ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Vivictus on October 20, 2017, 03:54:26 PM
-
This is mostly related to the first law and how it relates to black magic. It's come up several times that the corrupting effect of black magic is largely due to twisting creative forces to commit murder and believing it's the right thing to do. Given that, it seems like there may be three components to consider.
Intent - What is the practitioner trying to do?
Fact - What is the actual result?
Knowledge - Is the practitioner even aware of the result?
So, here are a few scenarios. Fairly easy to determine if a situation is a first law violation, a little harder to know if the result is black magic, with the self inflicted damage that entails.
- Killing in self defense - Pretty much Harry's situation with Justin. First law violation and black magic. Clearly redeemable with support
- Accidental killing - In battle, throwing fire at a red court vamp (RCV) who ducks. A human friend behind it is hit and killed. Technically a first law violation but is it black magic?
- Killing a human by mistake - In battle, throwing fire at what you mistakenly believe to be a RCV who is killed. The target was actually a vanilla human. Neither you or anyone else knows this was the case. First law violation yes, black magic?
- Killing a human by mistake v2 - Same situation, but after the battle you check the body and find that they were human. First law violation yes, black magic?
- Accidental Killing unawares - Using force magic to blow open a door. A person behind it is struck and killed. The wizard leaves without discovering they've killed someone or even that someone was there. Again, first law violation, but black magic?
- Trying to kill a human and failing - In a bar, someone hits on you date. You respond with a fireball that's intended to be fatal. They duck and run, surviving. Not a first law violation, seems like it might be black magic?
- Same situation, but the fireball lands killing the target. Turns out, unbeknownst to the wizard, the "victim" was a RCV out hunting for a meal. Not a first law violation, seems even more like it might be black magic?
What do you think?
-
I'm having trouble disconcerting your point? What is your conclusions based on this?
-
The WoJ on the subject is that intent has no bearing on dark magic corruption. If you do something bad for the right reasons, you're corrupted.
-
I'm having trouble disconcerting your point? What is your conclusions based on this?
Hi Jonas,
More a question than a point. I'm fuzzy on where an action crosses the line into black magic and what considerations determine it.
Thx. Vic
-
The WoJ on the subject is that intent has no bearing on dark magic corruption. If you do something bad for the right reasons, you're corrupted.
Interesting. I take "doing something bad for the right reasons" as knowing what you're doing but feeling that it's justified or believing that it's the "least wrong" option available. The first scenario, killing in self defense seems to fall into this category.
I'm more questioning scenarios where there isn't any reasoning involved. e.g. A human is killed accidently and perhaps the practitioner isn't even aware of it after the fact. Still black magic?
Or, conversely a practitioner casts what if fully intended to be lethal black magic but fails to kill the target due to external interference. (Say, an entropy curse cast at a human that is redirected to a black court vamp...) Not black magic due to incompetence?
Another interesting scenario. If Butters had killed a human with a magic device during his Batman phase. The actual power is coming from Bob. So, not black magic and Butters doesn't experience any corruption?
-
Interesting. I take "doing something bad for the right reasons" as knowing what you're doing but feeling that it's justified or believing that it's the "least wrong" option available. The first scenario, killing in self defense seems to fall into this category.
I'm more questioning scenarios where there isn't any reasoning involved. e.g. A human is killed accidently and perhaps the practitioner isn't even aware of it after the fact. Still black magic?
Or, conversely a practitioner casts what if fully intended to be lethal black magic but fails to kill the target due to external interference. (Say, an entropy curse cast at a human that is redirected to a black court vamp...) Not black magic due to incompetence?
Another interesting scenario. If Butters had killed a human with a magic device during his Batman phase. The actual power is coming from Bob. So, not black magic and Butters doesn't experience any corruption?
This has come up from time to time, but I don't remember the details on the arguments. Snark and Mr. Death are better versed in the latest debates on this, I believe. They may chime in.
My take was that if you cast regular magic and it accidentally kills someone, it corrupts you. If you cast regular magic with the intent to kill, it corrupts you. If you cast dark magic with ill intent, but it doesn't succeed, it corrupts you. If you cast dark magic with ill intent, and it succeeds, it corrupts you.
