ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Mr. Death on June 13, 2018, 09:52:41 PM
-
So I got Brief Cases the other day, and when Luccio comes upon the necromancer card game, she briefly considers lighting them all on fire.
She dismisses the idea because the fire would probably burn the place down and the unspoken rule against using magic in front of civilians.
She does not, however, take into account that torching four men with magical fire would be breaking the First Law of Magic.
Harry has mentioned before a "self defense" clause, but I think this is the first time we have someone who is (or will be) a real authority on the laws and how they're administered considering using magic to kill.
What think y'all?
-
Maybe since they are necromancers it doesn't count?
I'm kidding.
-
So I got Brief Cases the other day, and when Luccio comes upon the necromancer card game, she briefly considers lighting them all on fire.
She dismisses the idea because the fire would probably burn the place down and the unspoken rule against using magic in front of civilians.
She does not, however, take into account that torching four men with magical fire would be breaking the First Law of Magic.
Harry has mentioned before a "self defense" clause, but I think this is the first time we have someone who is (or will be) a real authority on the laws and how they're administered considering using magic to kill.
What think y'all?
Something I've never been clear on perhaps; when a Warden has to ice a warlock, does using magic against them still count as black magic? Is that why they specifically have to finish the job with the sword? It makes sense, in a technical way, but I can't remember anything specific on the matter.
-
That was always my understanding, supported by some stuff Jim said about how they used magic to bind and neutralize their enemy but the actual execution was with the sword.
Though others do disagree with that view.
-
That was always my understanding, supported by some stuff Jim said about how they used magic to bind and neutralize their enemy but the actual execution was with the sword.
Though others do disagree with that view.
How it's supposed to happen.... Probably doesn't always work out that way though. They do have plausible deniability lol... When talking about lighting them on fire it would probably be to neutralize them as you said, and then kill them with her sword as they roll around on the ground screaming in pain from the fire.
-
How it's supposed to happen.... Probably doesn't always work out that way though. They do have plausible deniability lol... When talking about lighting them on fire it would probably be to neutralize them as you said, and then kill them with her sword as they roll around on the ground screaming in pain from the fire.
That might well be. JB once commented that one reason Justin trained Harry and Elaine with pain was that he had in mind them eventually fighting Wardens, and JB says he knew that people fighting Wardens have to be hardened to have a chance, because the Wardens don't play around.
-
That might well be. JB once commented that one reason Justin trained Harry and Elaine with pain was that he had in mind them eventually fighting Wardens, and JB says he knew that people fighting Wardens have to be hardened to have a chance, because the Wardens don't play around.
Yeah like when Harry was facing Morgan who thought Harry had killed Lucio... Think he said something like Morgan would use earth magic to horribly mangle him without killing him, and then use the sword to finish him.
-
I mean they didn't even use lethal magic against big daddy Kemmler.
If the guy that took the entire council to fight, the guy that Mab thought was a monster and a madman, doesn't warrant it, I doubt any random schmo is going to pass the mustard.
Some People just want to claim that the Council doesn't practice what it preaches because they want more reasons to pretend they're out-and-out badguys
-
Possibly in the 1800's the Council took a bit more of a relaxed attitude toward igniting a fire with magic and letting it spread mundanely to kill warlocks. WOJ was that still counts in the universal / spiritual corruption sense, but maybe it doesn't in the Council's legal sense. We know some of their laws that don't pertain to abusing mortals (specifically, against time travel and seeking knowledge of the Outsiders) are because those things are really bad ideas rather than because they're addictive and cause gibbering insanity. Maybe it works the other way for some things too.
-
I mean they didn't even use lethal magic against big daddy Kemmler.
Do we know that for certain?
-
Another thing to point out is that this is early in Luccio's career, well before she made the swords standard issue -- in fact, she seems to be using a prototype, saying that she had to spend most of the evening imbuing her sword with a spell to cut through enchantment.
-
Other possibility also, the interpretation of the Laws may have changed between then and now.
