ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: Yuillegan on January 28, 2020, 10:53:15 PM
-
I am not sure if this has been discussed in it's own thread, so I am going to create this one.
Harry has been accused of killing a mortal with magic from the very first book (his duel with Justin that ended with Justin's death).
Harry also may have killed mortals during his rage moment in Grave Peril ("Fuego, Pyrofuego") as collateral damage. It was never fully investigated therefore it was left alone, but Harry suspects he did kill at least some of the young people.
He uses necromancy to raise Sue, which while apparently is technically fine as it only applies to mortal humans for some odd reason, was still actually necromancy. The rule literally is Thou Shall Not Reach Beyond The Borders Of Life. Nothing about whether human or not. Perhaps there is a whole section interpreting this rule - the same way people manage to find exceptions in the 10 Commandments...
He also skirts the law of enthrallment when binding Toot-toot initially, as apparently it only applies to mortals. Yet still Morgan was prepared to execute him.
Finally, the only other incident I can think of is when he raises the Ghosts in Bianca's house to kill her. Now you might argue he merely attracted them and they were already around, but he actually pours magic into them to make them corporeal to a degree. Sounds like necromancy to me. Definitely only involved humans.
Can you think of any other instances where Harry uses dark magic or any other shady actions?
-
The curse at Chichen Itza.
-
As good a one as any - I wonder a ritual, even if he didn't specifically use magic himself will affect him (in terms of black magic taint and madness). I think he pays the price enough that he had to physically murder Susan. Can't get more personal than that. Although admittedly she had just become a vampire, even if he had used magic to kill her he would have been safe from violating the First Law.
Also - raising Chauncy.
-
As good a one as any - I wonder a ritual, even if he didn't specifically use magic himself will affect him (in terms of black magic taint and madness). I think he pays the price enough that he had to physically murder Susan. Can't get more personal than that. Although admittedly she had just become a vampire, even if he had used magic to kill her he would have been safe from violating the First Law.
Also - raising Chauncy.
Just the thought, could now being Winter Knight protect him somewhat? Just as the Black Staff protects Eb? It is Mother Winter" stick after all.
-
Just the thought, could now being Winter Knight protect him somewhat? Just as the Black Staff protects Eb? It is Mother Winter" stick after all.
I think the real question is "If it does start messing with his head, will it be qualitatively different from the way the Winter Knight's Mantle does?" I mean, would Harry even notice if he started getting impulses based on mental domination/death/destruction/sexual assault from using Black Magic? Or would he just be like, "Damn Winter, gettin' in my head again!"
-
I think the real question is "If it does start messing with his head, will it be qualitatively different from the way the Winter Knight's Mantle does?" I mean, would Harry even notice if he started getting impulses based on mental domination/death/destruction/sexual assault from using Black Magic? Or would he just be like, "Damn Winter, gettin' in my head again!"
But does it matter how he knows as long as he knows? If he knows it is in his head, he can fight it as he has all along... That is also what his friends are for and they have tapped him on the shoulder a time or two about his actions and made him think.
-
"This Law covers the research and practice of necromancy, described as the summoning, binding, and exploitation of the unwilling dead." https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic#cite_note-DF03ch09-19 (https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic#cite_note-DF03ch09-19). Citing Grave Peril, Ch. 9. So the ghosts in Grave Peril weren't unwillingly exploited. The existence of Mort proves there is some distinction between ectomancy and necromancy.
If Thomas is mortal enough to count for Mab, then is killing a WCV with magic a violation? What about a Denarian? What about the "mortal" from the hunt in Cold Days? He also probably killed a few of the people on the barges.
How is raising Chauncey a violation?
-
If Thomas is mortal enough to count for Mab, then is killing a WCV with magic a violation? What about a Denarian? What about the "mortal" from the hunt in Cold Days? He also probably killed a few of the people on the barges.
Mab explicitly said Thomas was 'mortal enough' because he's in love. He's not a normal BCV.
The human transformed into a hound that he killed in the wild hunt may not count because of being shapeshifted at the time. Harry has never shown any qualms about attempted or actual magical killing of transformed Denarians, like he might be buying himself a death sentence.
-
The point about Thomas is if he can be mortal, then what's stopping some other wamp from being "mortal enough."
Obviously the shapeshifted mortal doesn't necessarily count. (There is a reason I put a question mark on all these). He might not even have been a mortal in the first place. I know no one has said anything about the Denarians in the books, but my question is why? The mortal half of the Denarian equation is necessary, so he's definitely killing a mortal with magic.
The first law of magic is "thou shall not kill." The implication is "a mortal with magic." The Denarian example proves that one or more of these words is colored with shades of gray. Or he's violating the first law when he kills Denarians.
-
The point about Thomas is if he can be mortal, then what's stopping some other wamp from being "mortal enough."
Obviously the shapeshifted mortal doesn't necessarily count. (There is a reason I put a question mark on all these). He might not even have been a mortal in the first place. I know no one has said anything about the Denarians in the books, but my question is why? The mortal half of the Denarian equation is necessary, so he's definitely killing a mortal with magic.
The first law of magic is "thou shall not kill." The implication is "a mortal with magic." The Denarian example proves that one or more of these words is colored with shades of gray. Or he's violating the first law when he kills Denarians.
I would say a killing a Denarian directly with his magic would count as black magic. I can not remember if Harry has actually done that however. For example he used wind to push a falling Denarian into the Denarian magic barrier. The magic barrier killed them not directly Harry's wind magic so that would not be black Magic.
-
According to Jim, that definitely counts as killing with magic. The exact scenario he uses in the WoJ is pushing someone off a building with a gust of magically generated wind.
-
I would say a killing a Denarian directly with his magic would count as black magic. I can not remember if Harry has actually done that however. For example he used wind to push a falling Denarian into the Denarian magic barrier. The magic barrier killed them not directly Harry's wind magic so that would not be black Magic.
I think there is a real gray area here. Has Harry killed Denarians using his magic? Yes, but in a battle where it is killed or be killed. Is that really considered killing by using black magic? He used his magic to bring down a ton of molten rocks on Hannah Asher who was trying to kill him at the time.. He didn't directly kill her with his magic, but her death was the result of it and it was self defense.
-
This is basically everything Jim says about violating the laws of magic that I can find on https://wordof.jim-butcher.com/ (https://wordof.jim-butcher.com/).
The Laws of Magic don’t necessarily match up to the actual universal guidelines to how the universal power known as “magic” behaves.
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.
But if the substance of the consequences of the act itself does not have its own inherent quality of good or evil, then how can the /intentions/ behind it determine a similar quality? “Really, I was only trying to provide a better quality of life for my family and my employees. It wasn’t my intention to destroy that particular species of flower in the rain forest that cures cancer.” “I was just trying to give those Injuns some blankets. It wasn’t my intention to expose them to smallpox and wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” “I just wanted to get that book finished while working two jobs and finishing a brutal semester of grad school. It wasn’t my intention to screw up the name of Bianca’s personal assistant whose death had motivated her to go all power hungry to get revenge on Harry.”
There’s some old chestnut about good itentions serving as base level gradiant on an expressway that goes somewhere, but I can’t remember the specifics right now. :) While I agree that the /intentions/ of the person taking action are not without significance, they carry far less weight than the /consequences/ of that action.
“I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder,” is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation. You had the weapon. You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion. (Or if you DIDN’T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people’s lives, something really no less excuseable.) But you chose to employ the weapon anyway. The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.
Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions. You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn’t like anyone *died* or anything. He’s fine (at least in the long term), you’re fine, and there are fewer repercussions–regardless of your hideous intentions.
The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn’t something limited to wizards and gods. Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.
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. :)
The WoJ I remember isn't on there, I can't find it on there, or it doesn't exist. It might have been one of those "Jim said this, turns out Jim never said that" things that do come up on here a lot.