There's some good WoJ on Eb and the Blackstaff that talks about just doing the things he does, even with the Staff protecting him from the worst aspects of dark magic, still requires a mindset that's disturbed, and psyche effects that are unavoidable for anyone not actually a sociopath.
-
Another interesting scenario. If Butters had killed a human with a magic device during his Batman phase. The actual power is coming from Bob. So, not black magic and Butters doesn't experience any corruption?
Killing someone with an enchanted item has no more than the usual bad-for-the-soul moral implications of killing. That's literally what the Warden swords are designed for, for one thing.
On the other hand, Molly's rag lady phase probably was incurring soul corruption. We don't know for sure if she was limiting herself to only technically legal holomancy for stuff like tricking dirty cops into shootouts with Fomor servitors, or resorting to outright mental interference. But the strong implication of Jim's statement that it's effects that matter is that it's only the Wardens who would care about that - casting illusions meant to trick people to their deaths, and succeeding, was warping her mind no matter how she did it.
-
Perhaps the corruption comes from taking an elemental force of life and losing it in such a manner that it ends life.
-
casting illusions meant to trick people to their deaths, and succeeding, was warping her mind no matter how she did it.
I'd have to disagree, Lea basically taught Molly to use fear without breaking the laws of magic. Sure, it's a grey area, but it's the same grey area the Sidhe live in and they absolutely cannot abrogate freedom of will. crosses the line into black magic and what considerations determine it
That's the clincher for the laws of magic, if you look at them, all 7 break free will universal laws, with a slight exception for #7, it could break the same law as Necromancy, but it's more just bad juju for reality.
1 Murder is pretty self explanatory, take away their choice entirely
2 It destroys them just the same, by slowly taking away who/what they were, taking away their freedom/soul as a human too.
3 Breaking into minds against their will..
4 Completely breaking the will of another.
5 Ghosts aren't supposed to effect fate/reality, have no body/soul to do so, ect.
6 Altering time, trying to alter someone else's choices or flow of fate/freedom. Interestingly if you use Bob's indirect methodology you can avoid the actual cosmic repercussions by standing in a grey area...
7 Outergates, all kinda of dead/undead gods and such.
If you take 'gaia' as our cabbalistic seraphim, TWC as our current Spiritus Mundus, spirit of our planet, and Nemesis as our dark mirror and wrap it up with Yeat's the second coming as our spirit being replaced in a mirroring opposite fashion throughout time and space and you have 'freedom of will' as the current order of the Spiritus Mundus and violating that as an unbalanced force. Lucifer exists 'here' to balance regular corruptive actions by bringing 'judgement' upon those actions... Magic has no dark god to dole out retribution or otherwise metaphysically balance out breaking the order of 'planet/star/archangel' So Nemesis, our dark mirror gets to act in that imbalance. In religious context, 'sin' was an unbalanced force which damned all of humanity before TWC saved them and made Hell for the damned(which in the DF prevents them from nothingness/outside/beyond), repurposed Satan the Accuser into Lucifer the Devil.Another interesting scenario. If Butters had killed a human with a magic device during his Batman phase. The actual power is coming from Bob. So, not black magic and Butters doesn't experience any corruption?
Probably not, Bob would just be another form of insulation, like a mantle or talisman or blackstaff.
-
The WoJ on the subject is that intent has no bearing on dark magic corruption. If you do something bad for the right reasons, you're corrupted.
That was the essence of Proven Guilty. Molly had good intentions and yet ...
-
That was the essence of Proven Guilty. Molly had good intentions and yet ...
Actually, Molly's intent is not very pure. It is proven by the fact that Rosy's damage is far less severe compare to the damage done to her ex boyfriend.
As mere mortals, wizardkind has a hard time mastering their intent, their magic therefore is not as well controlled as pure supernatural being like the fae. The very nature of mortal free will does not allow for such a pure intent in a mortal. It is the very reason for the existence of the murphionic field.
Even though Rosy's damage is mitigated , I doubt Molly does not feel a least a bit of anger and jealousy against Rosy. The girl did take her boyfriend away. and when she decided to invade the minds of her friend and ex boyfriend, I doubt there is no slightest bit of dark excitement involve. The dark side of altering another's mind is a popular subject in pop culture, and unless Molly already achieve a mental state of an enlighten Buddha, saying that her intent is purely good is most likely a false assumption.
