calmly and rationally going over her options. And the reasons she gives for not doing it are that people might see, and that the fire could kill civilians. During her calm, rational reasoning, the whole topic of, "This would break the laws of magic" is simply not brought up.It is nowhere said that they changed the laws. A far simpler explanation involving less earth shattering is that they simply adapted their practices.
Apparently it is that easy, because that's what Harry describes: First, the White Council "hated" mind magic and thus didn't even practice defense against it because doing so involved breaking the laws; then, after seeing how easily their meager defenses could be overcome (Warden Luccio, "old hand" that she was, was both easily taken out by Corpsetaker and then even Morgan and the Senior Council were subverted), they deliberately changed their practices so that a thing that could get your head cut off (using mind magic) was now allowed.
Harry does not qualify his statement that it was only a violation because she's under the Doom. He only says, "You broke a law of magic, willingly." Luccio doesn't directly contradict that Molly broke a law, and in the book, Molly only gets away with it because Morgan doesn't report her; he admits as much.
The laws are written poetically as much as, if not more than, legally. Take the Sixth Law's admonition that one not "swim against the currents of time." Does that you could, say, "walk" against the current (on the riverbank, perhaps), and not violate it? Or fly over it? Perhaps going against the current in a "boat" is fine?
I'm positing that it's not that it's saying "invasion are bad, other things are fine," it's declaring that because it's bad, it's by definition an invasion.
Harry doesn't say, "You can only look if you have consent." He says, "You don't get to know."Harry does not want to encourage Molly seeking in the grey area's. He is trying to protect her.
Again, the laws are written as much poetically. Calling it an invasion is to emphasize how wrong it is -- I do not think it's there to leave argument wiggle-room about consent, because if we know anything about how the Council enforces their laws, they hate things like arguments and wiggle room.They do like wiggle room, just not for everyone.
Even so, they are distinct -- Molly's psychomancy doesn't let her do anything with spirits or souls, and Morty's ectomancy doesn't let him do anything to minds.Skin game. Molly was needed to do the spirits delivery. She talked with IdHarry. She knows how to handle spirits. She even used the wooden skull to give bonnie a home.
Corpsetaker needing an invitation from Morty had more to do with how much power she had; it certainly wasn't out of any concern for Morty's well-being or courtesy. She didn't need or care about Butters or Molly's consent, after all.Which is exactly the point. You need extra power if you do not have an invitation. Because it is different if you do not have an invitation.
Or looking for tampering is a grey area that is OK according to the captain of the wardens and Morgan is a zealot and Harry is over concerned because Molly is a warlock and he is tutored by Ebenezer who wanted to instill the fear for black magic into him for obvious reasons.I feel like there is some point in the books where it's pointed out that Luccio allowed a breakage of law, but I don't know where. I could also argue that Luccio was under Peabody's influence at this point. But until I find that bit, I'll let this point go.
Lucio was pretty clear about it. The laws are there to regulate the use of wizard power and nothing else. Black magic may have been one of the reasons for doing so but to confuse the cosmic laws invented on this forum with the real laws maintained by the council is wrong.She does not say "and nothing else," she just says they're not based on conventional morality. And the cosmic laws were not invented here. Harry's clear from the start that breaking one of the law has a tangible effect on the wizard that casts it, and we've seen that borne out again and again, both in Harry and in Molly and in random warlocks like the Korean kid at the start of PG. Harry is able to recognize the "feel" of black magic.
They are two different things and people can easily switch between them in one sentence and confuse everything.
The cosmic laws are not codified, the council laws are. For the council laws invitation makes a huge difference and we know that for a lot of things in the dresdenverse invitation makes a difference so if you have an invitation it is OK according to the laws of magic.Given that Harry has a tangible mark on his soul (several other wizards mention seeing it, plus that rando in Storm Front), as does Molly (Harry sees it himself), and Harry can detect the taint of black magic in other practitioners, I think it's pretty fair to say there is definitely something there.
Is it OK according to these "cosmic laws"? Who knows. Is there a double blind experiment with soul blackness meters measured before and after with a lot of wizards?
Because otherwise we can only say something about the laws of magic and not about those "cosmic laws". And for all we know invitation seems to matter for the soul blackness as well. seems logical to me because an invitation means no violation of free will and so on.
It is nowhere said that they changed the laws. A far simpler explanation involving less earth shattering is that they simply adapted their practices.Changing how you enforce the laws is changing the laws. The laws presumably include their enforcement -- that's how mundane laws work, they lay out what you can't do and what happens to you if you do it anyway (or, at the least, refer to someplace else in the code about it).
And why is it bad? It can be needed to heal people and is used that way by the senior council. There is no case in the books of someone invited in someones mind who got a blacker soul or was beheaded by the wardens. The whole idea that entering someones mind is always wrong is based on an interpretation of the law that is not supported by the text and contradicts the words used.Even if a scalpel is only used to heal someone, it still means they have to be stitched up, have to not do anything strenuous for a few weeks and will carry a scar for the rest of their lives as a result.
Harry does not want to encourage Molly seeking in the grey area's. He is trying to protect her.At that point in the conversation, it's too late to "protect" her and Harry knows it. He tells her to run if she wants, because he considers by that point that the Wardens will kill her. So little point in trying to discourage or protect her at that point.
They do like wiggle room, just not for everyone.Their zero-tolerance policy kind of belies that.
And nobody changed the wording of the laws so nobody changed the laws. If it is allowed now it was allowed in the past.We haven't seen any rulebook; all we have is a pithy, poetic-sounding one-liner for each law. And the idea that they don't change and have never changed just goes against human nature and the nature of all such man-made laws.
Skin game. Molly was needed to do the spirits delivery. She talked with IdHarry. She knows how to handle spirits. She even used the wooden skull to give bonnie a home.A spirit of intellect, so I'd wager it's as much "mind" as it is "soul." It was in Harry's brain, after all. Plus, Molly's the Winter Lady and had already visited Harry in his dream -- the same kind of dreamy unconsciousness that IdHarry shows up in.