-
Seems to me what Harry does follows very closely with what the WOJ says..
-
... He used his magic to bring down a ton of molten rocks on Hannah Asher who was trying to kill him at the time.. He didn't directly kill her with his magic, but her death was the result of it and it was self defense.
Technically, it was Hannah's deadly magic; Harry was just redirecting it away from himself.
I'm not sure how much that technicality counts, but it's something. Maybe.
Also, I'm quite sure the Wardens don't feel they have jurisdiction over the inside of Hades' vault. Whether there's some megalomaniacal black-magic-y cackling madness inching closer because of Harry's action... I guess that remains to be seen.
-
I think it’s important to distinguish between violations of the law as written/enforced and black magic.
Killing a mortal with magic is a violation of the first law. Not because the wardens care if you kill people... but because you can’t do anything with magic that you don’t truly believe. Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you... what is something Jim is still exploring but at the very least it makes it easier to justify the next murder... the law exists to stop that deterioration.
Killing in Self defense doesn’t violate the first law because believing that someone else doesn’t have the right to kill you for their personal gain doesn’t do the damage to your soul that believing you have the right to kill them for your personal gain does... I seriously doubt the wardens care where you violate the laws, if you kidnap someone, drag them to Hadies vault, use magic to harvest there life force to make a new shinny toy and they find out about it... I think they will come for a visit.
Do Harry’s various actions constitute black magic (of the corrupt your soul variety) no, I don’t think they do. Has he violated the first law? Yes... isn’t there a WoJ about Harry violating all the laws before the series is done?
The laws are trying to outline black magic, but there are times they carve out too much space and times they don’t carve enough... I expect Harry to violate the laws without using black magic and others to use black magic without violating laws...
-
I'm pretty sure we're told that turning magic back on its caster is a standard Warden tactic against warlocks.
-
I'm pretty sure we're told that turning magic back on its caster is a standard Warden tactic against warlocks.
Closest thing I can think of like that is the "feng shui" Harry does in Blood Rites and the plan he has in Proven Guilty. What Jim has said about standard Warden tactics is that they have swords for a reason and they killed Kemmler with all sorts of mundane methods.
wardens care if you kill people ... because you can’t do anything with magic that you don’t truly believe. Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you ...
Killing in Self defense doesn’t violate the first law because believing that someone else doesn’t have the right to kill you for their personal gain doesn’t do the damage to your soul that believing you have the right to kill them for your personal gain does.
...
Do Harry’s various actions constitute black magic (of the corrupt your soul variety) no, I don’t think they do.
I disagree with these three points. (I think I agree with everything else you said. Yes Jim did say something about Harry violating, or at least brushing up against every law).
The Wardens wouldn't care if a wizard murders someone, corrupting their soul. They care if someone kills someone with magic because use of black magic irredeemably (in their view) corrupts the practitioner. A murder can be redeemed, but a Warlock can't. (Once again, in the view of the Wardens).
Harry is tainted with black magic. Some of which is his, according to Ulshavaras. I assume this refers to his killing of Justin, in self defense. We see Harry struggling with the corruption from his use of black magic in the early books. Now I could be mistaken in my interpretation and this black magic corruption Ulshavaras refers to comes from some other action that violated the Laws of Magic.
I do think that the 7 Laws as written by Merlin and applied by the Council are different than the "actual universal guidelines," as Jim said. Jim also said that it doesn't, necessarily, have to do with "Right or Wrong." Therefore, it isn't necessarily the case that fatal self defense with magic gives any less of a taint than murder with magic. I think it probably does, and that's why the Council has the defense of self defense against black magic. (Note that it's not even just self defense, but self defense against black magic).
I think we need a short hand for "the Seven Laws of Magic as written by Merlin and applied by the Council" and the "actual universal guidelines."
-
Harry is tainted with black magic. Some of which is his, according to Ulshavaras. I assume this refers to his killing of Justin, in self defense. We see Harry struggling with the corruption from his use of black magic in the early books. Now I could be mistaken in my interpretation and this black magic corruption Ulshavaras refers to comes from some other action that violated the Laws of Magic.
There be the gray area. ;) Yes, Harry used magic to kill Justin, so he is somewhat tainted.. Harry also replied to the Ulshavaras that not all of it belonged to him and it didn't argue with him, actually complimented him on his honesty and that is why it continued to talk to him. Back to the gray area, it could very well be that any time magic is used to kill it is considered black. However it isn't practical, there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin. That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on. So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense. Now I doubt unless the wizard becomes some kind of "gun slinger" type magic dueler that this will lead to madness. Simply because Harry had no choice, yes, he knows it is wrong and considered black magic, but on the other hand he knows that it was justified.. However one has to be very careful when judging because how one sees "justified" if off can lead to madness.
-
I disagree with these three points. (I think I agree with everything else you said. Yes Jim did say something about Harry violating, or at least brushing up against every law).
The Wardens wouldn't care if a wizard murders someone, corrupting their soul. They care if someone kills someone with magic because use of black magic irredeemably (in their view) corrupts the practitioner. A murder can be redeemed, but a Warlock can't. (Once again, in the view of the Wardens).
I thought that’s what I said...
Wardens care about you killing with magic not because they care about you killing (they obviously don’t as they kill), but because in order to do it with magic you must believe it is right and proper that it happen... that belief corrupts you. You can kill with a sword or gun because while you believe it wrong to kill you understand that it is necessary or you simply don’t care... you can’t do that with magic. Magic requires that you think it’s right, that it is what SHOULD happen.
If you think there is something we disagree on can you restate my thoughts (as you read them) and what you think that is different? Maybe I just wasn’t clear the first time...
I think we need a short hand for "the Seven Laws of Magic as written by Merlin and applied by the Council" and the "actual universal guidelines."
-
There be the gray area. ;) Yes, Harry used magic to kill Justin, so he is somewhat tainted.. Harry also replied to the Ulshavaras that not all of it belonged to him and it didn't argue with him, actually complimented him on his honesty and that is why it continued to talk to him. Back to the gray area, it could very well be that any time magic is used to kill it is considered black. However it isn't practical, there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin. That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on. So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense. Now I doubt unless the wizard becomes some kind of "gun slinger" type magic dueler that this will lead to madness. Simply because Harry had no choice, yes, he knows it is wrong and considered black magic, but on the other hand he knows that it was justified.. However one has to be very careful when judging because how one sees "justified" if off can lead to madness.
Also, I think this is where that "slippery slope" enters the psyche... even if you didn't simply murder your victim in unambiguous evil, you still killed with magic.
Your soul, in that moment, was committed to the idea that you should bend the forces of Creation to the ending of life.
Having killed already -- even in self-defense, even accidentally -- the killer knows in the very core of their being that it's possible... even easy. It becomes a much more viable option to consider.
That line has already been crossed; the tool is sitting in their toolbox of "ways that I do solve problems."
You won't ever again look at your "problems" and "solutions" in the way you did before. You are on that slippery slope. You may be keeping yourself from sliding down... but it's always an extra effort to do so, that it wasn't before.
-
Also, I think this is where that "slippery slope" enters the psyche... even if you didn't simply murder your victim in unambiguous evil, you still killed with magic.
Your soul, in that moment, was committed to the idea that you should bend the forces of Creation to the ending of life.
I think that is true no matter how you take a life. One can argue that killing with magic is akin to killing someone with a Crucifix, but that is more a matter of faith, because the victim is still just as dead and you took his or her life. Killing with magic for a wizard is easy, too easy, that is the slippery slope, not that it is Black Magic per say. I can make another analogy but that gets into the Second Amendment and strictly forbidden topics..
That line has already been crossed; the tool is sitting in their toolbox of "ways that I do solve problems."
But sometimes that is the only tool that can be effectively used.. It shouldn't be the first choice, but sometimes it is the only choice.