I don't think it's likely, given how relatively stagnant the White Council seems to be, but a possibility.
-
Other possibility also, the interpretation of the Laws may have changed between then and now.
I don't think it's likely, given how relatively stagnant the White Council seems to be, but a possibility.
It could also be a sign that she has in fact killed with magic, and that her thinking about it is an example of how dark magic becomes easier and easier to use hence it being banned. Harry showed those tendencies and he at the time had only killed Justin.
-
Do we know that for certain?
JB said at one point that they used magic to incapacitate Kemmler, at the final throw-down, and then executed him with swords. And a gun. And a noose. Etc. Apparently they killed him over and over until he stayed down.
-
How it's supposed to happen.... Probably doesn't always work out that way though. They do have plausible deniability lol... When talking about lighting them on fire it would probably be to neutralize them as you said, and then kill them with her sword as they roll around on the ground screaming in pain from the fire.
You explanation seems reasonable, but kind of iffy. I've seen (truly gruesome) WW2 combat footage of U.S. Marines using a flamethrower in an area of heavy, dry growth (tall dry grass I think) and seconds later a Japanese soldier engulfed in flames stumbles forward several yards out of the burning grass and falls over dead. Luccio doesn't appear to think she might kill someone before she could use the sword. I would have preferred if Luccio had said she could use fire to incapacite the necromancers and then finish them off with something non-magical. I suspect Jim forgot about the specifics of the Laws of magic.
-
Considering how important they are and the viewpoint character is one of the central people who enforce them, I seriously doubt that
-
Most of our information about the interpretation of the laws comes from Morgan and Harry and both of them have very strict interpretations usually. Lucio's interpretations seem to be slightly more flexible as she showed when she did not act when Molly looked into Harry's brain for meddling in Small favor. She was also not that hung up about Sue either.
It is quite possible that different schools of law interpretation exist(ed) in the white council. They are a conservative bunch but also a group with far more traditions than rules. Different senior council members might have had different opinions.
-
There's probably also a matter of practicality -- this story's set before the Wardens had a standardized way of non-magically killing folks (Luccio's swords), so the interpretation might have been less strict for Wardens specifically, in acknowledgement of the difficulty of subduing warlocks without using magic.
-
There's probably also a matter of practicality -- this story's set before the Wardens had a standardized way of non-magically killing folks (Luccio's swords), so the interpretation might have been less strict for Wardens specifically, in acknowledgement of the difficulty of subduing warlocks without using magic.
The Law against killing a human being with magic isn't based on using the proper procedure to fulfill a set of written legal requirements, such as; reading a suspect their legal rights by mortal police in the U.S. is required by a specific Supreme Court ruling made in 1966. It's based on the idea that killing with magic twists the psyche of the person who does it. It sets them on the path to becoming a warlock. We saw this in Harry. Harry killed Justin in self defense and that came close to pushing him over the edge. So I find it difficult to believe the White Council only learned this a century and a half ago. They would have devised methods to avoid burning someone to death with magic. So there must be some other explanation.
Luccio says the she "seen no evidence of magical defenses" in the four warlocks she spotted, and further states "an overwhelming attack might take them all at once." She does not say "kill them at once," though her language can certainly be interpreted that way. So perhaps she meant she could; very painfully, incapacitate them all at once, and then either arrest her suspect or if necessary kill him with her sword. I think it is either this explanation or Jim forgot the specifics of the law against killing with magic. So if it is the former I think Jim could have written it more clearly. Then again, there might be a third explanation.
