If a Wizard wanted to be an assassin, but they didn't want to break the fist law, would this do?I dont think so, but it's a damn fine line. I think that would still fall into the same category as the Wardens that use lots of protective magics but kill with swords.
Cast a veil on themselves, and use a gun to kill with. While under the veil, escape.
Would this be a violation of the first law?
Put turning invisible and then pushing somebody into traffic still feels like Lawbreaking, but isnt qualitatively different. So does casting an illusion to make a red light look green.
It would most likely be a case by case basis, killing in the name of the white council, probably okay, killing for profit, you are looking at a response of some kind. In any case I doubt any wizard wants the attention especially since the Blackstaff can take matters into his own hands.
But most Wizards don't know about the Blackstaff.Again, that only works if the Blackstaff is publically known (and also publicly known for charity and mercy).
True but most wizards are already risk adverse, and would not want to risk the wardens wrath or attentions, but the Blackstaff is someone you go to as a last resort, accidents and disasters do happen, as the Council would say.
Well I meant that if a wizard was causing too much publicity and skirting the first law and otherwise being a nuisance to the rest of the supernatural world that they would task the Blackstaff with ending the problem. The White Council is many things merciful is not one of them.Eh, I tend to think they'd simply send the Wardens and declare that said wizard had actually violated a Law. It's not like the Accused get to mount a defense or anything. I expect the Blackstaff is going to be reserved for things that another unprotected practitioner actually can not do safely, as opposed to using it just to save face. So if you need a Necromantic Aura (and dont have a t-rex), you call the Blackstaff. If you need an undead Duke killed and the only way possible will have collateral damage, call the Blackstaff. If you are facing a Warlock sooo Powerful that you dont think it will be possible to take tehm alive and kill them by non-magical means*, you call the Blackstaff. Or if you need to trust ONE GUY with knowledge of the Outer Gates, you call him (and likely he calls the Gatekeeper). But if you just need to kill somebody and not seem like too much of a hypocrite, there are tons of options that dont require Cosmic Artifacts of the Universe.
Personally I have always just disregarded the first law, seeing it as kind of stupid. There is even a WOJ if I recall basically stating that not all the magical laws actually make sense ethically. I believe law one is mentioned.
The law always seems stupid to me in general. Magic is just a tool like any other. If I can kill with non-magical instruments, why should magic make a difference. I know the WC justification is that Magic used to kill somehow corrupts the end user, but this would seem to be self-evidently preposterous. For starters, even if there were true in this manner, it would render the use of magic indirectly unjust as well in some circumstances. If I make a magical sword specifically to kill my enemies, I have still invested my magic in a death implement.
But even aside from that, its philosophically nonsense. As I understand it, they dont like it because it has some kind of negative affect on its user because the user had to invest their "self" in the killing in order to produce the magic. If this is the case, then only killing for unjust malicious intent would have said affect. If the wizard killed justly, then any adverse affect should be essentially nil since the justification of the killing would be a reflection of the "self" applied to the magic. Additionally, this law seems to imply that this presumed negative affect would affect the person free will. If a person who killed justly is still negatively affected, it should still not matter so long as they can theoretically exercise choice. Not to mention that you could equally stupidly apply this logic to non-magical means of killing. And if this were true, the whole WC and Dresden would have to step down due to "killing stress" or some nonsense.
Two Counters to this. First, at least as I see it, one of the themes of TDF is that actions have consequences, and those consequences are often entirely unrelated to the intent behind the action. Put another way, ethics and morality in the Dresdenverse seem to be closer to Deontological systems than Utilitarian ones. So, while the act of killing may at times be a necessary bad act, within the context of of this universe it is still an inherently bad act, and so it adversely effects the user. And it isn't a bad thing becasue it adversely affects the person who does it, it adversely affects the user becasue it is a bad thing. As for why this doesn't affect apply to non-magical killing, well, that's becasue magic. It takes an effect that already results from killing (look at the kind of PTSD suffered by soldiers/police/etc., even those involved in ultimately justifiable or at least necessary violence) and cranks it up to 11 becasue the supernatural nature of the event gives that trauma a direct line to your soul. Same general type, just massively increased scale.