You won't ever again look at your "problems" and "solutions" in the way you did before. You are on that slippery slope. You may be keeping yourself from sliding down... but it's always an extra effort to do so, that it wasn't before.
I disagree, by your own argument it keeps you from falling further... In my mind, slippery slope means it become easier to justify so there is little to hold you back.. That is the slippery slope..
-
because in order to do it with magic you must believe it is right and proper that it happen... that belief corrupts you.
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruption.
Believing that that person should die so I can have a nicer car does something to you
Here I thought you were saying simply acting on a belief that others should die to benefit you, even without magic, corrupts the soul. Which I assume it would, but this sort corruption isn't the sort the Wardens are concerned with.
there are wizard's duels, which as Harry tells it, happened between him and Justin. That is two wizards trying to kill one another, lots of self defense going on. So while the White Council can't exactly condone it, neither can they condemn it because it is self defense.
I wouldn't say a duel involves any self defense. Self defense is repelling aggression, not mutual combat. The White Council does condemn it. That's why Harry gets the Doom of Damocles instead of execution.
The black magic corruption has nothing to do with a slippery slope of realizing options. If it did, all the veterans of the war with the RCV would be in serious trouble. They've repeatedly killed with magic. Killing humans would be a lot easier than killing vampires.
-
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruptio
Do you have the exact WOJ on this? If it is what he is driving at, then ultimately Margaret was right about the Council, they are all corrupt and are hypocrites. Eb might be the most corrupt, how many innocents did he kill when he brought down that satellite? Those that died weren't all vamps.. I doubt that you can find one wizard not tainted in some way by this standard..
I wouldn't say a duel involves any self defense. Self defense is repelling aggression, not mutual combat. The White Council does condemn it. That's why Harry gets the Doom of Damocles instead of execution.
Not the way I understand it, they didn't put Harry under the Doom for dueling. Harry is a bit of a unique case and had he not had the likes of Eb defending him, he could have gotten the chop. The Doom in his case was a bit of a compromise, because half the Council refused to believe that a sixteen year old kid/apprentice could successfully defend himself against a powerful full wizard who was a warden at one time, ergo it had to have been murder. Harry was placed under the Doom, not for defending himself fairly in a duel, but because half the Council believed it was impossible that he could.. That is how he was rewarded for being that powerful and skilled, with being named a full wizard, but at the same time put under the Doom to placate those who believed it impossible.
The black magic corruption has nothing to do with a slippery slope of realizing options. If it did, all the veterans of the war with the RCV would be in serious trouble. They've repeatedly killed with magic. Killing humans would be a lot easier than killing vampires.
That sort of blows your first argument..
This is where we disagree. It isn't corrupting because you must believe it. It is corrupting because it's black magic. It's been strongly implied, if not outright stated, by Jim that if you accidentally kill with magic (meaning you never intended/wanted/believed death would result) there is still black magic corruption.
It is or it isn't... One can make a stand that all forms of killing with magic deliberate or accidental is black magic, ergo all veterans of the war with the RCVs are indeed in serious trouble. Or it isn't, there are gray areas...
-
That is why they are wearing grey cloaks. Black and white do exist but there are always grey area’s. I do not think you can be a warden and avoid them completely.
-
The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional. We saw that in white night with Harry. Lasciel was firing up Harry to make him more violent. Destroying street furniture is not really black magic but he ran the risk of becoming someone who thought it ik to trash other peoples stuff with magic.
That is why Harry does not heat his shower with magic. Slippery slope.
-
The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional. We saw that in white night with Harry. Lasciel was firing up Harry to make him more violent. Destroying street furniture is not really black magic but he ran the risk of becoming someone who thought it ik to trash other peoples stuff with magic.
That is why Harry does not heat his shower with magic. Slippery slope.
I am not sure how not heating his shower with magic comes in... As far as that goes an old fashioned water heater with a simple pilot light would heat it just fine, no need for electronic
anything. Actually that is one aspect of the stories that never made sense, Chicago gets damn
cold in the winter time. So okay Harry doesn't mind ice cold showers, but I cannot see Thomas
enduring them for the year he lived with him or his other guests who have used his shower...Sorry
to lurch off topic but you did bring it up.
Back to topic, yes, Lasciel did fire him up to be more violent, but once he was made aware of his
behavior by Murphy he handled both Lasciel and himself differently so innocents wouldn't be hurt. He got off the banana peel before he totally fell on his ass. However having said that it is hard to believe in some of his greater kaboom moments, like when he stopped Cowl, or the battle at the aquarium, that there wasn't some human collateral damage.. Stranger still that no one in the city
seemed to notice.
-
Do you have the exact WOJ on this?
[Question]: “Actually, Molly’s intentions when she broke that particular law twisted her.” Here’s where I think you hit the nail on the head Lightsabre. It’s the intentions of the caster that matter. Time Travel, Nercomancy, and Mind Control are all tools that can be used to do *bad* things. I’m fairly sure what we see in the laws of magic is a sort of wizard gun control, trying to limit the existence of these problematic classes of spells.
[Answer]: But if the substance of the consequences of the act itself does not have its own inherent quality of good or evil, then how can the /intentions/ behind it determine a similar quality? “Really, I was only trying to provide a better quality of life for my family and my employees. It wasn’t my intention to destroy that particular species of flower in the rain forest that cures cancer.” “I was just trying to give those Injuns some blankets. It wasn’t my intention to expose them to smallpox and wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” “I just wanted to get that book finished while working two jobs and finishing a brutal semester of grad school. It wasn’t my intention to screw up the name of Bianca’s personal assistant whose death had motivated her to go all power hungry to get revenge on Harry.”
There’s some old chestnut about good itentions serving as base level gradiant on an expressway that goes somewhere, but I can’t remember the specifics right now. :) While I agree that the /intentions/ of the person taking action are not without significance, they carry far less weight than the /consequences/ of that action.
“I meant to shoot him in the leg and wound him, not hit the femoral artery and kill him, so I should not be considered guilty of murder,” is not something that stands up in a court of law /or/ in any serious moral or ethical evaluation. You had the weapon. You knew it was potentially lethal, even if you did attempt to use it in a less than fully lethal fashion. (Or if you DIDN’T know that, you were a freaking idiot playing with people’s lives, something really no less excuseable.) But you chose to employ the weapon anyway. The consequences of those actions are /yours/, your doing, regardless of how innocent your intentions may have been.
Similarly, if you meant to drill that ^@#%er through the eyes, if you had every intention of murdering him outright, but you shot him in the hand and he survived with minor injuries, again the consequences overshadow your intentions. You might have made a stupid or morally queestionable choice, but it isn’t like anyone *died* or anything. He’s fine (at least in the long term), you’re fine, and there are fewer repercussions–regardless of your hideous intentions.
The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn’t something limited to wizards and gods. Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.
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. :)
Jim
Someone proposes that Molly's intent was what twisted her. Jim responds that while intent is important, actual consequences are more important. He uses a bunch of analogies, not stating directly what his statements have to do with the DF. He ends with a paragraph I interpret as saying using black magic makes you evil is more true than not, but it's not that simple. I also think this last paragraph eludes to the theme of the DF of choice vs nature.
I feel like you're insisting that I reject the idea of gray areas when I've repeatedly and explicitly said that I endorse the idea.
I don't believe I'd seen that quote before hearing this idea from Jim. I don't know if the video(s) I recall have been transcribed or I just can't find them on the WoJ site.
If it is what he is driving at, then ultimately Margaret was right about the Council, they are all corrupt and are hypocrites. Eb might be the most corrupt, how many innocents did he kill when he brought down that satellite? Those that died weren't all vamps.. I doubt that you can find one wizard not tainted in some way by this standard.
Just to be clear, the standard, as I understand it, is "killing a mortal with magic corrupts." "With magic" and "mortal" appear to be in need of further definition. It also appears that the degree of corruption may be mitigated, but not eliminated, by factors such as intent.