In the introduction to the story Jim said he wanted to focus on the young hotheads of a given era in the Dresdenverse verse. So young Anastasia Luccio must fall into that category. Unless Jim gives us information to the contrary, that still puts her a long way from Harry's thinking in Storm Front when he was considering burning down the shadowman's home and everyone inside it. Luccio's thinking was more analytical, more dispassionate. So, we could take the extreme position that this is a clue that Anastasia is really a much darker character than we realize. Perhaps she is a member of Harry's Black Council. She wasn't Peabody's victim, she was his collaborator and the plan all along was to set up Morgan for La Fortier's death The mental damage the Gatekeeper detected in Luccio she did to herself. It could have been done by accident in order to convince Morgan that someone else was manipulating her or Luccio might have realized that she might need an explanation or alibi should things go wrong, so she decided to let Peabody use some magic on her to better help the illusion her relationship with Harry was based on her real feelings and desires, and provide her with an alibi should she need one. I'm not saying I buy this WAG myself, but it's more satisfying then saying Jim's use of language was sloppy.
-
The Law against killing a human being with magic isn't based on using the proper procedure to fulfill a set of written legal requirements, such as; reading a suspect their legal rights by mortal police in the U.S. is required by a specific Supreme Court ruling made in 1966. It's based on the idea that killing with magic twists the psyche of the person who does it. It sets them on the path to becoming a warlock. We saw this in Harry. Harry killed Justin in self defense and that came close to pushing him over the edge. So I find it difficult to believe the White Council only learned this a century and a half ago. They would have devised methods to avoid burning someone to death with magic. So there must be some other explanation.
I'm not saying they only "learned" it recently, any more than police only learned recently that bullets can kill people.
I'm saying they made a special exception for their law enforcement arm in consideration of the dangerous job they did, and the possible necessity of using deadly magic to keep their lives.
Luccio says the she "seen no evidence of magical defenses" in the four warlocks she spotted, and further states "an overwhelming attack might take them all at once." She does not say "kill them at once," though her language can certainly be interpreted that way. So perhaps she meant she could; very painfully, incapacitate them all at once, and then either arrest her suspect or if necessary kill him with her sword. I think it is either this explanation or Jim forgot the specifics of the law against killing with magic. So if it is the former I think Jim could have written it more clearly. Then again, there might be a third explanation.
More to the point, though, she doesn't factor their deaths into her thinking. I'm not looking at her reasons for using a magic attack, but her reasons for not doing so -- that being the danger of burning the place down, and the danger inherent in using her gifts in front of others. She does not consider the consequences of killing the warlocks with her magic. Counting on magical fire to only incapacitate and not kill is a little like "shooting to wound" -- at best, extremely unreliable and the moment you've pulled the trigger/set the fire, you've put things out of your own control.
And again, considering how central the laws of magic are to the setting in general and the first law to Harry in particular, I seriously doubt he'd "forget" the "details" of "do not kill with magic," especially since he's clarified a few times what counts and what doesn't. It's like Tolkien forgetting that the Ring tempts people.
In the introduction to the story Jim said he wanted to focus on the young hotheads of a given era in the Dresdenverse verse. So young Anastasia Luccio must fall into that category. Unless Jim gives us information to the contrary, that still puts her a long way from Harry's thinking in Storm Front when he was considering burning down the shadowman's home and everyone inside it. Luccio's thinking was more analytical, more dispassionate. So, we could take the extreme position that this is a clue that Anastasia is really a much darker character than we realize.
I took it more that even as a "hothead," she's still not as hot as Harry. Also, Harry's thinking in Storm Front is half subconscious, borne out of his own Black Magic taint. Here, Luccio is just thinking as she does her job.
Perhaps she is a member of Harry's Black Council. She wasn't Peabody's victim, she was his collaborator and the plan all along was to set up Morgan for La Fortier's death The mental damage the Gatekeeper detected in Luccio she did to herself. It could have been done by accident in order to convince Morgan that someone else was manipulating her or Luccio might have realized that she might need an explanation or alibi should things go wrong, so she decided to let Peabody use some magic on her to better help the illusion her relationship with Harry was based on her real feelings and desires, and provide her with an alibi should she need one. I'm not saying I buy this WAG myself, but it's more satisfying then saying Jim's use of language was sloppy.
That doesn't wash with the Gatekeeper and Molly finding evidence of Luccio being tampered with.