Secondly, and I'll point you to what Luccio said in Turn Coat. Basically, the White Council and it's Laws aren't actually about right/wrong, good/evil, or morality. So, even if your argument did apply (which I don't think it does, at least not in context of the Dresdenverse), it doesn't change the fact that killing with magic is way, way easier than killing without it. sure, when you look at things like Nukes or chemical weapons there are mundane ways of killing on a similar scale, but the are not generally the sort of thing an individual would have access to. On the other hand, think about the amount of death someone like The Merlin, Ebeneener, Morgan, or even Harry could do if they went off the deep end and just started killing people. So, the White Council takes a hardline at restraining that particular use of power, above and beyond the morality of the situation. This also means that mundane killing, completely apart from morality, is simply not their department.
It's worth keeping in mind that Jim has very specifically and intentionally left the Morality of the Laws vague and ill-defined. It's something that's often misunderstood even to the characters that live in the world. All this to say that this is a particular theme that I expect to see explored more as the series goes on before we get anything like a settled answer or a clear understanding of the metaphysics of it all.
Here are a pair of rather long WOJ's on the nature of Black magic and the ambiguity of the Laws, I think it's highly relevant to what we're talking about:(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
I have to disagree.
Ethics is not a magical force that acts independent of logic and reality. The Dresdenverse can have as many commonly accepted ethical standards as it wants, but that doesnt make them make any sense. It doesnt matter how much the book or its characters believe in them, it doesnt suddenly make them have efficacy. The idea that events have some kind of intrinsic negative quality is absurd, especially from the standpoint of magic in the DV. The trauma that a person receives, or does not receive, from a "bad" event is entirely subjective.
I also disagree with your second point, and what Luccio said. If anything, it just reveals how utterly preposterous the 1st law is, and probably some others. All the first law does is limit direct killing with magic. When you compare this to every way magic makes any task easier, killing included, the 1st law is at best arbitrary nonsense. Considering ONLY Dresden, his killing ability is massively enhanced by all the indirect utility he gets from it. The degree of inconvenience that not being able to using is precisely pales in comparison to all the utility it would still have. Not to mention that guns in DV are many times better than magic at killing. Dresden gives quite a few reasons for why he carries a gun, but one of them was specifically that it is often easier and faster than magic. So using this logic, the first law does far more harm that it does good, for no good reason.
To me this just reveals how stupid the WC is when it comes to the 1st law. It has no ethical or practical use. Even if the DV is "supposed" to work this way, I would still criticize that on the grounds of it being silly. It about as crazy that the law in HP that prevented people from using the killing curse from some silly reason. Kill all the death eaters you want, just dont use that dreaded evil killing curse. Oh no, that would be too awful....
Shift8,
If magic is a power source that has an "intelligence", if not conscience, then it is entirely possible that using that power contrary to said source's purposes would have negative consequences.
For instance, and I'm NOT espousing this particular scenario but it fits.
If all magic comes from TWG, and TWG says it's for creation and building, but someone uses it for nefarious purposes, it's entirely possible that TWG ordained that anyone who uses it for purposes other than Building and Creation would suffer.
Thus anyone who uses magic would have nasty consequences for breaking the law, while using mundane means would not have said consequences.
Magic is not intelligent. Its a force, like gravity. IIRC the Dresden files is pretty clear about the idea that magic functions like physics, IIRC Jim has even said similar thing in some of his interviews and talks.Weeeell...Sort of. He's very specific about that being the mindest Harry was taught, but is also always quick to note that he's on one end of a full spectrum, and that other Wizards often involve more Religion/Faith (the stereotypical Wiccan "witch" probably being the most common example).
Also IIRC the books description so far of why people who use magic contrary to the laws being bad is that they are adversely affected by the intent they had to use to create the magic.....not some esoteric rebound effect.Another "Well Sort of". He's very specific that it's an actual metaphysical twisting that is distinct and independent from the normal (and still very present) emotional/psychological effects, and that it is qualitatively different to Kill with a fireball than it is to Kill with a
I think the idea that is clogging this conversation is the debate between whether morality in the DV is simply a consequence of logic or not. It seems to me that the opposite opinion implies that good and evil in the Dresdenverse are like weather events. However I think these definitions are incompatible. Ethics is supposed to describe how a being is supposed to act. If it is a force like gravity, then defining it as Good or Evil would render the entire definition pointless.
Until you realize that defining Good and Evil, morality, ethics, etc. in such a manner is an incredibly common trope in fantasy. One need look no farther than Moorecock or Anderson's view of Law and Chaos (and all the things derived from it, including but not limited to Alignment in D&D and the Shards in Sanderson's Cosmere works) to see how this works. Just replace Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, and you'll get a template for how such things exist metaphysically apart from human reason in the DV. The real thing clogging the discussion is people getting hung up on the terms Good and Evil and insisting they must adhere completely to various philosophical arguments (that is insisting that they are derived entirely from logic) as opposed to realizing that in the DV at least, that is not the case, and as Quantus stated and as confirmed by WoJ, they do exist as objective metaphysical forces related to but ultimately distinct from mere human ethics.