The distinction between these things is fuzzy.
Which is exactly the point. You need extra power if you do not have an invitation. Because it is different if you do not have an invitation.That's still to do with souls, though.
Ergo, I posit that for someone to get into your mind, they must by definition go against that natural order and get through natural barriers in your mind.That appears to be begging the question. It may be dangerous, and damaging. It may be forbidden by the WC. But the channels exist, otherwise Wizards wouldn't need to erect barriers to entry. It is perfectly natural in the context of the book. It's forbidden by fiat of the WC.
That appears to be begging the question. It may be dangerous, and damaging. It may be forbidden by the WC. But the channels exist, otherwise Wizards wouldn't need to erect barriers to entry. It is perfectly natural in the context of the book. It's forbidden by fiat of the WC.only invading is forbidden
I'd swear the JB had modeled this on societies approach to drugs, with emphasis on something like heroin. The WC's approach models it rather closely. Even if it wasn't his intention.
The same Lucio who could not use magic to kill LaFortier even as a completely enthralled half sleeping bomb? The captain of the wardens? I think that is unlikely. These are the council's laws. If they explicitly allow it then it is allowed. Don't confuse the effects of black magic on the wizard interpreted as some sort of natural law of how black magic works with the actual laws which are just a human construct created and maintained by humans.As something that is still allowed but has a certain smell. Unless Morgan handled it because he can be anal about it.That was temptation. And she did not do it.They changed their practices, they did not change the laws. They were just prepared to get closer to the line which brings some risks they were not prepared to face earlier. But they did not change the laws. It is not that easy to declare that something is now allowed that always got your head chopped of. Besides older wizards knew how to do it so they practiced before. And Molly was under the doom. Harry can be as bad ass Morgan when he has reason to and he has. He learned that from his grandfather. When we have Lucio's actions directly contradicting it I don't take it for sure anymore.
It is written law, words are important and we must assume that they are carefully chosen. If every entering was bad the law would have been worded differently. All other things you can invade you can also enter peacefully if invited.Invading is entering without invitation usually with hostile intent. This is not the opposite of entering but just a word with a narrower meaning. If all entering was forbidden they should have chosen a word with a wider meaning.
And we make a sharp distinction in the forums but in practice in the books these words are loosely used, these things are interwoven with each other. Mab just uses one word for all of them together, your essence.
It is your essence that corpstaker casts out and replaces though Lucio remarks she left some traces of the original occupant. It is Harry's essence that enters Molly's mind and spirit in ghost story while she battles with corpstaker.
Who apparently needed an invitation from Mortimer to take over, it matters.
I suspect this law regarding not invading another's mind probably a little flawed. It is probably not as dangerous as it's seems originally. Though it help in reducing temptation. completely forbidding to enters another's mind does help in reducing possible rewiring cases.Did you mean invade?
Did you mean invade?
And yes, there is a huge temptation when you see something wrong in someone’s mind to do something about it ;D
That appears to be begging the question. It may be dangerous, and damaging. It may be forbidden by the WC. But the channels exist, otherwise Wizards wouldn't need to erect barriers to entry. It is perfectly natural in the context of the book. It's forbidden by fiat of the WC.I dispute that it is "perfectly natural," because if it was natural, why would you need magic to get in? You don't need magic to share soul bits. But to get into a mind, you have to work a spell to get in.
only invading is forbiddenI'm pretty sure Harry notes that he had Molly break a law of magic when he had her change his mind. I can't recall where, exactly, though I'm not finding it in either Ghost Story or the Paranet Papers, so it must be in Cold Days or Skin Game, if it exists.
The idea that entering the mind is always an invasion is nowhere supported in the books. The idea that invitation matters is supported in countless similar situations.
The councils neglect of defense against mind magic was not because of the law but because of a general distrust of that type of magic maybe even under Peabodies influence. No official change of law was passed, the old guard started to examine minds directly at the end of turn coat and knew exactly what to do and nobody was surprised they did so. Harry and Molly training started probably even before that given corpstaker in dead beat.How it not because of the law? Harry says the council hates mind magic, and there's not one but two laws specifically about mind magic. I don't see how their neglect of defense could be unrelated to it.
There is a lot about the traumatic effect of mind magic but it is all about the effects of changing the mind, not about the effect of breaking in let alone the effect of inviting someone into your mind.Harry sees traumatic marks on Molly's victims, even on the one where the magic "worked." But aside from that, you're right -- though we haven't seen many victims of mind-magic "after," except for Harry and Luccio, and their minds are all kinds of screwed up by the time we know it's happened that it's hard to tell just what did all the damage to them.
And if every entering of the mind was a break of the law there would be no use of the word invasion and no use for that other law against enthrallment either, you usually enter someone’s mind for that.Usually, but not necessarily.
The finer words of the laws have meaning otherwise Harry would not have raised Sue. The word invasion is meaningful and it is nowhere said that all entrance has to be invasive.It is meaningful -- but we're each pulling different meanings from its use.
Bringing someone to sleep is seen as mind magic but it was always accepted, easily done and with no particular negative effects afterwards.That Harry has to make a specific note of it makes me doubt it was "always" accepted, and it's not necessarily "easily" done (note Harry's surprise at how Molly instantly accomplishes it on a room of goons when Harry could maybe put one to sleep with a few minutes of prep time)
Even Molly changing Harry’s memory in changes was not against the laws. Molly was invited to do exactly that.Again, I seem to recall it being called out specifically as breaking a law, but I don't have the citation handy.
Did it taint her? Was it against the “cosmic laws”? Who knows, maybe. The council laws are a good rule of the thumb for that but they do not exactly fit whatever interpretation someone gives to them. And no way to check that either.I'd be willing to wager her state in Ghost Story wasn't all about plain guilt.