If you ask me, intent does matter, but in a case where magic is used to kill a mortal, or breaking any of the 7 laws for that matter, a case where there is pure good intent involve might as well be none. It is only a matter of degrees, and it will be reflected in the level of taint received and how it will impact the wizard's sanity and control.
Judging this kind of thing is rather difficult, so the white council just kill everyone they can.
There are alsow ways to avoid the taint, or at least that is what the council believes, which may or may not be true. Using an enchanted swords, Transforming into a wolf and biting a mortal's throat. Using kinetomancy to speed yourself up and stab someone with a knife with that speed advantage and so on.
Up until now, I am not even sure about whether or not Molly's tenure as the rag lady tainted her. The deterioration of her sanity might be an indicator of the taint, but due to exposure to the blood ritual in CY during book 12 + her involvement in Harry suicide, Molly's sanity is already taken a lot of hit. It is enough to explain her condition without blaming it on black magic taint. The council did want to execute her, but the council would do that even if Molly stay at home and be a good girl all the time. The fact that Harry is dead is enough for the council.
It muddies the water, And as far as I know there is no WoJ confirming this issue either.
My best guess is no. Molly's illusion, though ended up in mortal death, does not taint her more than when a warden use swords to cut down warlocks or supposed to be warlocks.
-
Good intentions are not the same as pure intentions. People often have good intentions or benevolence in their actions; but, that does not mean that these actions occur in the manner of their hopes. In Molly's case, she was a teenage girl working with tools that she had never used before and dealing with those meddlesome emotions that often get in the way. Were her actions right? No. Should she have sought Harry's advice? Yes. But, she has a father that is heroic. A teenage crush who is heroic. And, she wanted to do something heroic.
-
I think there is a WOJ that black magic corruption does not equate exactly with the 7 Laws of Magic. The Laws are a simplification for use by the Council.
So breaking the Laws causes corruption 9 time out of 10, but in theory one could break a Law without the black magic corruption happening. And also, something that is within the letter of the Laws might cause some corruption to occur.
APG
-
Good intentions are not the same as pure intentions. People often have good intentions or benevolence in their actions; but, that does not mean that these actions occur in the manner of their hopes. In Molly's case, she was a teenage girl working with tools that she had never used before and dealing with those meddlesome emotions that often get in the way. Were her actions right? No. Should she have sought Harry's advice? Yes. But, she has a father that is heroic. A teenage crush who is heroic. And, she wanted to do something heroic.
Sadly, in magic pure intent is what matters. In many ways, magic is the most honest expression of inner thoughts, beliefs and desires. One must manifest those desires, focus on it and substancialize it. It makes it difficult to argue innocence due to ignorance. Somewhere deep down inside, a black magic practicianer must have sense the corruption and the wrongness of the act when they first attempt it.
Ignorance may encourage the practicianer to underestimate the danger, justify it, or even goes into denial, but to say that they do not feel any instinctive wrongness when they are about to cast black magic would be a lie. And if such an instinctive warning is completely non existent when a practicianer is casting something, most likely that casting is not black magic in the firstplace.
-
Intent is not a factor in being tainted by black magic.
I seem to recall a WoJ where he said that if a wizard uses magic to light a candle and the candle gets knocked over, burning the house down and humans die, the wizard will be tainted.
-
What causes the taint by using magic to kill?
-
What causes the taint by using magic to kill?
From what Harry explain in book 9, it is simply a natural consequences of believing that killing is right. Magic only works when one truly believes in something. So when a wizard kill someone with magic, the wizard beleves that the kill is right, that it should be done, that it is right and proper.
Apparently, such a thing reinforces itself. Unless the wizard actively make choices against this belief, the beliefs will change the wizard.
actually, we saw this process in action. Harry's temper is getting worse due to shadow Lash's influence. In book 8, when he brutally attack the fetch, Harry could still feel the forboding and wrongness of the act, though he does not question himself strongly. In book 9, one year after , it took Murphy's intense questioning before he even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem. He even try to deny it. And this is a problem on the early stage and happened to Harry, a relatively experienced wizard with strong willpower, and it is not even black magic. To a teenager, new to their power, we can imagine what such magic and belief reinforcement could do.