If you think that is illogical or unbelieveable, then sorry, but the entire Dresdenverse is illogical and unbelievable then.
I think there is alot of room for interpretation here. I would argue that the Dresden verse has good and evil in the same sense that the real world has real good and evil. Regardless of fictional universe or no, Good and Evil would be manifestations of logic: not forces that exist independent of reason. I think this is totally in line with the alluded WOJ, especially since I think Jim was simply positing that he views good and evil as real things. Not that the DV has some separate standard for morality.I interpret it the exact opposite, though I dont know that I have any more or less evidence of that.
The consequences for breaking the Laws of Magic don't all come from people wearing grey cloaks.
And none of it necessarily has anything to do with what is Right or Wrong.
Which exist. It's finding where they start or stop existing that's the hard part.
Jim
As for violating the laws of magic themselves turning you good or evil, well. :) There's something to be said on either side of the argument, in the strictest sense, though one side of the argument is definitely less incorrect than the other. But it's going to take me several more books to lay it out, so there's no sense in ruining the fun. :)
As for objects, I think we need to define what we mean be intelligence. A computer AI has a certain level of intellect, in the sense that it reacts in a programmed manner to various stimuli. But my computer does not have self-aware free will. I view the "actions" of things like the black staff simply as programming that appears to be "intelligent." Same with the Mantles. So far as I can tell from the series, the mantles are just set-in-place forces that influence the possessor. Based on certain dialogues I will not delve into much since this is the non-spoilers section, I would argue strongly that events at the end of ghost story IIRC implied heavily that the Mantles do not have the power to strip free will from the user. Although as I read this back to myself I am thinking we are on the same page actually? (so far as objects I mean)Agreed, the definition is the key. And to that note, lets avoid the term Free Will whenever possible, because that is a whole other example of the DV usage having more specific metaphysical implications (Mab has as much Free Will as any Human, by RL philosophic definitions, but specifically does not have the DV Metaphysical Superpower where mortals' Choices are literally creating and defining reality, to the point of spawning the splinter-universes of the Multiverse.
I think the idea that is clogging this conversation is the debate between whether morality in the DV is simply a consequence of logic or not. It seems to me that the opposite opinion implies that good and evil in the Dresdenverse are like weather events. However I think these definitions are incompatible. Ethics is supposed to describe how a being is supposed to act. If it is a force like gravity, then defining it as Good or Evil would render the entire definition pointless.This is likely going to be a philosophic rabbit-hole, but lets give it a shot. I'd start by arguing that matters of Good and Evil are fundamentally about Morality, which is distinct from Ethics. Ethics are, to my mind, the attempt to approximate Morality using Logic; Logic being theoretically more universal and/or communicable than Morality which I see as more on the Emotional side in that it tends to defy the Definitions and Quantification that Logic and Ethics are built on. But it will inevitably break down when applied to the "Good and Evil"; Id argue that the attempt to apply Ethics to questions of Mortality is what leads to things like the Inquisition, the stereotype Self-righteous Paladin, or most any "The Ends Justify The Means" arguments. Also, as you say, Ethics are about describing how a being is supposed to Act, specifically, so it innately ignores the other half of the equation with is the Motivations behind a given action.
I interpret it the exact opposite, though I dont know that I have any more or less evidence of that.
To double check, this is the WOJ (abridged) that we are both talking about?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
There is also this one, that is far more vague, but still relevant.
Agreed, the definition is the key. And to that note, lets avoid the term Free Will whenever possible, because that is a whole other example of the DV usage having more specific metaphysical implications (Mab has as much Free Will as any Human, by RL philosophic definitions, but specifically does not have the DV Metaphysical Superpower where mortals' Choices are literally creating and defining reality, to the point of spawning the splinter-universes of the Multiverse.
As far as the Mantles are concerned we'd absolutely need to discuss Cold Cases to address that. Have you read that one?
The way I see it there are 4 levels:
Mortal - DV specific, you have a Soul and Free Will and can therefore defy the otherwise Deterministic cause-effect chain of a given universe.
Personhood - Has self-awareness, independant thought and personality and Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) as an autonomous being.