How does this make the WC hypocritical? The Blackstaff protects Eb from black magic corruption. Are you saying that every wizard has killed a mortal with magic?
Not the way I understand it, they didn't put Harry under the Doom for dueling. Harry is a bit of a unique case and had he not had the likes of Eb defending him, he could have gotten the chop. The Doom in his case was a bit of a compromise, because half the Council refused to believe that a sixteen year old kid/apprentice could successfully defend himself against a powerful full wizard who was a warden at one time, ergo it had to have been murder. Harry was placed under the Doom, not for defending himself fairly in a duel, but because half the Council believed it was impossible that he could.. That is how he was rewarded for being that powerful and skilled, with being named a full wizard, but at the same time put under the Doom to placate those who believed it impossible.
We definitely don't know how or why the vote played out as it did. We just know a result was that Harry was placed under the Doom instead of being beheaded. That said, I don't think Harry's probation was a matter of compromise. The wizards who believed Harry didn't defend himself voted to kill him. Or at least Harry is fairly certain that's what LaFortier did. The wizards who thought he killed in defense against black magic voted for the Doom. Harry was given to Eb because Harry was still a child and couldn't be left to his own devices. It's never suggested that Eb was under the Doom like Harry is with Molly. It's never suggested that Morgan is going to go after Eb when he catches Harry breaking the Laws. In fact, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if Harry misbehaved. This suggests to me that Eb wasn't under the Doom at all.
Another reason I think the Doom was applied to Harry because he killed in defense against black magic (instead of as a compromise) is that he has black magic corruption from somewhere. Ulshavaras feels black magic on Harry. Harry claims it's "mostly" not his. Ulshavaras replies "Some of it is." It's arguable that he got the taint from killing MacFinn or the "children" at Bianca's.
That sort of blows your first argument..
No. It demonstrates that since all the Wardens aren't going warlock, the slippery slope argument isn't the same thing as black magic corruption. If we are to take the Merlin's word as even mostly true, people who've crossed the line that much are generally doomed to be totally corrupted warlocks.
I'm not saying conditioning yourself to properly use violence to solve problems won't create a risk of spilling over into improper use of violence to solve problems. Especially if we're talking about the fictional situation of magical violence in the DF. If everybody wants to label this as a "slippery slope" argument, then I'm fine with that.
The general mechanism is that you must believe in what you do with your magic and that is bidirectional.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bidirectional," but if you mean that believing in something and acting on that belief with magic makes you believe it more, then I don't see any support for that. I mean habits are a thing, and if you have to believe in your magic, then using magic to do a thing is demonstration of that belief. That's what the scene outside the brothel tells us.
As far as that goes an old fashioned water heater with a simple pilot light would heat it just fine, no need for electronic anything.
Until it explodes. That was Harry's concern for using gas anything.And I;m not even about to take chances with with the gas heater.
Storm Front Ch. 8
-
The exercise of power and the necessity to consider the fallout from your actions isn’t something limited to wizards and gods. Fictional people like Harry and Molly just provide more colorful examples.
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.
Sounds a lot like our arguments, lots of gray areas..
We definitely don't know how or why the vote played out as it did. We just know a result was that Harry was placed under the Doom instead of being beheaded. That said, I don't think Harry's probation was a matter of compromise. The wizards who believed Harry didn't defend himself voted to kill him. Or at least Harry is fairly certain that's what LaFortier did. The wizards who thought he killed in defense against black magic voted for the Doom. Harry was given to Eb because Harry was still a child and couldn't be left to his own devices. It's never suggested that Eb was under the Doom like Harry is with Molly. It's never suggested that Morgan is going to go after Eb when he catches Harry breaking the Laws. In fact, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if Harry misbehaved. This suggests to me that Eb wasn't under the Doom at all.
Yes, Eb was ordered to kill Harry if he stepped out of line, but that doesn't mean that Eb wouldn't then lose his own head. No one is above the law not even the Black Staff.. I also don't completely
buy that the staff protects him from the effects of "the black magic" of making a kill. Other that perhaps a righteous feeling that he did what had to be done, killing someone eats a little away from Eb's mind, heart, and soul and has nothing to do with black magic. No, Eb isn't protected from his own conscience.
-
I think that is true no matter how you take a life. One can argue that killing with magic is akin to killing someone with a Crucifix, but that is more a matter of faith, because the victim is still just as dead and you took his or her life.
There is no RL simile or parallel. Humans cannot do anything as hideous.
Magic isn't just a tool, like a gun or a knife or a screwdriver or calculus... Magic is, per WoJ, a little piece of the fundamental fires of Creation. It is a piece of your very soul that still resonates with that joyous and Divine act... Fiat Lux!
You took that most-Divine and most-sacred piece of your soul, and warped it into being a murder weapon.
There really isn't anything more hideous and profane that you could do to yourself. It's twisted, warped... And it's YOU, a piece of your very soul is warped.
That's what makes it Black Magic. That's why it shows up as a "stain" for those with eyes to see it.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "bidirectional," but if you mean that believing in something and acting on that belief with magic makes you believe it more, then I don't see any support for that. I mean habits are a thing, and if you have to believe in your magic, then using magic to do a thing is demonstration of that belief. That's what the scene outside the brothel tells us.
That is the whole idea behind the capital punishment for breaking the laws. Even if you broke them unintentional by accident or mistake and have genuine regrets etc. The mere fact that you broke them makes breaking them again more likely.
If Harry had not seriously thought about it and taken action Lasciel would have found it easier and easier to make him vent his rage on objects and one mistake could have made it even worse.
-
There really isn't anything more hideous and profane that you could do to yourself. It's twisted, warped... And it's YOU, a piece of your very soul is warped.
Yes, and I am saying that no magical staff is going to protect Eb from that. At the end of the day while he may be a wizard, he is still human. I believe it is that little factoid that so shocked Harry in
Blood Rites when he found out that Eb was the Council's assassin.
-
Yes, and I am saying that no magical staff is going to protect Eb from that. At the end of the day while he may be a wizard, he is still human...
Yeah, it's a thing I don't understand.
How does the Blackstaff (the object) disconnect a wizard from that "stain," or keep their psyche from starting down that slippery slope? Per WoJ, that's all the staff really does -- it isn't a powerup, it doesn't add Extra Winter Ooomph to the magic of the wielder.
It prevents the slide into cackling insane megalomaniacal villainy... but how?
-
Yeah, it's a thing I don't understand.
How does the Blackstaff (the object) disconnect a wizard from that "stain," or keep their psyche from starting down that slippery slope? Per WoJ, that's all the staff really does -- it isn't a powerup, it doesn't add Extra Winter Ooomph to the magic of the wielder.
It prevents the slide into cackling insane megalomaniacal villainy... but how?
From Changes:
I also saw veins of venomous black begin to ooze their way over the old man’s hand, reaching up slowly, spreading to his wrist. He grimaced and held his left forearm with his right hand for a moment, then looked over his shoulder and said, “All right!”
I think it takes the purely magical part of the corruption, the part that makes it addictive. The consequences of your choices for your soul are still yours.
-
I think it takes the purely magical part of the corruption, the part that makes it addictive. The consequences of your choices for your soul are still yours.
Or as the old saying goes, "you cannot have your cake and eat it too.." Eb can kill with magic and as long as he has the staff, he will not get the black magic blow back.. However it doesn't protect the little bit of his human soul that shrivels each time he does.
-
Yes, the Blackstaff doesn't protect Eb from his conscience. That has been explicitly stated by Jim. But in that same WOJ, he also says it DOES protect him from Black Magic corruption, which is a magical effect (think nuclear radiation). Every time you use black magic (that nebulous term), it warps and changes and transforms the caster into a monster, a warlock. However not Eb. Eb's staff protects him (although likely there is a terrible cost) from that magical effect. The effect on his conscience, that has nothing to do with magic and everything to do with vanilla mortal moral concerns, is unavoidable.