This is probably the only text explanation for the taint available.
-
Intent is not a factor in being tainted by black magic.
I seem to recall a WoJ where he said that if a wizard uses magic to light a candle and the candle gets knocked over, burning the house down and humans die, the wizard will be tainted.
I need to see that WoJ.
I doubt it is the case though. If knocking down a candle lighted by magic could cause taint, the warden swords would be far worse.
If a wizard light a candle and intentionally knock it down to cause a fire for the express purpose to kill someone, maybe there will be taint, but in this case there is killing intent.
If Harry light a candle and then he is captured and knock unconscious by a vampire, and then the vampire use that candle to burn someone to death, it will be stupid if Harry is tainted by that.
-
Could the taint be a spiritual suffering for doing a wrong act that a person believed had to be done?
-
Hypothetically,It could be, but we have nothing either in the text or in WoJ to support it. Though what Harry explain in book 9 maybe wrong or incomplete, it is about the only thing we have and actually saw the process in action.
-
That is one of those areas that makes me wonder. He was more troubled by the zeal with which he attacked the fetch then with the cold shooting of Corpsetaker in Luccio's body the book before.
-
That is one of those areas that makes me wonder. He was more troubled by the zeal with which he attacked the fetch then with the cold shooting of Corpsetaker in Luccio's body the book before.
The point is, Harry shoot Luccio's body with a shotgun, while the fetch he use magic. That should be the difference.
Actually, when Harry shot Luccio's body, he is not even sure corpsetaker is inside. He is not sure the action is correct and right. If Harry use magic with that kind of a mindset, his magic will fail.
If Harry can still call up power when he is not certain that Luccio is not Luccio, it meant that Harry believes that it is better to kill 1000 wrongly rather than letter one escape. He will be like Cao Cao of the 3 kingdoms, and after he casted that kind of magic, he'll become one step closer to becoming something like Cao Cao. A shotgun does not need that kind of a mindset. Harry could be as uncertain and full of doubt, and the shotgun will still fire the bullet as long as Harry pull the trigger. Harry can kill, and there is no taint.
It would explain why the warden swords could work. When Luccio enchanted those swords, her intent is to cut dark magic and break enchantment, not killing people.
When Harry use force magic to attack the fetch, his magic is casted by drawing power from his battle lust. It is drawn from his desire to take revenge, to slate his anger, and to dominate. He wanted to save people, but his power is drawn from those dark emotions and desires whether he consciously realize it or not, so much so he is lost in the act and fail to see that a victim is lying there bleeding to death, and might need help.
I think all magic, black or not, left a mark on it's caster. If you cast magic with a pure benevolent heart, to heal people for example, you'll become more benevolent. It reinforce your benevolent nature. For some reason, perhaps due to the law of "Free will" in this universe, using magic to kill people or invading people's minds resulted in a amplified mark which we call "taint". The wizard does not just cast magic believing that killing their fellow humans is right and proper, the wizard also use arcane forces to rob another free will being from their life and thus their ability to further make choices. That is why black magic makes you go insane fast, while casting magic in anger like Harry did in book 8 and book 9 has a relatively minimal repercussion.
-
A passionate misuse of magic is more tolerable than a deliberate misuse of magic?
-
From what Harry explain in book 9, it is simply a natural consequences of believing that killing is right. Magic only works when one truly believes in something. So when a wizard kill someone with magic, the wizard beleves that the kill is right, that it should be done, that it is right and proper.
Apparently, such a thing reinforces itself. Unless the wizard actively make choices against this belief, the beliefs will change the wizard.
This is the root of my discomfort with how I perceive things to work. It would make lots of sense to me if believing it was right to kill/destroy with magic resulted in corruption of the wizard. My impression from the books, which a couple people have indicated is supported by WoJ is that it's the simple fact of the taking of a mortal human life, regardless of intent or even knowledge.
A possible mechanic I could imagine for this would be active magic connecting the victim and the wizard at the moment of death causing some kind of mentally damaging feedback loop. No moral considerations are required if that's the case. It would also explain why killing with a magical weapon doesn't have the same issue since no actively cast magic is involved. Lastly it could also cover why killing a good and noble non-human doesn't have the same effect. They wouldn't necessarily be on the right "wavelength" to result in the taint.