Animal-level awareness - Has some basic drives and survival-level opinions about a given situation, but is not a reasoning being in it's own right
Tree-level Awareness - This is harder because In not sure there's any real-world analog. The idea is that it is Aware of itself and it's own existence (see Gates WOJ below), but it's otherwise a fairly passive trait, it takes no actual, independent Actions, it's still just a Tool. The only reason I include this is the WOJ below. I expect the average Genus Loci to start off at this level, though our one example certainly seems to have surpassed that, but it's a special case in several ways. But in general this always seemed mostly just an extension of the Animism idea that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence/Soul.(click to show/hide)
This is likely going to be a philosophic rabbit-hole, but lets give it a shot. I'd start by arguing that matters of Good and Evil are fundamentally about Morality, which is distinct from Ethics. Ethics are, to my mind, the attempt to approximate Morality using Logic; Logic being theoretically more universal and/or communicable than Morality which I see as more on the Emotional side in that it tends to defy the Definitions and Quantification that Logic and Ethics are built on. But it will inevitably break down when applied to the "Good and Evil"; Id argue that the attempt to apply Ethics to questions of Mortality is what leads to things like the Inquisition, the stereotype Self-righteous Paladin, or most any "The Ends Justify The Means" arguments. Also, as you say, Ethics are about describing how a being is supposed to Act, specifically, so it innately ignores the other half of the equation with is the Motivations behind a given action.
I interpret it the exact opposite, though I dont know that I have any more or less evidence of that.
To double check, this is the WOJ (abridged) that we are both talking about?
The Laws of Magic don't necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as "magic" behaves.
There is also this one, that is far more vague, but still relevant.
Agreed, the definition is the key. And to that note, lets avoid the term Free Will whenever possible, because that is a whole other example of the DV usage having more specific metaphysical implications (Mab has as much Free Will as any Human, by RL philosophic definitions, but specifically does not have the DV Metaphysical Superpower where mortals' Choices are literally creating and defining reality, to the point of spawning the splinter-universes of the Multiverse.
As far as the Mantles are concerned we'd absolutely need to discuss Cold Cases to address that. Have you read that one?
The way I see it there are 4 levels:
Mortal - DV specific, you have a Soul and Free Will and can therefore defy the otherwise Deterministic cause-effect chain of a given universe.
Personhood - Has self-awareness, independant thought and personality and Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) as an autonomous being.
Animal-level awareness - Has some basic drives and survival-level opinions about a given situation, but is not a reasoning being in it's own right
Tree-level Awareness - This is harder because In not sure there's any real-world analog. The idea is that it is Aware of itself and it's own existence (see Gates WOJ below), but it's otherwise a fairly passive trait, it takes no actual, independent Actions, it's still just a Tool. The only reason I include this is the WOJ below. I expect the average Genus Loci to start off at this level, though our one example certainly seems to have surpassed that, but it's a special case in several ways. But in general this always seemed mostly just an extension of the Animism idea that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence/Soul.(click to show/hide)
This is likely going to be a philosophic rabbit-hole, but lets give it a shot. I'd start by arguing that matters of Good and Evil are fundamentally about Morality, which is distinct from Ethics. Ethics are, to my mind, the attempt to approximate Morality using Logic; Logic being theoretically more universal and/or communicable than Morality which I see as more on the Emotional side in that it tends to defy the Definitions and Quantification that Logic and Ethics are built on. But it will inevitably break down when applied to the "Good and Evil"; Id argue that the attempt to apply Ethics to questions of Mortality is what leads to things like the Inquisition, the stereotype Self-righteous Paladin, or most any "The Ends Justify The Means" arguments. Also, as you say, Ethics are about describing how a being is supposed to Act, specifically, so it innately ignores the other half of the equation with is the Motivations behind a given action.
We are referring to those very same WOJ. I dont think Ive read cold cases, but those descriptions of various being categories are incidentally how I would have been defining things anyway. Almost to a tee. So I think we are on the same page there.