Eb might still become (or perhaps already is) a monster in the human sense, like a murderer or rapist. But not in the magical, supernatural sense like a vampire or liche or warlock.
As G33k says, those who employ the forces of magic are not like vanilla mortals and so the are affected by forces vanilla mortals have no contact with, i.e. magic. And there are special consequences for them beyond that which vanilla mortals have for morally repugnant actions.
I think it is clear that it might stain his soul, but not in the SAME way that black magic stains. Just in the normal horrible moral way the rest of us have to live with.
-
I think it is clear that it might stain his soul, but not in the SAME way that black magic stains. Just in the normal horrible moral way the rest of us have to live with.
Yeah well, there are some pretty horrible vanilla monsters out there without the aid of any black magic.
-
Exactly. I might argue that in some ways they are even worse.
-
I realize the laws of magic exist as a story conceit in order to make it so things are not too easy and that we know who the good guys and the bad guys are. Plus Synod to the religions that actually value magic and as a result probably don't like the idea that it's a shortcut to murder while keeping your hands clean. But still the fact that there's no way to game the system just feels off especially when you consider how much of magical tradition either from fairy tales or so on get tossed off by it. You can't use enchantment or any sort of lethal force or even Transformations even if they would be beneficial or at least considerably less lethal
To be fair it seems as if some intention matters. As an example you're not supposed to invade the mind of the other but the Merlin was able to do that whole communication spell when Peabody attacked. In addition to the spell that Elaine and Carrie have used since their youth. It's just that any psychics chicanery has a tendency to both spiral and blow back on you
For instance if someone said I want to quit smoking they will probably allow you to walk into their mind figure out anything you could in order to make them stop smoking. I guess what bothers me most about that prescription is that I can think of many uses for being able to use mind control or enchanting magic to prevent or Aid the Wizards. Summer movie memories to just saying please go away I don't want to deal with this s***. With the extra Hammer coming down when you use it to actually violate proper laws
While I appreciate his whole you can't blow someone off a roof and then not paint yourself this makes you wonder about things like what's his name when he use body magic in order to make him move really fast but killed with an ordinary knife. Seems like just as much of a hotfix as the warden's swords that dispel magic but it's the edge that kills you. My personal consideration is shape-shifting. I shape-shift myself into a hippo and then I murder almost everybody I can with this top-tier murder Beast that was considered more mythical and dangerous than some dragons
I have directly use magic in order to kill someone that is to say the entire alternate form so am I tainted or not?
Considering the danger of using direct for spells surely there's got to be a class of medication that at the very least makes it so that you can fight mortal opponents and don't end up running the risk of going cray cray. As an example why doesn't president ever use that rope trick that set up a sex scene as the basis for Ward's or evocation fighting style for when he's outside his office but doesn't know if he's up against acceptable targets
-
For instance if someone said I want to quit smoking they will probably allow you to walk into their mind figure out anything you could in order to make them stop smoking. I guess what bothers me most about that prescription is that I can think of many uses for being able to use mind control or enchanting magic to prevent or Aid the Wizards. Summer movie memories to just saying please go away I don't want to deal with this s***. With the extra Hammer coming down when you use it to actually violate proper laws
The key here is "allow," the kid who's mind Molly invaded didn't give her permission. Molly also in over her head as far as how to go about it so she did a lot of damage in the process. While her intentions were good, the results wasn't. Molly is the poster child for both sides of the argument about the slippery slope down into warlockhood. Harry argued that since her intentions were good and that she had no clue and was basically a good kid she should be allowed to live.. He put his own life on the line for that gamble.. The Merlin argued the slippery slope and she should get the chop. Both were kind of right, but also wrong.. Harry was right about her good intentions and that basically a good kid, but the Merlin was right because Molly never learned her lesson, even was willing to put Harry's life at risk under the Doom because she felt she knew best and to hell with the consequences or the slippery slope.
-
... But still the fact that there's no way to game the system just feels off
There ARE ways to "game the system," such as Warden Swords (which you noted yourself). The Blackstaff is another.
Offhand, it strikes me that making a deal with some magical being (who isn't subject to the Laws) is another. From a legalistic standpoint, the Wardens may come to snickersnack you anyhow, if you're hiring murder from the fae (or whoever... or whatever!) but I don't think it's the same sort of soul-staining "black magic."
... You can't use enchantment or any sort of lethal force or even Transformations even if they would be beneficial or at least considerably less lethal ...
Actually, I suspect this of being an "unintended consequence." Jim figured out the principals of Dresdenverse magic, then realized that the violation-of-Self that is a forced-transform would be a violation of the Laws. He still got Lea to do it in the Yucatan, of course... But as noted, she's one of those "not subject to the Laws" beings.
Or maybe I'm mistaken, and Jim wanted this to be specifically illegal. IIRC, Jim has stated that he's going to have Harry break every single law before the books are done. I'd love to read the scene where Harry transforms the entire White Council into a flock of fluffy white sheep... :o ;D
... As an example you're not supposed to invade the mind of the other but the Merlin was able to do that whole communication spell when Peabody attacked ...
I suspect there's some sort of loophole for a 1-way projection which the recipient perceives as a normal sensation, i.e. audio. The wizard isn't doing any mind-reading, which is explicitly verboten, and isn't imposing his will on the victim, which is also verboten (not imposing his will any more than he would if he were speaking verbally). It was a virtuoso performance by the Merlin, a sort of "trick shot" that few-to-no other wizards could have duplicated (maybe (eventually) Molly?).
... In addition to the spell that Elaine and CarrieHarry have used since their youth.
...
For instance if someone said I want to quit smoking they will probably allow you to walk into their mind figure out anything you could in order to make them stop smoking ...
Elaine & Harry used it willingly and mutually: both were aware, neither was a "victim." There was no "invasion" or subversion of the will -- those are the critical components that make black magic so bad.
I expect smoking-cessation to be right on the fringes, and easily stray over the line. Remember that what Molly did was try to cure drug addiction! So if you go spelunking around in someone's mind to "figure out anything," that may be a problem; free will is a critical element in the Dresdenverse. If the addict later wants a cigarette (or vape, or whatever) and your spell keeps them from doing it... you have impeded their free will. It's not just a matter of the wizard getting some "open sesame" magic words to agree to this; that's more a faerie condition. Humans get to change their minds, and your spell prevented that; the effects are liable to be just as bad as they were for Rosie and for Nelson.
... just saying please go away I don't want to deal with this s*** ...
Yeah, this is 100% black magic, right there. It's imposing your own will directly on another mind, taking away their own free will. And for what? Some petty annoyance...
The Wardens will be with you shortly. ;)
... he use body magic in order to make him move really fast but killed with an ordinary knife ...
I think you're correct in this; it's black magic (or at least black-ish, very-very-dark-grey). ... Seems like just as much of a hotfix as the warden's swords that dispel magic but it's the edge that kills you.
That's very different. The sword, when it kills you, kills you identically to any sword: completely non-magically. The dispel-magic effect just strips away your magical (non-natural) advantage.
The guy who used magical speed was getting a non-natural advantage in doing murder. It may not have been magic that proximately killed, but the kill was aided and enhanced by magic, in a way that could not be naturally achieved.
... My personal consideration is shape-shifting. I shape-shift myself into a hippo and then I murder almost everybody I can with this top-tier murder Beast that was considered more mythical and dangerous than some dragons
I have directly use magic in order to kill someone that is to say the entire alternate form so am I tainted or not? ...
Again, I think you've captured it well. And yes, this is black magic.
Will & the Alphas aren't black-magic-tainted because when they go for a kill they are fighting non-humans (well, OK -- they do threaten some human wizards; but never IIRC kill any). In Fool Moon, the other werewolves are actually killing people, and (if a Warden came visiting) would thus get snickersnack'ed.