Added to all that, Harry himself has said the Council gives leeway with self defense and specifically with dealing with Warlocks as far as the First Law goes. I'm more inclined to think we're seeing a version of that than that Jim "forgot" a central, important part of his own setting.
-
I just figured that young hothead Luccio thought she was too good to muck up and kill them with her attack.
Hell, maybe she was right. Even as raw as she apparently was, she still was throwing around those finger Lasers that Harry can still barely do with a dedicated focus.
Really draws attention to how sloppy he is. (Seriously compared to how Luccio, Ramirez, and even Molly do in their short stories, Harry is starting to look reeeeal bad.)
-
I just figured that young hothead Luccio thought she was too good to muck up and kill them with her attack.
Hell, maybe she was right. Even as raw as she apparently was, she still was throwing around those finger Lasers that Harry can still barely do with a dedicated focus.
Really draws attention to how sloppy he is. (Seriously compared to how Luccio, Ramirez, and even Molly do in their short stories, Harry is starting to look reeeeal bad.)
Eh, it's more that Harry has to be handicapped in some way to even the playing field. Hell, it's like that in the novels, too -- you can count on one hand the number of times Harry gets to the final confrontation in anything like fighting shape, and when he does he's devastating. That's the reason his equipment's always broken, he's short on sleep and concussed, so he has an uphill battle ahead of him.
The threat level of the shorts is a lot lower, to the point where once it comes to blows, it's practically an afterthought.
But Harry's allies are already starting from a lower power level than him -- put against the same dangers, they have to be better than normal to stand a chance, while Harry has to be worse than normal to make it interesting.
Let's say Harry's a 10 in the threat scale, while his allies tend to be around a 5. In the shorts, the threats are always around a 6 or a 7 -- so Harry has to be put at a disadvantage in some way (
-
I mean Luccio was up against one of Kemmler's top diciples, not some two bit sorceror.
Meanwhile Harry, with all the power of the Winter Knight, can't even handle Pixies and Turtlenecks without backup.
And if the enemies in the shorts are a 6-7, dewdrop faeries are about a 2.
I mean ffs one of the things Harry specifically mentines he's good at is tracking spells, then we get Bombshells and his half-baked apprentice is like "yeah, actually he kinda sucks"
-
I mean Luccio was up against one of Kemmler's top diciples, not some two bit sorceror.
Luccio didn't know that until after she considered setting them on fire.
Meanwhile Harry, with all the power of the Winter Knight, can't even handle Pixies and Turtlenecks without backup.
And if the enemies in the shorts are a 6-7, dewdrop faeries are about a 2.
Hey, dewdrop faeries killed the Summer Lady, remember.
I mean ffs one of the things Harry specifically mentines he's good at is tracking spells, then we get Bombshells and his half-baked apprentice is like "yeah, actually he kinda sucks"
She never says he's bad, just that she does things differently, removing steps she sees as unnecessary.
-
The rules having changed is entirely viable, IMO. There's a lot of talk in the books about the White Council being slow to change, but that's on a normal-human timescale (Harry's only in his 30s); realistically there would have had to have been a lot of political change over the last few centuries. Jim's repeatedly described the White Council as historically Eurocentric; bringing in the rest of the world would require a lot of changes. Listens-to-Wind and possibly Ancient Mai would have been trained in non-Council traditions (L-t-W remembers his tribe being dispossessed and then killed/dying of disease after European contact).
I don't think it would be as broad as Wardens being allowed to kill with magic in general, though, because of the corruption thing.
Possibly it was considered at the time that necromancers and other all-the-way-gone warlocks had lost their souls and were therefore not "human" within the meaning of the Laws? That really doesn't seem all that far-fetched; the Wardens don't seem to mind killing Whampires with magic, and they definitely have mortal souls. There's actually a bunch of edge cases like this; Harry kills both MacFinn the loup-garou and at least one Denarian thug with magic, and the First Law isn't brought up - but both of them would have mortal souls.
-
I do not think the white council is that concerned about souls, the white god and the white council are separate things. The white council is concerned about power, abuse of it and it going crazy.