There is the way the universe works and there are the seven laws. They are related but different. When I am talking about the laws I am always talking about the council laws.I tend to talk about both -- they are, after all, related, and personally I think the cosmic-level laws are the ones you really have to be concerned about.
It is also possible, if the mind wizard is not skilled enough, he or she might do some rewiring by accident when entering another's mind. And that will really be black magic.
I shivered. Ugh. Molly playing in my head. That wasn’t
necessarily the prettiest thing to think about. Molly had a gift for
neuromancy, mind magic, but she’d used it to do some fairly nasty
things to people in the past—for perfectly good reasons, true, but
all the same it had been honest-to-evilness black magic. It was the
kind of thing that people got addicted to, and it wasn’t the kind of
candy store that I would ever want that kid to play in.
Especially considering that the inventory was me.
“Hell’s bells, Michael,” I murmured. “You shouldn’t have done
that to her.”
I dispute that it is "perfectly natural," because if it was natural, why would you need magic to get in? You don't need magic to share soul bits. But to get into a mind, you have to work a spell to get in.Consider a soul gaze. You are forced into it. You can't control it through any act of yours. You can't initiate one, only a Wizard can. Is that natural? It seems pretty invasive.
Erecting defenses doesn't necessarily mean there's a valid entry. If I wear a helmet, that doesn't mean that otherwise there's a "perfectly natural" way for things to get into my skull otherwise. Prison windows that have no latch or hinges to open nonetheless have bars in them -- does that mean without the bars, they're a "natural" entry?We're quibbling over the word natural. A skull serves a purpose to protect the thing it surrounds. It exists because the thing inside of it can be damaged if it didn't. If there were no such threat they wouldn't have evolved. The phrase natural is a question begging term.
And Harry's reaction when he learns Molly looked into him is instructive:Not very, since in Changes he is pretty blase about her altering his mind. Just because he wanted to cheat Mab. If Micheal was ignorant of the risks, Harry certainly wasn't. Those who live in glass houses....
Not very, since in Changes he is pretty blase about her altering his mind. Just because he wanted to cheat Mab. If Micheal was ignorant of the risks, Harry certainly wasn't. Those who live in glass houses....Harry, the guy who does not want to use his magic to heat his shower out of fear of becoming a warlock, was trying to teach the why use magic in stead of the how just like his mentor Ebenezer.
The operative words seem to be "invasion" and "violation." You don't consent to an invasion or a violation."The act" seems to refer to entry into another's mind. If "the act" only referred to "invasion" and "violation," it would be redundant and unnecessary for it to, effectively, say, "an invasion is always a violent invasion."
Or to put it another way, if you do consent, it isn't an invasion or a violation.
Consider a soul gaze. You are forced into it. You can't control it through any act of yours. You can't initiate one, only a Wizard can. Is that natural? It seems pretty invasive.I have considered it. See before, where I posit and argue that soul stuff is fundamentally different from mind stuff -- hell, people share and spread their souls around by accident. To my knowledge, nobody has been able to "accidentally" read someone else's mind.
We're quibbling over the word natural. A skull serves a purpose to protect the thing it surrounds. It exists because the thing inside of it can be damaged if it didn't. If there were no such threat they wouldn't have evolved. The phrase natural is a question begging term.I don't see how all of that doesn't also apply to the mind. The game text makes it pretty clear that there is a fundamental barrier there -- it serves a purpose to protect the thing it surrounds (the mind). It exists because the thing inside of it (the mind) can be damaged if it didn't.
Not very, since in Changes he is pretty blase about her altering his mind. Just because he wanted to cheat Mab. If Micheal was ignorant of the risks, Harry certainly wasn't. Those who live in glass houses...."Blasé" and "just because" are not terms I would use to characterize Harry having his apprentice blank out parts of his mind in pure desperation before he sells his soul to an evil faerie queen as a last resort before a mission that's only going to get more suicidal the longer it goes on.
But all of those quotes from the game use the same terms. Breaking in, invasion, violating. For the house analogy, what if someone gives you the key? The key in this case being permission. Unlocks the door.And yet it says "no matter how gentle," and establishes right off the bat that there is a fundamental barrier that exists between one mind and the next.
Practitioners that read and manipulate mindsNo qualification there, no mention of "invasion." It just puts it plainly: Reading another's mind violates the Third Law.
are called psychomancers (or sometimes neuromancers).
Given that these acts violate the
Third and Fourth Laws of Magic, they may also
be called headless, thanks to the action of the
Wardens. Psychomancy is neither well documented
nor condoned, though it seems every
now and again some new wizard comes along
with a talent for it, trained or not. The Council
does its best to intercede as quickly as possible
in such cases.
The operative words seem to be "invasion" and "violation." You don't consent to an invasion or a violation.It's inaccurate anyway... Molly hears people cause thoughts are loud, she doesn't have to reach.. One of the reasons the game is not the books...
Or to put it another way, if you do consent, it isn't an invasion or a violation.
"Blasé" and "just because" are not terms I would use to characterize Harry having his apprentice blank out parts of his mind in pure desperation before he sells his soul to an evil faerie queen as a last resort before a mission that's only going to get more suicidal the longer it goes on.Reread the part in Proven Guilty when Mouse gets shot. Reconcile what Harry tells Molly then, with what he asks of her in Changes.
I have considered it. See before, where I posit and argue that soul stuff is fundamentally different from mind stuff -- hell, people share and spread their souls around by accident. To my knowledge, nobody has been able to "accidentally" read someone else's mind.I don't own the game so I'll leave it to you to take whatever you want away from it. However given that Molly had no formal training in Proven Guilty, than it is obvious to me that she did indeed read a mind by accident. If as a later poster has suggested that other minds are broadcasting than they need to shut their windows. :)
I don't see how all of that doesn't also apply to the mind. The game text makes it pretty clear that there is a fundamental barrier there -- it serves a purpose to protect the thing it surrounds (the mind). It exists because the thing inside of it (the mind) can be damaged if it didn't.