I am using the terms ethics and morality interchangeability here. I mean them to mean the difference between actions that are "right" and "wrong" with respect to a choice that can be made. As far as I am concerned, good and evil are the same thing. When a person commits a immoral or unethical act, they are committing evil. Evil here merely being a generalization word for all acts which one might define as immoral.Ah, ok, not that deep of a rabbit hole after all. Your argument is well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with your base premise, so I dont think we're going to end up agreeing on that part. :)
Ergo I see morality, good v evil, etc. as a consequence of logic or reason. Emotions here are merely a consequence of perceived injustice or justice. They are not the cause per-se. An action is wrong because it violates moral principles that are evident due to the nature of reality, not because of how someone feels about it. So for a simpler definition would be as such: Reality being what it is, morality or ethics is just and extension of it. Rules of right and wrong exist in this definition as an extension of reason. So if we say for example that human beings have property "X" and we find that this property X gives these humans right "Y" than any creature with free will that acts in fashion that violates right Y without a justification given by some other logical principal say "Z" (say self defense) then this creature or person acts unjustly, immorally, unethically, whatever word you want to use. (we dont have to agree on various morals or my position here, Im just explaining my perspective for clarity)
If the laws of magic are not in place to stop a unjust act, in the sense that their abuse violates the rights of beings which have rights, then the laws themselves would be evil. This is because they would be in place for arbitrary reasons, and would by extension be a violation of the rights of those upon whom they are enforces.
This is why I see a problem with the 1st law, either as applied currently by the WC, or possibly entirely. We know the WC doesn't care about killing in general for "just" reasons, as they do it all the time. They only care about direct killing with magic. They don't care seemingly about indirect killing with magic. And herein lies the rub. The WC could only justifiably outlaw direct killing with magic if the consequences of direct magical killing had effects that either affected another being unjustly or altered the user so completely that it rendered such a user incapable of self control either now or in the future. IE: the user would be committing a crime because they would be knowingly making themselves a threat in the future.
But according to one of the above WOJ, which IIRC was a response to a question about why killing sentient fae is not considered evil (only humans), Jim essentially tells that person that they have come across a inconsistency in the laws. He then goes on to say (and i might be combining some WOJ here) that the laws do not necessarily have anything to do with right or wrong. The other WOJ also basically states that the idea of breaking the laws turning you evil is not the case. He actually states that there is more truth to one side than the other, but given the WC position in the books ANY ambiguity makes their extreme view untenable, and therefore untrue.
To me this implies strongly that the 1st law in particular is simply the draconian over reach of the WC. Not all that far fetched given how the WC generally behaves.
The impression I am getting from other side of the debate here is that the use of magic to kill directly is "bad" basically "just cuz." Not because it causes anyone any real harm etc. But just because in the DV its evil, because the word evil in being appropriated to describe whatever is desired independent of what it usually means.
Ah, ok, not that deep of a rabbit hole after all. Your argument is well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with your base premise, so I dont think we're going to end up agreeing on that part. :)
Though I will say that is sound like you and Maggie LaFey would have agreed on quite a bit, given the statement that the Laws are Evil unless they address/enforce Morality on the populace.
I think that's a bit of a stretch.(click to show/hide)
The 7 laws are to limit Wizards to a point that things to not devolve into a magical power fight where people are using black magic to gain power over all else.
So, if you kill a human with magic you are setting up a level where you focus on killing magic, that leads to black magics that are very effective at killing people, and roll down the hill we go.
If you go thru each law, it basically boils down into preventing something that leads to black magic or another similar issue 'end of life as we know it'.
Ethics and morality dont go into it because everyone's thoughts on where the line is drawn between right, wrong and acceptable exceptions is different.
Power limitation may very well be the WC's intent, but thats not a good reason for the first law. Not only does it not achieve its goal, its arbitrary.If it we were just talking about Evocation Id agree with you, killing with a grenade or a fireball doesnt seem any different. But Thaumaturgy is a hole other story. You can kill anyone in the world from anywhere in the world with nothing more than a Name or even a good picture (I swear I recall this mentioned in an early book but Im still looking for the exact quote) though actual hair or blood obviously work better. Thaumaturgic assassination unchecked is basically Death Note.
Side note: everyones opinion regarding practicalities can also be different. Not just moral issues.
If it we were just talking about Evocation Id agree with you, killing with a grenade or a fireball doesnt seem any different. But Thaumaturgy is a hole other story. You can kill anyone in the world from anywhere in the world with nothing more than a Name or even a good picture (I swear I recall this mentioned in an early book but Im still looking for the exact quote) though actual hair or blood obviously work better. Thaumaturgic assassination unchecked is basically Death Note.
As Harry explains it you must have a strong enough connection or constructed spellwork to allow an enormous amount of energy to be transferred through it without burning it up first. So just having the object in question might not be enough. Then he goes of on a short tangent about how which phase of the moon it's in could effect it but he wouldn't know, he hasn't researched such magics.