The connection is that corruption of souls can lead to power gone crazy but that mechanism is clear in great lines but not so much in the details. Part of it is also point of view, according to some the wardens are probably a little bit corrupted anyway, they resort to violence far too easily. It is that grey cloak.
So there is a grey area. The laws are deceptively simple but the first law won't bring you that far if you do not know what human is and that also has a grey area. And whatever that definition may be the white council does not look at souls. Probably because that is not practical, they are difficult to handle.
-
I'm not saying they only "learned" it recently, any more than police only learned recently that bullets can kill people.
I'm saying they made a special exception for their law enforcement arm in consideration of the dangerous job they did, and the possible necessity of using deadly magic to keep their lives.
Sure, there's always self-defense, but we're not talking about that are we? We're talking about a premeditated attack likely to cause multiple deaths to human targets. Targets, I should add, who appear to be offering no threat to the warden involved. I'm not seeing where the exception could be in this situation. "Well, sure I killed them all without warning or provocation, but they were all bad," doesn't seem like reasonable exception to me. Especially; if Kemmler hadn't been there, Luccio could have just left and called for reinforcements. (I assume the speaking stones Harry used in Changes, or other similar communication devices, are something a Warden would carry with them when on a distant assignment. Though it might have taken a day or two for those reinforcements to arrive.)
That doesn't wash with the Gatekeeper and Molly finding evidence of Luccio being tampered with.
My WAG was mostly just a bit of fun, but I said Luccio allowed her mind to be manipulated in order to do her job more effectively and to give herself an alibi. So sure she was tampered with, but she agreed to it before hand.
You know I forgot to add in my previous post that the name Anastasia is actually a clue that Warden Luccio is not who she pretends to be and is something far darker. Not only was the women who claimed to be Anastasia Romanov a phony, but one Albert Anastasia was the head of Murder Incorporated. So both of those Anastasia's were the inspiration for the character of Anastasia Luccio.
Oh, I do agree with you that Harry is more of a hothead than Luccio ever was, but that's also a clue she's not who she pretends to be.
I don't think it would be as broad as Wardens being allowed to kill with magic in general, though, because of the corruption thing.
Bingo. This isn't about changing rules because some things never change. Specifically, the damage or taint that occurs from killing other human beings with magic must be universal, or why would it have been made the First Law at all?
-
Bingo. This isn't about changing rules because some things never change. Specifically, the damage or taint that occurs from killing other human beings with magic must be universal, or why would it have been made the First Law at all?
To change things.
We know magic changes over time, the effect it has on modern technology is fairly recent for example. We also know that before the laws things like killing with magic, human sacrifices and all sort of things were far more common, that is where a lot of the gods and monsters came from.
We also know that magic is shaped by belief and by will. When you do magic you have to really believe in what you do, that it is right. Those beliefs will influence the results.
Imagine a world were everyone believes killing enemies or even ritually sacrificing them is OK. People do darkhallows, become gods and are even more capricious. The original Merlin and a few others decide that it is enough and want to change things.
To change things you have to change humans, they are the ones that shape everything with their beliefs. So you invent the laws that specify what behavior you want and what not. You weed out those who not conform but that is not all.
You cultivate the belief that not following those laws will make you crazy. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. The laws make warlocks more crazy because that is what people believe will happen. The laws are not just something to police, they are a tool to shape reality.
Breaking the laws will make you crazy, that might not always have been the case.
-
Sure, there's always self-defense, but we're not talking about that are we? We're talking about a premeditated attack likely to cause multiple deaths to human targets. Targets, I should add, who appear to be offering no threat to the warden involved. I'm not seeing where the exception could be in this situation. "Well, sure I killed them all without warning or provocation, but they were all bad," doesn't seem like reasonable exception to me. Especially; if Kemmler hadn't been there, Luccio could have just left and called for reinforcements. (I assume the speaking stones Harry used in Changes, or other similar communication devices, are something a Warden would carry with them when on a distant assignment. Though it might have taken a day or two for those reinforcements to arrive.)