Reread the part in Proven Guilty when Mouse gets shot. Reconcile what Harry tells Molly then, with what he asks of her in Changes.I don't own the game so I'll leave it to you to take whatever you want away from it. However given that Molly had no formal training in Proven Guilty, than it is obvious to me that she did indeed read a mind by accident. If as a later poster has suggested that other minds are broadcasting than they need to shut their windows. :)It is very clear that only invading minds is forbidden, you can invite someone in your mind to do all kind of things except enthrallment, that has a seperate law.
If your point is the third law says any mind magic is forbidden, than you are correct.
Doesn't the law against transformation also specifically mention that you can't transform someone against their will? So obviously consent makes a difference in more situations than just mental magic.
When you break into someoneeverything there after denotes that original concept, that it's done without permission. Hence the grey area of healing(by GK) or mutual battles between pretty much every wizard who does combat during the war.
else’s mind
Well, if a person unknowingly drinks a love potion, that is transforming someone against their will. One may consent or accept a drink, but would one consent if one knew there was something in it to make them do what he or she didn't want to do?DUDE, hold up, cause I have a woj from FB about not knowing the consequences of your choices is a fact of life. Note that the fae enchant food all the time too...
Jim Butcher Yeah, but all your choices count, man. Not just the ones where someone says, "Are you absolutely sure about your answer."In reply to if Molly made a subconscious matrix style choice when accepting the mantle.
Making a choice is stating who you are. Unequivocally. You can talk as much as you want about whatever goodness you want--your actions are what matter. Those choices, in some cases to /take lives/, weren't subconscious.
Molly said, "I'm in line with Winter." A BUNCH of times. And making statements like that add up--not because you're initialing a point on a contract for a lawyer, but because you are /changing yourself/ by making choices like that.
Creating life, ending life. Those are the heaviest hitting choices, the ones that truly matter, the ones that are irrevocable.
Choosing not to be self-aware enough to own what you're doing is a choice as well. One Molly didn't make. She knew about bargains. She knew the score. She didn't know how deep was the water she was getting into, but she ran and jumped off the cliff.
Molly never got tainted for what she did to Harry in "Changes," so clearly that wasn't nearly as bad as what she did to her friends in "Proven Guilty."How do we know she never got tainted? I mean, the next time we see her, she's clearly unhinged. Guilt has something to do with that, yes. But given we haven't seen her soulgazed again and there's no objective measurement, how can you definitively say what did and didn't taint her?
And the main difference, as far as I can see, is that Harry consented to what she did in "Changes."
Reread the part in Proven Guilty when Mouse gets shot. Reconcile what Harry tells Molly then, with what he asks of her in Changes.Presuming you mean Turn Coat, there's still a mountain of context and situational differences between those two situations. In Changes, Harry is in complete despair and asking her to help him kill himself. He sees himself as either A. being enthralled to Mab or B. getting a bullet in the skull within 24 hours, so any negative effects of Molly's actions on him are sort of a non-issue.
I don't own the game so I'll leave it to you to take whatever you want away from it. However given that Molly had no formal training in Proven Guilty, than it is obvious to me that she did indeed read a mind by accident. If as a later poster has suggested that other minds are broadcasting than they need to shut their windows. :)S'why I quoted the relevant bits.
If your point is that the council would never use it, you have failed to convince me.That is not a point I have made or attempted to make.
To be honest I have no idea of what the stain is or how it works. For the purpose of avoiding headaches I treat it like Heroin.We know that it affects the wizard in such a way that they feel compelled -- or, at least, justified -- in doing it again. Use magic to kill, and you're more likely to use it to kill again. Molly used mind magic? Well, we see several situations where her go-to solution is, "Use mind-magic again."(click to show/hide)
It is very clear that only invading minds is forbidden, you can invite someone in your mind to do all kind of things except enthrallment, that has a seperate law.The game book's write-up (a game that was composed by fans of the series with direct approval of Jim Butcher), makes it very clear that any mind reading is a violation in the bit I quoted.
That is not a point I have made or attempted to make.We have now cleared that up. :)
I lost track, Turn Coat it is. And let Molly burn he did. Which makes for good drama. But it makes Harry look like a self righteous ass. The whole next book is mostly about showing Harry that. Right and wrong doesn't change because you are under pressure.
It's definitely not a "blasé" situation, the whole context is one of Harry doing a number of things that he would never, ever even consider if he wasn't extremely desperate. He's at the Godzilla Threshold (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold), he literally said he'd let the world (and Molly) burn to keep his daughter safe.
S'why I quoted the relevant bits.
DUDE, hold up, cause I have a woj from FB about not knowing the consequences of your choices is a fact of life. Note that the fae enchant food all the time too...
Jim Butcher Yeah, but all your choices count, man. Not just the ones where someone says, "Are you absolutely sure about your answer."While true, Molly made choices, she had some idea of what they were, but she chose not to think that there would be consequences down the road for accepting Lea's "training.." Not the same at all as accepting a drink because you are thirsty or to be sociable without the anticipation that it might be drugged and you could end up having sex against your will.. Especially if you have no clue that the person you are with is capable of drugging that drink.. It isn't the same as drinking to the point of drunkenness, that is a choice.. But even the consequences of that are not totally the victim's fault in the eyes of the law..
Making a choice is stating who you are. Unequivocally. You can talk as much as you want about whatever goodness you want--your actions are what matter. Those choices, in some cases to /take lives/, weren't subconscious.
Molly said, "I'm in line with Winter." A BUNCH of times. And making statements like that add up--not because you're initialing a point on a contract for a lawyer, but because you are /changing yourself/ by making choices like that.
Creating life, ending life. Those are the heaviest hitting choices, the ones that truly matter, the ones that are irrevocable.
Choosing not to be self-aware enough to own what you're doing is a choice as well. One Molly didn't make. She knew about bargains. She knew the score. She didn't know how deep was the water she was getting into, but she ran and jumped off the cliff.