-
So, you think killing someone with magic kills the caster a little due to a magical link?
-
So, you think killing someone with magic kills the caster a little due to a magical link?
Just guessing really, but that would seem to work. It can't be based on the morality of the action or the caster because we've said a well intentioned spell that kills will taint the wizard and conversely using magic to unjustly kill an innocent non-human doesn't result in a taint.
The only other option I can think of would be that the system itself has some kind of built-in intelligence. That is, magic is aware or the results of its use and the taint is punishment for breaking it's somewhat arbitrary rules.
-
A passionate misuse of magic is more tolerable than a deliberate misuse of magic?
Not exactly. If what Harry say and my understanding of it is correct. intent i.e: Passionate or deliberate, is only a part of the equation.
Magic, at least the kind Harry is using, works on the principal a kin to the 3 fold law we know in many witch novels.
Whatever you send out, eventually comes back to you. If you send out good things, you get good things back. If you send out vile things, you get vile things in return. However, it is a bit more complex. The intent of the wizard only play a part.
The final backlash a wizard receives depends on how much is reflected back to the wizard. In witchy novels, it is often said to be 3 times what you send out, but in the Dresdenverse, the backlash a wizard receives depends on the consequences of the magic not on the intent of the caster.
Example: a wizard is attempting to use magic to heal a person. The wizard has about 97% good intent and only 3% dark intent. If the result of the magic is good, and the person is healed right and proper, the wizard will receive the backlash from the 97% good karma. If the person is not healed properly and get crippled, the wizard will be penalize by the 3% negative karma. If the person is killed due to the wizard's magical healing attempt, the wizard won't just get the 3% negative karma, he'll get 3% negative karma multiplied by the black magic, let say 10 times, so the wizard will get 30% negative karma even though he has 97% good intent when he casted the magic originally. This is probably what happens to Molly, though in her case, I estimate the intent is about 80% good and 20% dark.
Now, let's say that the wizard is only pretending to heal the person. He actually trying to kill the person instead. In this case, the wizard has 3% good intent and 97% bad intent. Assuming the wizard did kill the target, he'll get 970% negative karma. He'll go insane fast this way, but even if the magic fail to kill, the wizard still get the 97% negative karma from the original intent.
In theory, if the wizard can have 100% good intent, even if the target get killed due to the magic, the wizard won't be tainted at all. But it is impossible. Not to mention that it is impossible for a mortal to have 100% pure intent, if the magic is truly casted using 100% pure benevelont intent, the magic won't be able to harm anyone in the firstplace.
-
Just guessing really, but that would seem to work. It can't be based on the morality of the action or the caster because we've said a well intentioned spell that kills will taint the wizard and conversely using magic to unjustly kill an innocent non-human doesn't result in a taint.
The only other option I can think of would be that the system itself has some kind of built-in intelligence. That is, magic is aware or the results of its use and the taint is punishment for breaking it's somewhat arbitrary rules.
The council say that killing non humankind does not violate the 7 laws, whether or not it cause taint however is another matter entirely.
Harry use forzare to kill the fetch in book 8, and he get lost in battle lust. The fetch is non human, but it is shown to us in book 9 that Harry's control of his temper is growing steadily worse by the day.
It is entirely possible that unjustly killing a supernatural being, say killing a bigfoot like river shoulders, will cause some kind of taint even though the council won't acknowledge the act as a law violation. It seldom happens though. When it comes to supernaturals and wizards. The ones who has good intentions won't come, and those who come don't have good intentions. The way things are going, it is well nai impossible to unjustly kill a supernatural.
I don't think we can ignore the factor of morality / intent entirely when talking about black magic taint. It does not make sense otherwise. It will be all too easy to turn a good wizard into a warlock if consequences is all that matters. If harry cast fuego and burn something, all a vampire need to do is to make a torch with the resulting fire and use that fire to kill someone. Harry will be tainted and the council will be force to behead him or risk a new warlock. The vampire can do this everytime they fight a council warden and soon all wizards become warlocks and the council will be too busy handling them.
-
Intent is not a factor in being tainted by black magic.
I seem to recall a WoJ where he said that if a wizard uses magic to light a candle and the candle gets knocked over, burning the house down and humans die, the wizard will be tainted.