Self defense and when fighting warlocks. From Summer Knight:
I grinned. Way back when, I'd been a stupid sixteen-year-old
orphan who had killed his former teacher in what amounted to a
magical duel. I'd gotten lucky, or it would have been me that had
been burned to a briquette instead of old Justin. The Council has
Seven Laws of Magic, and the first one is Thou Shalt Not Kill.
When you break it, they execute you, no questions asked.
But some of the other wizards had thought I deserved lenience,
and there was a precedent for using lethal magic in self-defense
against the black arts.
And given the quickness with which Warlocks can and will use lethal magic, waiting for them to shoot first before blasting is a losing proposition. Given that a group of four Warlocks is likely to be as quick to kill Luccio as look at her, I don't see the Wardens' leadership arguing too strongly against the use of preemptive self-defense.
Alternately -- since I don't really think this applies to Luccio specifically -- the difference between "I burned them in self defense" and "I attacked them preemptively," is what Luccio decides to put on the page of her report. She appears to be operating alone, after all.
Come to think of it, if Wardens were allowed to kill Warlocks with magic, that might explain the sort of fanaticism we see from Morgan. Remember that the root of the First Law is that when you use magic for something, you believe that usage was right and correct. So if, say, Morgan uses magic to kill a Warlock, he believes more and more that killing Warlocks is correct -- and moreover, that he is right and righteous in deciding who is a Warlock and who isn't, and thus who deserves to die.
I mean, take the word "warlock" out of that last sentence and it's word-for-word the justification for the First Law's existence.
-
I have yet to read the short (I'm finishing the full series read of the Iron Druid, then switching back to my annual Dresden chronological reread, with all the shorts inserted into the timeline), but is it possible that Luccio was simply stating the most immediately practical reason not to do it? For example, I might tell myself not to steal a car because the valet might see me do it.
-
Come to think of it, if Wardens were allowed to kill Warlocks with magic, that might explain the sort of fanaticism we see from Morgan. Remember that the root of the First Law is that when you use magic for something, you believe that usage was right and correct. So if, say, Morgan uses magic to kill a Warlock, he believes more and more that killing Warlocks is correct -- and moreover, that he is right and righteous in deciding who is a Warlock and who isn't, and thus who deserves to die.
I mean, take the word "warlock" out of that last sentence and it's word-for-word the justification for the First Law's existence.
I disagree with this because Morgan was fanatical about upholding the laws of magic. Even though he believed with every fiber of his being that Harry was guilty, he still did not kill him. I'd say Morgan was probably just about as strong in his belief about upholding the laws as Michael was in his Faith.
Also when killing with magic it isn't just your belief that makes it easier. The wizard is twisting the creative forces of the universe, and that abomination of creation goes through the wizards being. Harry used his magic in self defense, but in Storm Front he nearly gave in to his desires to kill, and not in self defense, but for power.
"I prepared to destroy the lake house, the Shadowman, and any of the pathetic underlings he had with him. With such power, I could cast my defiance at the Council itself, the gathering of white-bearded old fools without foresight, without imagination, without vision. The Council, and that pathetic watchdog, Morgan, had no idea of the true depths of my strength. The energy was all there, gleeful within my anger, ready to reach out and reduce to ashes all that I hated and feared."
Now this could have been from using his Sight on the home of Sells, I don't know. He didn't mention it causing his feelings.
Come to think of it that gives me an idea... new thread!
-
Most of our information about the interpretation of the laws comes from Morgan and Harry and both of them have very strict interpretations usually. Lucio's interpretations seem to be slightly more flexible as she showed when she did not act when Molly looked into Harry's brain for meddling in Small favor. She was also not that hung up about Sue either.
It is quite possible that different schools of law interpretation exist(ed) in the white council. They are a conservative bunch but also a group with far more traditions than rules. Different senior council members might have had different opinions.