That doesn't get the one who drugged the drink in the first place to have sex against the other person's will off the hook in terms of responsibility.
But wizards are not the Fae, are they? And DUDE, this smacks of blaming the victim.. I don't think this is what Jim meant or would apply to someone unknowingly being drugged and raped..actually he applied it to life and yea, I wanted to argue about it's validity in the DF with him for an entirely different reason, but I don't think our opinions of what's what matters to what IS what here...
Jim Butcher Yeah, life is basically like that as well.Being ignorant of the existence of date rape seems to be a willful choice in ignorance. SO DUDE! I don't need that kinda opinionated vitriol flung my way thanks... on a topic that's not supposed to relate to real world morality, that's directly the point of contention that Margret had with them fyi.
Jim Butcher You learn /after/ you do something massively stupid
Being ignorant of the existence of date rape seems to be a willful choice in ignorance. SO DUDE! I don't need that kinda opinionated vitriol flung my way thanks... on a topic that's not supposed to relate to real world morality, that's directly the point of contention that Margret had with them fyi.
*you'll find it quite unprovable that wizards are not related to or capable of becoming the fae. Indeed Molly's latent heritage and magical ability coincide with the possibility.
Since when does responsibility matter to the laws? Harry could go on a raping spree and the White Council wouldn't care unless he violated the laws which the potions don't.
The laws aren't about morality.
Thou flungist DUDE thine way first, so it was merely flung back at thou.....Mine was excitable, you know, cause I had a recent woj nobody here had probably read directly from Jim's profile... Yours came with these morality questions I'm not here to discuss. I'm here to discuss the violation or potential of it in the fictional DF verse of a fictional universal law that only loosely is based upon real world morality as we know it, and is in fact intentionally set separately of it in the story in it's inception, not saying that's correct, but it's what IS.
Who says it has to be date rape? Fantasy is merely a reflection of real world morality, why then have the Seven Laws in the first place? Mainly to keep those with magical powers from taking unfair advantage of vanilla humanity... What was the Korean kid and Molly guilty of? Messing over another wizard?These really have no answers and are not germaine to the answer to this particular question, and I don't feel it's the responsibility of my particular viewpoint to solve these problems.
Making a love potion isn't a violation of the
Law, but perhaps using one to alter another's mind without permission may be...
Hearing Mouse speak solid words plan as day, isn't hearing an emotion... and it would seem the gate and lock that keeps thoughts inside our heads, you know, where we keep our emotions, must have a natural broadcaster for someone else to be the receiver without help... Mmmm. Guess we do have a entrance.I went and checked, and Molly does indeed mention Mouse's thoughts. Her line is, "It's something I picked up. A dog's thoughts and emotions are a lot more direct and less conflicted than a human's. It's easier to listen for them. It isn't a big deal."
I was on my feet before anyone else. I eyed the dog and said, “You can talk. How come I never hear you talk?”
“Because you don’t know how to listen,” my godmother said simply.
We have now cleared that up. :)I lost track, Turn Coat it is. And let Molly burn he did. Which makes for good drama. But it makes Harry look like a self righteous ass. The whole next book is mostly about showing Harry that. Right and wrong doesn't change because you are under pressure.Indeed, it doesn't -- but how one acts and reacts to their choices does change. My point wasn't that the situation somehow made right something that had been wrong before -- it was that Harry didn't care at that point that it was wrong because he was that desperate.
There is no definitive way to say where the line is on mind magic. JB won't lay down the law, other than to say it is banned by the WC. However when it's convenient he will use it. When Elaine is under attack in White Knight, Harry not only hears her he hears the vampire. That's pretty far in without consent. Even if they had used the spell previously. Anyway I think this is moving off point. So I'll let it lay.I think that interaction fell under "surface thoughts," or hell, might even have been the vampire literally speaking aloud to Elaine. Or, as Peregrine suggested, it might have been a result of the vampire already working to break into her mind.
The way she describes it as something she "picked up" and "listens" for, it sounds like surface thoughts or a "language" that Mouse is speaking -- note that before each of her translations, there's also a description of Mouse's deliberate body language. It appears to be Mouse that's doing something to make himself be heard, not Molly doing something to look into his mind.Sounds like non verbal cues and other non verbal communication which humans still possess though most don't know how to listen, hence molly actually understanding what she's hearing instead of interpreting it. I'd say that's possible to be read on anyone, and indeed when Harry is feeling more animalistic Molly does notice.(compared to people realizing someone wishes them harm before they totally spring the assault)
If so, then Morgan (who at the time was always looking for a reason to harass Harry) would have harassed Harry about the woman who had just drunk and purged a love potion.
I maintain that vomiting up the love potion didn't completely purge it from Susan's system, based on the premise that it enters the bloodstream as quickly as alcohol does.
Mine was excitable, you know, cause I had a recent woj nobody here had probably read directly from Jim's profile... Yours came with these morality questions I'm not here to discuss. I'm here to discuss the violation or potential of it in the fictional DF verse of a fictional universal law that only loosely is based upon real world morality as we know it, and is in fact intentionally set separately of it in the story in it's inception, not saying that's correct, but it's what IS.
These really have no answers and are not germaine to the answer to this particular question, and I don't feel it's the responsibility of my particular viewpoint to solve these problems.
... Same as I realized the thing I was getting ready to bitch about(to Jim) was not that it didn't make sense but that I've experience just how unfair life can be in action to consequence and that had nothing to do with the particulars of the convo, but not knowing the consequences of any given action even through simple ignorance..(course the real question is why can the fae reach across the veil without doing harm to themselves internally)
Behind that fundamental barrier, though, is your computer itself. Normally, you have it password protected, and yes, you can give someone else the password and they might well use it in an entirely benign way, but even then you're probably looking over their shoulder, wondering when's the last time you cleared your browsing history and hoping to God that they don't start their internet search with certain letters like "p."
If they don't know what they're doing, they might accidentally erase something you wanted to keep, or see something you wanted to keep private.