Considering the danger of using direct for spells surely there's got to be a class of medication that at the very least makes it so that you can fight mortal opponents and don't end up running the risk of going cray cray.
If you could get a medically & scientifically trained wizard, that seems like something that could MAYBE be done... if you could find a medicine that effect the soul... OTOH, I'm not sure the White Council would be at ease with the idea of taking a pill to be able to break the Laws. The potential for abuse looks WAY worse than the upsides.
... that rope trick that set up a sex scene as the basis for Ward's or evocation fighting style for when he's outside his office but doesn't know if he's up against acceptable targets
Agreed: immobilizations look like a great option that Harry under-uses (but as to the specifics of those ropes, they were specially prepared and IIRC only usable within the confines of Harry's own home -- he stated that he'd need more experience before he could craft something usable anywhere).
But we saw in Small Favor (in the scene fighting Tessa) that Harry now has at least some ability to manipulate chains & such; so presumably he could, with practice, do something that would more fully entangle a foe.
I think ordinary ropes look like an "iffy" proposition, though: looping around someone in a way to genuinely immobilize them is kinda tricky, then tying a knot remotely is another level of fine control. These aren't Harry's strong suits! And while he's focused on tying up the mortal, anyone else is free to blindside him.
Some sort of pre-enchanted rope might work; or rather a set of them: carry a few lengths of rope all "tangled" together, throw them at the target and they automagically untangle, into half a dozen or so lengths that swiftly tie the target at ankles, knees, wrists, and elbows (with no attention needed after the initial throw). Although Harry seems to have less talent for working subtle & sophisticated magics on the fly, his enchanted items are really above-par, including subtle & sophisticated magic!
-
I also don't completely buy that the staff protects him from the effects of "the black magic" of making a kill. Other that perhaps a righteous feeling that he did what had to be done, killing someone eats a little away from Eb's mind, heart, and soul and has nothing to do with black magic. No, Eb isn't protected from his own conscience.
Q: How is Eb protected from black magic?
A: The Blackstaff is a literal black staff. He hasn’t had it when we’ve seen him, but he has it and it protects him.
Q: Can you tell us a little more about the black staff?
A: The staff keeps Eb from going crazy, mostly. Also, the White Council stole it from someone. And they really want it back.
When Eb does his “Laying of the Cattle move” at the major battle near the end of Changes, is that a power of the blackstaff?
The Blackstaff is what keeps that kind of thing from driving him insane and turning him into a giggling villain. Yah you don’t go messing with black magic in the Dresden Files, it’s very very bad for you. At the same time, Magic is something that happens because you truly believe that when you set out to do it that you should be able to do that sort of thing. That says a few things about Eb that really Harry hasn’t run into in any other forum other than right there. Yah Poor guy, He’s got a tough job.
Does the blackstaff have any powers that relate to the dead?
Other than making people dead? Really, that’s kind of the point [Crowd Laughs] Really but the staff itself what it really does is it keeps Eb sane while he’s doing insane things. Lucky him, he gets to deal with a hideously guilty conscious and nightmares later, but that’s better than later being like *Muahahahahahahahaha* Which is sort of the other option if your going to go around using magic like that.
The Blackstaff is not sentient per se it’s just really, really, really powerful and tapped into like some serious elemental powers in the universe. But basically all it really is is insulation from using those powers.
The staff 100% protects Eb from the "black magic." It 0% protects him from the effects of having killed, as if he killed with a bomb or some mortal equivalent.
Magic is, per WoJ, a little piece of the fundamental fires of Creation. It is a piece of your very soul that still resonates with that joyous and Divine act... Fiat Lux!
The first sentence is correct and implies the second. But that raises the question of how then is plain magic different from Soul Fire? Is the implication simply just wrong? I don't have any good answers to this one.
Yes, the Blackstaff doesn't protect Eb from his conscience. That has been explicitly stated by Jim. But in that same WOJ, he also says it DOES protect him from Black Magic corruption, which is a magical effect (think nuclear radiation). Every time you use black magic (that nebulous term), it warps and changes and transforms the caster into a monster, a warlock. However not Eb. Eb's staff protects him (although likely there is a terrible cost) from that magical effect. The effect on his conscience, that has nothing to do with magic and everything to do with vanilla mortal moral concerns, is unavoidable.
Eb might still become (or perhaps already is) a monster in the human sense, like a murderer or rapist. But not in the magical, supernatural sense like a vampire or liche or warlock.
As G33k says, those who employ the forces of magic are not like vanilla mortals and so the are affected by forces vanilla mortals have no contact with, i.e. magic. And there are special consequences for them beyond that which vanilla mortals have for morally repugnant actions.
I think it is clear that it might stain his soul, but not in the SAME way that black magic stains. Just in the normal horrible moral way the rest of us have to live with.
Agreed. Black magic is black magic because of the black magic corruption. Slippery slope corruption is just the normal psychological consequences of doing a thing. Black magic has nothing to do with slippery slopes.
-
Agreed. Black magic is black magic because of the black magic corruption. Slippery slope corruption is just the normal psychological consequences of doing a thing. Black magic has nothing to do with slippery slopes.
Maybe we are going at this all wrong. What the black staff is, is a cheat.. Simply because there are things/people out in the real world that have to be eliminated, and the only way to do it is with what is considered black magic. Supposedly it protects the user 100% from the blow back, or what we are calling the slippery slope... Even Jim says;
Other than making people dead? Really, that’s kind of the point [Crowd Laughs] Really but the staff itself what it really does is it keeps Eb sane while he’s doing insane things. Lucky him, he gets to deal with a hideously guilty conscious and nightmares later, but that’s better than later being like *Muahahahahahahahaha* Which is sort of the other option if your going to go around using magic like that.
Here is the thing though, in the wrong hands can the black staff be abused? Eb has that type of conscious that has the nightmares because even though supposedly the staff protects him, he still knows what he is doing is black magic, breaks the Seven Laws, and is just plain wrong, but necessary.. But what if the staff fell into the hands of a wizard with less integrity than Eb? Someone who doesn't feel any guilt or remorse? He or she could do all kinds of horrible things, suffer no blow back because he or she is protected by the staff, and not even feel bad about it.. So much for the slippery slope... That possibility is real, hence the great care in the choice of the Blackstaff and why generally it is secret as to who it is.
-
Just out of curiosity, is anything other than murder by magic true soul staining Black Magic?
-
What Molly did. I'd put money on "definitely everything but the 6th and 7th laws, and maybe them too." The reasons the 6th and 7th might not be be soul staining black magic but still against the laws of magic is that they could literally destroy the universe.
-
Molly used magic to impose her will over another person’s. That’s black magic. It doesn’t matter what the change was, therefore it doesn’t matter what the intention of choosing that change was. I think it does (should?) matter what Molly intended to do (in this case impose her will on another directly with magic), just not what she intended the outcome to be (help them).
If I intended to shoot you but wanted to hit your leg and slow you down I still intended to shoot you and if I hit your fimeral artery and kill you that’s murder.
If I try to take your picture and have no idea that the camera has been modified to shoot bullets not take pictures and shoot you in the head... not murder.
If I give you my blanket to keep you warm and help you survive the winter and have no way of knowing that it will give you smallpox... not murder...
Jim’s statements on these were fairly vague, I would love to get some more explicit commentary from him on them, but for now my interpretations stand. Your intended outcomes don’t matter, but what you intended to DO does.
-
Just out of curiosity, is anything other than murder by magic true soul staining Black Magic?
Mind invasion, overriding other wills. Recall "the Korean kid" who was executed. He was corrupted into raving lunacy by what he did.
I suspect that ALL the laws lead there, eventually. Some of them just faster, maybe? Or harder to resist?
I don't think we've got all the information, enough to answer.
-
Your intended outcomes don’t matter, but what you intended to DO does.