There is also that clause of "Self defense". The same clause EB use to bail teenage Harry out of the white council beheading after Harry kill Du'Morn.
Killing a warlock using magic can be considered "self defense""
A warlock is extremely dangerous. Maybe dangerous enough that using magic directly to kill them can be deemed as "Self defense"
I personally won't bother with Luccio's thought too much too much. As long as she only thought about it and does not actually do it, the point is mute. Besides, Harry also burned down Bianca's home and probably a bunch of vanilla along with it and even though Lafortier make insinuations out of it during book 4, the council as a whole does not really take any real action.
This is probably one of those grey areas of the law. The kind of thing you can get away with as long as:
1. you don't do this kind of thing very often.
2. You have a plausible deniability and
3. You have enough clout and status.
-
. The laws are deceptively simple but the first law won't bring you that far if you do not know what human is and that also has a grey area. And whatever that definition may be the white council does not look at souls. Probably because that is not practical, they are difficult to handle.
Not in a moral sense, but the Council does have Soulgazes, which tell you whether a creature has a mortal soul or not. (For example, Harry sees that Tera doesn't in FM since he can stare into her eyes without a Soulgaze happening).
The Council therefore must know that Whampires have mortal souls. Carlos Soulgazed Lara in WN, so he absolutely knows. Yet he's OK with killing Whampires with magic.
So a mortal soul alone doesn't automatically make a being "First Law applicable". Thus, it doesn't seem that bizarre to suggest that at one time necromancers (who draw on a power source other than normal mortal magic) weren't "First Law applicable".
-
Not in a moral sense, but the Council does have Soulgazes, which tell you whether a creature has a mortal soul or not. (For example, Harry sees that Tera doesn't in FM since he can stare into her eyes without a Soulgaze happening).
The Council therefore must know that Whampires have mortal souls. Carlos Soulgazed Lara in WN, so he absolutely knows. Yet he's OK with killing Whampires with magic.
So a mortal soul alone doesn't automatically make a being "First Law applicable". Thus, it doesn't seem that bizarre to suggest that at one time necromancers (who draw on a power source other than normal mortal magic) weren't "First Law applicable".
It is also not practical. How do you determine if someone had a soul after he is dead? Far easier to have broad categories of beings you can lump into one category or another.
-
There's a reason on the White Council Wardens are Garbed in Grey Robes(WOJ!), this is that, they are meant to straddle the line out of necessity.
-
There's a reason on the White Council Wardens are Garbed in Grey Robes(WOJ!), this is that, they are meant to straddle the line out of necessity.
Well that could mean they use lethal magic... It could also be because they kill people (without magic, use sword). That is the biggest part of being a warden... Intimidating people from using black magic, capturing warlocks for the purpose of execution, killing warlocks, fighting wars... Not a whole lot of charity work going on as a warden lol
I mean there is hardly a reason for the Blackstaff if wardens are allowed to violate the first rule of magic whenever they come up against a warlock. There is also no real reason for swords if again they can just kill the warlock with magic.
-
There is also that clause of "Self defense". The same clause EB use to bail teenage Harry out of the white council beheading after Harry kill Du'Morn.
Killing a warlock using magic can be considered "self defense""
A warlock is extremely dangerous. Maybe dangerous enough that using magic directly to kill them can be deemed as "Self defense"
I personally won't bother with Luccio's thought too much too much. As long as she only thought about it and does not actually do it, the point is mute. Besides, Harry also burned down Bianca's home and probably a bunch of vanilla along with it and even though Lafortier make insinuations out of it during book 4, the council as a whole does not really take any real action.
This is probably one of those grey areas of the law. The kind of thing you can get away with as long as:
1. you don't do this kind of thing very often.
2. You have a plausible deniability and
3. You have enough clout and status.
That's a solid argument, I agree with you there.
So Luccio couldn't throw the first punch and roast the warlocks alive, but once the fight started, as there's no reasonable way she could incapacitate 4 warlocks by herself in a direct confrontation; going for the kill seems only sensible, and -more importantly- justifiable.