Serack - Can you help find this one?
-
The WoJ on the subject is that intent has no bearing on dark magic corruption. If you do something bad for the right reasons, you're corrupted.
We already know intent makes a big difference. It's not the only factor, but it's relevant. A warlock who kills with magic by accident is far more likely to be able to avoid permanent damage than someone who acts with malice aforethought.
Molly was damaged by what she did to Nelson and Rosie...but if she'd done it purely out of bad intent, she'd be far more damaged (and dead, because the Council wouldn't have spared her in that case anyway).
-
I think there is a WOJ that black magic corruption does not equate exactly with the 7 Laws of Magic. The Laws are a simplification for use by the Council.
Exactly. There are obvious areas where the Laws don't fully match up to how the universe works. For example, it's a near certainty that there is some taint associated with using magic to directly kill a White Court Vampire. But the Laws are OK with it. There's probably a little bit of taint associated with the 'gray areas'. I would imagine Harry took a touch of taint when he animated Sue. But it's OK under the Laws. (Though if you do go around animating animals, I suspect you'd better have a very good reason or the Wardens will be looking for excuses to stop you.)
-
From what Harry explain in book 9, it is simply a natural consequences of believing that killing is right. Magic only works when one truly believes in something. So when a wizard kill someone with magic, the wizard beleves that the kill is right, that it should be done, that it is right and proper.
That's not all there is too it. If that was the whole story, genuine accidents with magic, even lethal ones, would leave no taint. But they do have some effect. Intent is a big part of it, though.
For one thing, pretty much anything usually gets easier the more you do it. Even purely mundane things. The 20th killing with a gun is usually easier than #1. The third time you cheat on your husband or wife is usually easier than the first. Even good things usually get easier as you do more of them.
Add in the amplifying feedback effect of magic...
-
That's not all there is too it. If that was the whole story, genuine accidents with magic, even lethal ones, would leave no taint. But they do have some effect. Intent is a big part of it, though.
For one thing, pretty much anything usually gets easier the more you do it. Even purely mundane things. The 20th killing with a gun is usually easier than #1. The third time you cheat on your husband or wife is usually easier than the first. Even good things usually get easier as you do more of them.
Add in the amplifying feedback effect of magic...
Yeah, it is probably more complicated than what Harry explain in book 9. The human Harry killed during the wild hunt chase in book 14 for example. How does the taint works in that particular circumstances?
but what Harry say in book 9 is probably the basics or at least one of the factors involve.
-
Yeah, it is probably more complicated than what Harry explain in book 9. The human Harry killed during the wild hunt chase in book 14 for example. How does the taint works in that particular circumstances?
but what Harry say in book 9 is probably the basics or at least one of the factors involve.
That's not all there is too it. If that was the whole story, genuine accidents with magic, even lethal ones, would leave no taint. But they do have some effect. Intent is a big part of it, though.
For one thing, pretty much anything usually gets easier the more you do it. Even purely mundane things. The 20th killing with a gun is usually easier than #1. The third time you cheat on your husband or wife is usually easier than the first. Even good things usually get easier as you do more of them.
Add in the amplifying feedback effect of magic...
I think this is the heart of it.
-
The council say that killing non humankind does not violate the 7 laws, whether or not it cause taint however is another matter entirely.
Harry use forzare to kill the fetch in book 8, and he get lost in battle lust. The fetch is non human, but it is shown to us in book 9 that Harry's control of his temper is growing steadily worse by the day.
It is entirely possible that unjustly killing a supernatural being, say killing a bigfoot like river shoulders, will cause some kind of taint even though the council won't acknowledge the act as a law violation. It seldom happens though. When it comes to supernaturals and wizards. The ones who has good intentions won't come, and those who come don't have good intentions. The way things are going, it is well nai impossible to unjustly kill a supernatural.
A wizard has to be worried about more than just magical corruption. Morgan was a stonecold bastard and he followed the laws perfectly. Getting in the habit of killing things for bad reasons is going to do bad things to Harry even if he never gets near black magic. It's one of the reasons he'd rather have died than be the Winter Knight.
-
Doing something makes doing that something again easier. The more often you do it, the easier it becomes.
Black Magic amplifies this, and warps the practitioner. This feeds into itself and has an addictive component.