I think, but it's only a guess, that intended outcome does matter. I think an innocent intention mitigates the amount of corruption. Let's take Molly for example. Her intent was pure, mostly. If her intent was malicious, she would get 100% of the black magic corruption that comes with the act. But because that wasn't the case she only receives a portion of the corruption. For example 75%. Now, we don't know the amount of corruption that comes from any black magic act or how much mitigation intent would have if I'm correct at all.
-
I think, but it's only a guess, that intended outcome does matter. I think an innocent intention mitigates the amount of corruption. Let's take Molly for example. Her intent was pure, mostly. If her intent was malicious, she would get 100% of the black magic corruption that comes with the act. But because that wasn't the case she only receives a portion of the corruption. For example 75%. Now, we don't know the amount of corruption that comes from any black magic act or how much mitigation intent would have if I'm correct at all.
I think intent does count, but at the same time we are told that ignorance of the law doesn't always get one off. Molly's intentions may have been good, but committing mind rape isn't, irregardless of the outcome. The problem is if Molly believes her intentions were good, the next step is to justify them even though the outcome was bad for her friends. If she can justify them, what is to stop her from repeating the act? Nothing. That is the slippery slope, and it only gets slipperier and steeper sliding into warlockhood.
-
What you describe is a slippery slope. The Council wouldn't be executing people under that rationalization because such behavior can be corrected relatively easily. The twisting of the mind that results from using black magic is why the Council executes practitioners who use it.
-
What you describe is a slippery slope. The Council wouldn't be executing people under that rationalization because such behavior can be corrected relatively easily. The twisting of the mind that results from using black magic is why the Council executes practitioners who use it.
I think the WC has a much, MUCH easier time determining the binary "did/didn't commit an act of Black Magic" than they have calibrating anything like a "% corrupted." So... if there's lots of mitigating factors like "they meant well" and "it was an accident" &c -- AND a wizard willing to oversee / rehabilitate the proto-warlock -- then the WC sometimes will levy the Doom, instead of just giving the Chop.
But the WC also has the overall "everyone knows this" sense that (most of the time) a convicted warlock who gets clemency still (eventually) returns to Black Magic... and still needs to be put down (only this time, they're more-senior, much harder to kill, and often have done much much more damage).
Better by far to just chop all those borderline cases, and save the (very many) victims of the inevitable backsliders, instead of the (very few) never-revert-to-warlock-ways wizards.
-
I think the WC has a much, MUCH easier time determining the binary "did/didn't commit an act of Black Magic" than they have calibrating anything like a "% corrupted." So... if there's lots of mitigating factors like "they meant well" and "it was an accident" &c -- AND a wizard willing to oversee / rehabilitate the proto-warlock -- then the WC sometimes will levy the Doom, instead of just giving the Chop.
It isn't so simple, take Molly she meant well, she wanted her friends off of drugs... I guess since she hadn't a clue of what she was doing, it was sort of an accident... But what about when she tried to look into Morgan's mind, the mind of Luccio, even Harry to see if the influence of Lasciel was still there, she could find justification in each case, and yeah she meant well, but because she thinks she knows best she is willing to risk Harry's life along with her own.. Point is, she didn't learn her lesson, each time she does it the justification gets thinner and thinner until she doesn't need any at all..
-
I think the WC has a much, MUCH easier time determining the binary "did/didn't commit an act of Black Magic" than they have calibrating anything like a "% corrupted." So... if there's lots of mitigating factors like "they meant well" and "it was an accident" &c -- AND a wizard willing to oversee / rehabilitate the proto-warlock -- then the WC sometimes will levy the Doom, instead of just giving the Chop.
But the WC also has the overall "everyone knows this" sense that (most of the time) a convicted warlock who gets clemency still (eventually) returns to Black Magic... and still needs to be put down (only this time, they're more-senior, much harder to kill, and often have done much much more damage).
Better by far to just chop all those borderline cases, and save the (very many) victims of the inevitable backsliders, instead of the (very few) never-revert-to-warlock-ways wizards.
Yeah.
It isn't so simple, take Molly she meant well, she wanted her friends off of drugs... I guess since she hadn't a clue of what she was doing, it was sort of an accident... But what about when she tried to look into Morgan's mind, the mind of Luccio, even Harry to see if the influence of Lasciel was still there, she could find justification in each case, and yeah she meant well, but because she thinks she knows best she is willing to risk Harry's life along with her own.. Point is, she didn't learn her lesson, each time she does it the justification gets thinner and thinner until she doesn't need any at all..
Well, yeah because black magic corrupts and twists people.
-
Yeah.
Well, yeah because black magic corrupts and twists people.
That does not mean it is impossible, just difficult and risky. Ebenezer and Harry had a real impact on Harry and Molly compared to what otherwise would have happened. Ebenezar approved of what Harry tried to do with Molly. Changes interrupted that.
But really after all the trauma she went through in changes and ghost story and after the council was officially hunting for her she was still committed to not breaking those same councils laws. The old Molly would have gone completely bonkers.
-
That does not mean it is impossible, just difficult and risky. Ebenezer and Harry had a real impact on Harry and Molly compared to what otherwise would have happened. Ebenezar approved of what Harry tried to do with Molly. Changes interrupted that.
But really after all the trauma she went through in changes and ghost story and after the council was officially hunting for her she was still committed to not breaking those same councils laws. The old Molly would have gone completely bonkers.
Part of that is maturity, part of it is the morality of her up bringing, but make no mistake, a part of her is still twisted. It is that aspect that Mab and Lea took advantage of, only time will tell whether or not it continues to twist her into someone a kin to Maeve. While Nemesis infection finally spelled madness and the end for Maeve, black magic could do exactly the same to Molly.. It's corruption doesn't stop even if she is now beyond the Council's reach.
-
Part of that is maturity, part of it is the morality of her up bringing, but make no mistake, a part of her is still twisted. It is that aspect that Mab and Lea took advantage of, only time will tell whether or not it continues to twist her into someone a kin to Maeve. While Nemesis infection finally spelled madness and the end for Maeve, black magic could do exactly the same to Molly.. It's corruption doesn't stop even if she is now beyond the Council's reach.
Harry was not finished with Molly. The process was interrupted.
Also all Molly's law violations after the first one are debatable and were already debated on this forum. It is not sure she did even break any laws as such. Also she is under winter law now and she certainly did not anything that was wrong according to those laws. And she can not break them as she is now, black magic does not work like that only nemesis can in some cases provide that.
Also she has no real issue with winters objectives. She is actually en route to become quite an efficient winter lady. The chances that she looses herself in that job are far greater than that part of her wizard power she wants to suppress anyway will take over. Her warlock days are definitively over.
-
Harry was not finished with Molly. The process was interrupted.
Also all Molly's law violations after the first one are debatable and were already debated on this forum. It is not sure she did even break any laws as such. Also she is under winter law now and she certainly did not anything that was wrong according to those laws. And she can not break them as she is now, black magic does not work like that only nemesis can in some cases provide that.
Also she has no real issue with winters objectives. She is actually en route to become quite an efficient winter lady. The chances that she looses herself in that job are far greater than that part of her wizard power she wants to suppress anyway will take over. Her warlock days are definitively over.
Really? She is still has power, more so now that she is Winter Lady. Being Winter Lady doesn't stop her from doing black magic, just because she is beyond the Laws of Magic doesn't stop her from also being a warlock. It doesn't matter if she is effective as a Winter Lady, being Winter Lady doesn't prevent black magic from staining her if she chooses to preform it.. It is still breaking the Laws of Magic, but she remains free because now she is out of White Council jurisdiction.. But doesn't that still make her a warlock?
What Molly did to her friend regardless of what her motive were, is mind rape, she entered without permission their minds and tried to bend their behavior to her choices. That is considered black magic and did break one of the Laws, and ignorance of the law is usually not an excuse.