If they do know what they're doing, they could outright steal your files, change your settings or turn the whole thing into a brick.
Re: Mouse's speech, compare and contrast Zoo Day and Changes.They're two very different situations and years apart from one another.
In Zoo Day, Mouse is A Good Boy (or whatever) because everyone says he is, who has many Friends, and so on.
In Change Mouse threatens to bite Lea's ass off. Literally bite it off.
That's not really a consistent character. But if we're talking various non-verbal cues and whatnot, Mouse being much more crude and sarcastic could be more on Harry than on Mouse.
Making a love potion isn't a violation of the
Law, but perhaps using one to alter another's mind without permission may be...
Susan tugged at my neck and jerked my head down to hers for a kiss. As kisses went, well. It was, um, extremely interesting. Perfectly passionate, abandoned, not a trace of self-consciousness or hesitation to it. Or at any rate not from her. I came up for air a minute later, my lips itching with the intensity of it, and she stared up at me with burning eyes. "Take me, Harry. I need you."I'm gonna have to go with massively impaired judgement at a minimum. And if it ain't mind magic then somebody needs to tell me why. So I call it a violation.
"Uh, Susan. That's not really a good idea right now," I said. The potion had taken hold of her hard. No wonder she had recovered from her terror enough to come back up the stairs and fire my gun at the demon. It had lowered her inhibitions to a sufficient degree that it must also have dulled her fears.
Susan's fingers wandered, and her eyes sparkled. "Your mouth says no," she purred, "but this says yes."
I went up on my toes, and swallowed, trying to keep my balance and get her hand off me at the same time. "That thing is always saying something stupid," I told her. She was beyond reason. The potion had kicked her libido into suicidal overdrive. "Bob, help me out here!"
"I'm stuck in the skull," Bob said. "If you don't let me out, I can't do much of anything, Harry."
Susan stood up on tiptoe to gnaw at my ear, wrapped her shapely thigh around one of mine, and started whimpering and pulling me toward the floor. My balance wavered. A three-foot circle was not enough to perform wrestling or gymnastics or … anything else in, without leaving something sticking out for the waiting demon to chew on.
I have just read the salient parts of Storm Front. The passage is hilarious. That I find it so probably says something.I'm gonna have to go with massively impaired judgement at a minimum. And if it ain't mind magic then somebody needs to tell me why. So I call it a violation.
On Mouse's narration in Zoo day. I've seen adults who forget how to talk normally when they are talking to kids. And given that Mouse takes commands like, Kill Him! I'm gonna go with he's in kid mode. And for the record, the narration by Mouse in the Zoo Day audiobook blows.
They're two very different situations and years apart from one another.Like Mouse's Shadow? Which was actually more of a threat than Leah, being actively opposed to Harry and Maggie rather than nominally on the same side.
Most people don't speak or act the same way around 10-year-olds at the zoo as they do around people that they consider a deadly threat to them and the people they care about.
Like Mouse's Shadow? Which was actually more of a threat than Leah, being actively opposed to Harry and Maggie rather than nominally on the same side.If the best he can do is send a bunch of fun-sized demons and a totally-untrained summoner to oppose Harry and Maggie, I don't think he's more of a threat than the creature who casually turned half a dozen people into hounds and outright killed a Lord of Outer Night.
If Morgan had known about it he very well may have tried to get Harry on that charge...
If the best he can do is send a bunch of fun-sized demons and a totally-untrained summoner to oppose Harry and Maggie, I don't think he's more of a threat than the creature who casually turned half a dozen people into hounds and outright killed a Lord of Outer Night.I didn't say more dangerous, I said more of a threat. Lea was more or less on Harry's side.
I didn't say more dangerous, I said more of a threat. Lea was more or less on Harry's side.
It's more accurate to say that he's more of a threat to Harry's life while Leah is more of a threat to Harry's free will... Leah isn't on his side anymore than Justin was. Harry's is a valuable commodity to her, that's it. I used to hope there would actually be something romantic between them or a friendship but have had to face reality.There is. There even is between Lea and Molly. It is just that Lea’s nature places limitations on that she can not avoid and is not even aware of so she can never meet human expectations of friendship.
There is. There even is between Lea and Molly. It is just that Lea’s nature places limitations on that she can not avoid and is not even aware of so she can never meet human expectations of friendship.
In ghost story she is as generous with her answers as she can be, not as she has to be. We have seen in Cold Case how Winter restricts Molly’s ability to help Carlos.
If you try friendship with a fae you have to be aware of that and Harry is only slowly discovering it. Lea literary can not give something for free.
But they are still individuals who want to help or destroy you. There is more going on between Harry and Toot than obligation by pizza but the pizza is necessary.
And if you don’t consider their nature you are not a good friend either.
I didn't say more dangerous, I said more of a threat. Lea was more or less on Harry's side.
Don't be too sure about that.As Lea told Harry herself. That is a lesson he should learn.
Technically Mab is on Harry's side as well, but I don't think anyone here will agree if I say she is not a threat to Harry. Lea is just a lesser version of Mab. Her idea of helping may be a threat in itself. Remember that in SK, Lea explain that making Harry his hound is a reasonable way to protect Harry from greater troubles.
The Leanansidhe is winter's second in command. Thinking that she is not a threat is never wise.
And Harry's reaction when he learns Molly looked into him is instructive:
Morgan was there when Susan vomited it up; he must have known about it. But no, he didn't try to get Harry on that charge.So, from a distance of a dozen feet, Morgan can instantly and accurately identify a specific potion out of a stream of vomit that also includes a second potion, stomach acid and whatever else she had eaten or drank earlier?
So clearly love potions don't violate any of the Laws of Magic.
"To her", not "To me". It is clear that Harry is more worried about Molly getting tempted rather than himself getting psychicly damage. Furthermore, since Molly is under the doom and is a recovering warlock, things are more sensitive for her compare to most. Those who are under the "Doom" cannot even touch the grey areas of magic, just like a recovering addict not suppose to stay around drugs even if the addict does not really take one.That's kind of my point. Even though it was only "looking" and with the best of intentions, Harry considers it at the very least a huge temptation to break the law, if not an outright violation in itself.