But, as we know constructed spellworks are mostly just placeholders to focus ones mind on absolutes without waivering in focus. Soooo, You can Nerf the WC if you can Nerf the WC, ya know? Add in the fact they are often behind thresholds and Wards of unknown capabilities in repelling such things and you'd have to set it up pretty sly to get'er done as it were.
There is a Woj about every few centuries the WC takes the kids gloves off? We've not seen that happen as far as the WC itself is concerned, but from the outside looking in the RC just got the smack down of the century from the most Badass Warden alive.
Surely there is some kind of relatively easy defense against this? As you say, this would be OP as hell. But it would in fact be so OP that I think the laws would almost be irrelevant. I mean, good luck enforcing that. How would you even know who the culprit was? And if the Wardens ever made a thing of this, I imagine the culprit could just off the entire WC easy as pie.There's still the requirement of a Link, which keep you from just Offing random political figures, but beyond that Nope, you're basically just screwed. Harry says as much in CD, to the shock of his comrades:
There must be some kind of counter to this that makes it less death note like. The alternative is a world of death note holders. Which it would be pretty pointless to make illegal since it would be so easy to do.
Edit: Plus if this were that easy then the Black Staff would just death note all the WC's enemies. No need for wardens etc. Just death note Nicodemus, Ortega, etc etc. Clearly there hard limits to said magic that make it so difficult its not practical. Otherwise we would not have any of the fighting we have in the books. It would just people people racing to theumaturgy each other out of existence.
There's still the requirement of a Link, which keep you from just Offing random political figures, but beyond that Nope, you're basically just screwed. Harry says as much in CD, to the shock of his comrades:(click to show/hide)
Now dont get me wrong, Wards are still a Thing, and Defenses Do exist especially in the Oldest strongholds like Edinburgh (which is what the CI curse was sized to take on). Harry probably could have sat in a Circle in the Svart's compound and actually been entirely Fine; but that would have immobilized him and taken him entirely Out of Play.
And besides, that is when you're talking about two sides who both Know what's actually going on, and they have the time and resources (generations) to build such a Bunker. This tangent was based on the statement that the First Law is entirely arbitrary because Mundane weapons are equally effective and so it makes no sense to regulate just one. A Black Hat Thaumaturgist could wreck absolute nightmarish havoc on the general population.
I still think that makes the law pointless. The aforementioned power is so OP that making illegal is essentially moot. Not to mention that the ethical stand point is still based on who and why its used. No should care if you kill off Nicodemus with it. And you cant stop people from using it for wrong purposes.Sure you can. With Wardens and Sharp swords. Thats rather the whole Point of the Laws in the first place, or the concept of Enforcement.
Sure you can. With Wardens and Sharp swords. Thats rather the whole Point of the Laws in the first place, or the concept of Enforcement.
The problem would be the same issue you would have with something like a death note: you'd have almost no way of finding out who dun it. Plus a truly industrious practitioner would just get a large number of the WC's DNA before attacking their real target and off the WC all at once. Surprising this hasn't happened already tbh. Youd think that a bunch of dudes centuries old would have made an enemy by now who would do this. Hell, imagine what would happen if you simply told the WC you had all their blood or something? Just my humble opinion but I really think Jim needs to add something to the story that explains why this hasn't happened already. Some kind of hard counter that is easy to implement or exists all the time. But that is just my two cents.
It's not a bBlack or White, all or nothing thing like that, not at all. You say it's impossible to figure out who dunnit, but that was the exact plot of the very first book. You say anyone could just round up DNA samples of the whole council and kill them en-masse like it's as easy as flipping a lightswitch, but there ARE quantifiable power requirements and there ARE defenses that increase them dramatically. You say it's surprising it hasnt happened yet, but Changes showed us the sort of scope of spell it would take, and it wasnt small, or cheap. You say that because it seems strong to you Jim needs to alter his setting to nerf it to uselessness, but...huh?
It's not a bBlack or White, all or nothing thing like that, not at all. You say it's impossible to figure out who dunnit, but that was the exact plot of the very first book. You say anyone could just round up DNA samples of the whole council and kill them en-masse like it's as easy as flipping a lightswitch, but there ARE quantifiable power requirements and there ARE defenses that increase them dramatically. You say it's surprising it hasnt happened yet, but Changes showed us the sort of scope of spell it would take, and it wasnt small, or cheap. You say that because it seems strong to you Jim needs to alter his setting to nerf it to uselessness, but...huh?