Judging whether or not entering another mind is cosmically tainting is rather difficult. Firstly, we get mixed signals from different characters and none of these characters are reliable sources.This is true, a lot of what we get is second hand.
So far, we say Molly entering another's mind twice. In my book both are without permission. Though Harry subconsciously agrees, his agreement is given after Molly scan his mind. When Molly did it Harry does not grant permission. Both cases, in book 10 and 11, left both Molly, Luccio and Harry unharm. Not to mention the multiple practicing sessions between Harry and Molly describe in book 13 and the mental communications between Harry and Elaine in book 9.We don't know that it left them unharmed. We don't see in Molly's head, and both Harry and Luccio have much more harmful things in their head. It'd be like saying a knife to your hand left you unharmed, because it's nothing compared to the bullet in your gut.
When Harry ask Molly to wiped his memory during changes, is another case when Molly do some real mind magic. It is not "Mind scan", but a full blown "Rewiring" case. It is done with permission and under the full knowledge of Harry himself. Regardless of the permission however, the act cause major damage, even though the damage is amplified due to other factors, but it is damage nonetheless.Agreed.
There is a minor discrepancy between the 7 laws and the practical examples of mind magic. Invitation definitely matters. It at least reduce the damage for certain. But whether invitation could completely makes this suspected black magic into white magic? Well, I can't say for sure. I mean, even with permission, Molly rewiring Harry's mind in book 12 still cause damage, while without invitation Luccio, Harry and Molly come out clean in book 10 and 11.I'd say it matters more for whether the Council considers it a violation than for whether it damages either wizard.
I don't see how. Here are what the laws prevent:
Working with Outsiders (obvious reasons here)
Altering time (Obvious reasons here)
Magic that corrupts a wizard (killing, mind rape ect)
Does making/using a love potion fall under any of these? I don't think so. Harry mixed some ingredients together, and then use magical energy to activate them. It didn't require any desire to do harm or anything like that. Making the potion isn't corrupting from the way the book described it and therefore isn't going to push a wizard into becoming a warlock. It doesn't mess with time, or Outsiders either. Therefore I don't see how the potion or it's use violates the laws.
So like anything making potions or most potions doesn't violate the Seven Laws, however abuse of them could... For the lazy wizard it presents a temptation..
How though? Magic that corrupts the wizard travels through them. You could actually see the Blackstaff removing it from Eb. How could it corrupt them? It's not about corruption like a vanilla person becoming worse by acts of violence. Does abusing potions literally transform the wizard into a warlock, creating insanity? I don't see it.
I think it could, key word here is, abusing potions. First of all you have to ask yourself, what kind of wizard would do that or feel the need to do that? Point being if he or she is willing to cross the line in that way, it is possible that he or she may be willing to do it in other ways... Like beginning with magic that isn't quite black, but not white either.. As Harry has often pointed out doing so is addictive.. Though I admit the potion in of itself won't lead the wizard down the primrose path to warlockhood...
I don't think potions can create a warlock so it's not a violation. HOWEVER I will admit that any wizard who would create potions with the intent to rape is probably going to use mental magic or other dark magic and become a warlock. It would just be in their nature to do it.
I'd say it matters more for whether the Council considers it a violation than for whether it damages either wizard.
On the open, the council definitely say that entering another's mind is a violation, strictly and with no exception. However, this is not the law, but the interpretation of the law.
Technically, I think that was an illusion. Somehow. Despite providing visual aids and happening faster than normal speech.Yes and they knew exactly how to do so. And how exactly did they inspect the damage Molly did to Nelson?
Also, they had to have gone into people's minds somehow to assess the damage Peabody did, yes?
Isn't Langtry sending a telepathic message to everyone a violation since he had to enter their mind to deliver the message?That appears to have been on the same level of surface thoughts as Harry's communication spell to Elaine.
Yes and they knew exactly how to do so. And how exactly did they inspect the damage Molly did to Nelson?Harry was able to inspect damage to Rosie with the Sight.
That appears to have been on the same level of surface thoughts as Harry's communication spell to Elaine.What is solid about these “cosmic” laws? They are not even codified. They can not be used in any court. The only thing it says is that some uses of magic are bad for your soul and we have some obvious examples but you can not use those laws to examine things like mutual agreed mind magic, we simply do not have enough evidence.
Harry was able to inspect damage to Rosie with the Sight.
And yeah, different wizards are going to have different -- and occasionally self-serving -- interpretations of the laws. Which is why I tend to use the cosmic laws as a more solid guideline.
What is solid about these “cosmic” laws? They are not even codified. They can not be used in any court. The only thing it says is that some uses of magic are bad for your soul and we have some obvious examples but you can not use those laws to examine things like mutual agreed mind magic, we simply do not have enough evidence.Actually I think we do have enough evidence to codify how the laws might specifically work... if you look at the evidence shown within the DF, it's actually based around wither or not your violating free will directly... hence Molly was trained by Leah to use illusion and other non abrogating methods to instill fear as a weapon, as opposed to the original violations using fear. Or the fae themselves being in the balance, never going into the negative with Rent because of the equivalency methods they use combined with the fact they simply do not directly violate free will...
Actually I think we do have enough evidence to codify how the laws might specifically work... if you look at the evidence shown within the DF, it's actually based around wither or not your violating free will directly... hence Molly was trained by Leah to use illusion and other non abrogating methods to instill fear as a weapon, as opposed to the original violations using fear. Or the fae themselves being in the balance, never going into the negative with Rent because of the equivalency methods they use combined with the fact they simply do not directly violate free will...
Random tangential, They never violate any of TWG's 3 weaponized powers either, in Duty they maintain a warriors sense of Hope. In keeping their word they keep faith and in respecting homestead laws they respect the sanctity of love.
You might disagree but youd be hard pressed to show me an example disproving such a connection threading the 7 laws with free will...
extended tangential, the 7 laws(and the 7 Courts) may actually coincide indirectly with the 7 deadly sins. Though the exact translation would take some bearing of mind, some are easier to see, like wrath=murder or pride/hubris=TT and others you have to wonder a bit at, like sloth=enthrallment or invasion of mind=envy... and some really stretch but still fit vaguely, like Lust(non physical definition)=reaching beyond the outer gates
As I see it, any magic that is not permanent or cause permanent or long term damage in which the soul cannot recover by itself is not black magic.and yet the hexxenwolf belts felt wrong to Harry. Time travel has nothing at all to do with the soul, and neither does most forms of necromancy i'm aware of... so i'm not certain I see what your connection is.
This condition does not protect mortals much, but it does makes violation of "free will" by accident or unintentionally rather difficult. Most of the time, "free will" violation can only be done with intent. When unintentional "free will" violation does happened, the damage tends to be limited and recoverable if given enough effort. The taint is not a permanent hopeless case like Langtry asserted. Only deliberate violation with intent would cause permanent taint.A. What? What condition? I feel whatever your understanding of the idea of free will is is not the application i'm using of it... namely that which breaks down into creatures of spirit not meaning to have pull on fate/effect reality, make changes within it... and B. How can you say without something to point towards? This is something only Hastur would know ;) and what is 'unintentional violation' even mean? You do, or you don't, pretty sure Woj on it is intentions don't matter for jack compared to results, so for instance the guy Harry killed in the wild hunt, is still his fault.
I really don't think your on the same page I am on what i'm talking about here...and yet the hexxenwolf belts felt wrong to Harry. Time travel has nothing at all to do with the soul, and neither does most forms of necromancy i'm aware of... so i'm not certain I see what your connection is.A. What? What condition? I feel whatever your understanding of the idea of free will is is not the application i'm using of it... namely that which breaks down into creatures of spirit not meaning to have pull on fate/effect reality, make changes within it... and B. How can you say without something to point towards? This is something only Hastur would know ;) and what is 'unintentional violation' even mean? You do, or you don't, pretty sure Woj on it is intentions don't matter for jack compared to results, so for instance the guy Harry killed in the wild hunt, is still his fault.
Keep in mind, we're speaking of Magical violations alone, we already have Satan as the king of Lies and Sin so all those are covered in reality with a balance... It's a Dark God of Retribution and Magic we currently lack...
The intent is there. Molly's anger and jealousy tainted the spell intended to help, however it is more or less an accident.Rosie did still have the holes in her spirit/mind(/soul?) without any such taint, It still did precisely the same damage, without permission. It was just subtler and cleaner... I compare Nelson's to an angry surgeon with a hacksaw to Rosie's scalpel work... though I admit something was wonky in the glittery gloves of love manifestation, but from what I can tell the actual invasiveness of what she did still counted.... the gloves coincidently, remind me of what Margret did to Raith, in that it didn't need to be an internal mechanism to work.
We do not know if time magic truly cuase taint or if it just not a good idea in general. Merlin himself "time travel" when he crafted demonreach prison. If "time magic" is truly tainting and really broken "Free will", Merlin would have gone insane or become evil dark lord.The reasoning is direct, by altering what is, your nay saying the free will(s) that lead to the original fated timeline to begin with. There are of course ways around this, as described by Bob, on the fate of two cars and theoretically applied by Kumori in causing the death/revival of the thug on Wacker St.
Rosie did still have the holes in her spirit/mind(/soul?) without any such taint, It still did precisely the same damage, without permission. It was just subtler and cleaner... I compare Nelson's to an angry surgeon with a hacksaw to Rosie's scalpel work... though I admit something was wonky in the glittery gloves of love manifestation, but from what I can tell the actual invasiveness of what she did still counted.... the gloves coincidently, remind me of what Margret did to Raith, in that it didn't need to be an internal mechanism to work.The reasoning is direct, by altering what is, your nay saying the free will(s) that lead to the original fated timeline to begin with. There are of course ways around this, as described by Bob, on the fate of two cars and theoretically applied by Kumori in causing the death/revival of the thug on Wacker St.
Langtry's interpretation of the council's 7 laws tends to be all inclusive. All "Time magic" are forbidden and presumed tainting. All "Mind magic" are band and considered black magic. Facts in the series however gave us different signals. As early as book 4, when Elaine casted the mind fog spell, we should have known this is coming. Harry say the magic is illegal, but Elaine does not seem to be turning warlock anytime soon.
Even worse, if she'd been acting altruistically, it would mean that the dark energy the necromancers seemed to favor might not be something wholly, inherently evil. It had been used to preserve life, just as the magic I knew could be used either to protect or to destroy.
I'd always considered the line between black magic and white to be sharp and clear. But if that dark power could be employed in whatever fashion its wielder chose, that made it no different from my own.
I suspect Jim likes to keep everyone guessing. In deadbeat Kumori raises someone from the dead. Harry reflects.Of course it is on purpose. The whole idea is that dresden verse reality is more complicated than those seven laws. That creates tensions.
I was thinking more on the lines of mad writer, cackling manically, toying with his readers. ;)Only for readers who can not handle that. Magic really would be too simple if it was neatly catches in the seven laws.
I was thinking more on the lines of mad writer, cackling manically, toying with his readers. ;)
I'm waiting for Dresden to break the 4th wall and acknowledges he can sense the person reading the book.... lol..
"I open my 3rd eye and see the world around me. I push through, deeper, and deeper.. I reach an outer wall of white light, and push through to another world that makes my world seem two dimensional as if it were merely words on a page. I sense minds, many minds observing my reality as a form of entertainment"
This is a good one.
Though if Harry could really see us, I'll stop reading the DV immedietly. The DV world is interesting on paper, but it is too scary as reality.