-
Really? She is still has power, more so now that she is Winter Lady. Being Winter Lady doesn't stop her from doing black magic, just because she is beyond the Laws of Magic doesn't stop her from also being a warlock. It doesn't matter if she is effective as a Winter Lady, being Winter Lady doesn't prevent black magic from staining her if she chooses to preform it.. It just means that the Winter Court will have a warlock as a Winter Lady..
Power has nature and that is what causes black magic corruption. Harry was already helping Molly to change her nature away from black magic for some time and it clearly had become weaker in those years. The power of the mantle is much greater than the remnants of the black magic in her, it will have much more influence on her. Unlike Maeve Molly has already accepted the responsibility that comes with the mantle. She wants to be a dutiful winter lady. Most of her power and the whole winter mantle wants her to be a good winter lady. All the sense of responsibility steers her in that direction.
She found purpose and that is much stronger than warlock Molly. The danger for her soul is not in black magic. She found harmony with her magic that no mortal can achieve. That is why she can use a cellphone now, no warlock can do so.
Warlock Molly is finished. It is now Winter Lady Molly. Different story.
-
Warlock Molly is finished. It is now Winter Lady Molly. Different story.
That remains to be seen..
-
Power has nature and that is what causes black magic corruption. Harry was already helping Molly to change her nature away from black magic for some time and it clearly had become weaker in those years. The power of the mantle is much greater than the remnants of the black magic in her, it will have much more influence on her. Unlike Maeve Molly has already accepted the responsibility that comes with the mantle. She wants to be a dutiful winter lady. Most of her power and the whole winter mantle wants her to be a good winter lady. All the sense of responsibility steers her in that direction.
She found purpose and that is much stronger than warlock Molly. The danger for her soul is not in black magic. She found harmony with her magic that no mortal can achieve. That is why she can use a cellphone now, no warlock can do so.
Warlock Molly is finished. It is now Winter Lady Molly. Different story.
I'd argue that (like Black Magic) the Winter Lady mantle is fundamentally incompatible with much that we consider "humanity." Mab was once human, too; she pretty thoroughly ISN'T anymore. Molly is already beginning to drift that way...
She has a bunch of new power -- Winter Lady power -- that she didn't have when she was just Molly. But she still DOES (afaik) have those same powers that lured her toward Black Magic; she is still susceptible to many of the same temptations and subject to having her own soul corrupted. I'd argue, in fact, that Winter is liable to push her even HARDER that way.
She is beyond the reach of the White Council's laws, it's true. But the Dresdenverse has "Laws of Magic" that are more like "laws of nature," and those still apply. By those laws, Molly is still at risk. I don't think "cackling villainy" is the risk anymore; rather, as her soul slips, SHE will be slipping more quickly into pure-WinterLady-ism, less Molly and more Sociopathic-Harlot-Virgin Maeve.
As Bob put it: Welcome to the new Winter Lady, same as the old Winter Lady. The Mantle will come to define who she is, how she acts... much more than anything else does (including "being Molly Carpenter" or "Having been Harry's apprentice").
-
I'd argue that (like Black Magic) the Winter Lady mantle is fundamentally incompatible with much that we consider "humanity." Mab was once human, too; she pretty thoroughly ISN'T anymore. Molly is already beginning to drift that way...
Which is not necessarily a bad thing for her. She now has an important purpose and can actually make a difference in this world. Better than cackling warlock for sure.
I do not think Uriel sees it as a bad thing, that was my impression from skin game anyway.
She has a bunch of new power -- Winter Lady power -- that she didn't have when she was just Molly. But she still DOES (afaik) have those same powers that lured her toward Black Magic; she is still susceptible to many of the same temptations and subject to having her own soul corrupted. I'd argue, in fact, that Winter is liable to push her even HARDER that way.
One of the fundamental properties of a warlock is lack of control. The drive to break laws. Molly will be forced to keep laws. She will be busy performing her duties including the backlog.
She can not break her new ruless. Literally can not.
She is beyond the reach of the White Council's laws, it's true. But the Dresdenverse has "Laws of Magic" that are more like "laws of nature," and those still apply. By those laws, Molly is still at risk. I don't think "cackling villainy" is the risk anymore; rather, as her soul slips, SHE will be slipping more quickly into pure-WinterLady-ism, less Molly and more Sociopathic-Harlot-Virgin Maeve.
She can loose herself to the mantle. As far as we know because I do not think what we have heard until now is that reliable. Jim has a lot of working it out to do.
As Bob put it: Welcome to the new Winter Lady, same as the old Winter Lady. The Mantle will come to define who she is, how she acts... much more than anything else does (including "being Molly Carpenter" or "Having been Harry's apprentice").
That is what Bob thought about the winter mantle too. Bob knows what usually happens but he does not know what can happen.
And that is assuming Maeves behaviour was typical and necessary winter lady behaviour which is not likely at all. I think a lot was Maeve herself and it got power when Nemesis got into it.
-
And that is assuming Maeves behaviour was typical and necessary winter lady behaviour which is not likely at all. I think a lot was Maeve herself and it got power when Nemesis got into it.
I don't disagree with this, but I see elements in this of danger for Molly. She has shown that she is capable of breaking the Law even if it meant death to both her and Harry. We saw in the short story about her since she became Winter Lady that she was willing to break the rules about sex and Winter Ladies. I guess one could argue ignorance, but I think it was more she ignored the rules and Ramirez suffered for it.
-
Willing and able are two different things. Molly literally can't "act in affairs not directly related to the Sidhe court." Summer Knight Ch. 10. This will greatly limit her ability to use magic on mortals at all. Mab was once mortal. She messed with Harry's mind in Small Favor. Was that black magic?
-
Willing and able are two different things. Molly literally can't "act in affairs not directly related to the Sidhe court." Summer Knight Ch. 10. This will greatly limit her ability to use magic on mortals at all. Mab was once mortal. She messed with Harry's mind in Small Favor. Was that black magic?
No because the fairy courts work under different rules. A human nature, especially a young human nature, is very malleable and is easily changed when using the wrong kind of magic. It was hinted by the gatekeeper that an older wizard can use the power of the island with less risk than Harry can at his age. An older wizard is more set in his ways and is less vulnerable to mind attacks for example.
Mab is a very old wizard with a strong mantle, she is not that easily changed by using the wrong kind of magic and her magic is not used contrary to her nature anyway. Different rules, she does what she thinks is necessary to fulfill her purpose.
The Sidhe have a far more balanced approach to their magic and are not in internal conflict about it. That is why they can use cellphones and human wizards can not.
You can also reason that by making a deal with the Sidhe and by being in their debt he gave permission. Mab could not have done so if he was not in her debt. It works different from the seven laws but the Sidhe are also bound by rules and there are some similarities.
-
Willing and able are two different things. Molly literally can't "act in affairs not directly related to the Sidhe court." Summer Knight Ch. 10. This will greatly limit her ability to use magic on mortals at all. Mab was once mortal. She messed with Harry's mind in Small Favor. Was that black magic?
Yes, it was black magic, but because she is the Winter Queen she cannot be touched by the Council. It is possible part of the reason why she has the dark reputation she has is she once was a warlock or on her way to being one.
-
I think Mira and Arjan have demonstrated my point that it is debatable as to whether a Faerie Queen can violate the laws of magic.
-
I think Mira and Arjan have demonstrated my point that it is debatable as to whether a Faerie Queen can violate the laws of magic.
They can not. They are simply not subject to those laws, they are under a different set of laws as was shown in Cold Case.
As t what extend something that would have broken the laws for a human would have an effect on a Sidhe simmilar to the effect black magic has on humans I would again say no. If she can do it it is according to winter law and it won't change her.
What is important now is fullfilling her purpose within the restrictions of her new nature.
-
Well Jim has established that their magic is different than mortal magic. For example their magic doesn't interfere with technology. The first thing Molly does odd, is get a smartphone.
One question might be, does the Black Staff allow the wielder to Fae use magic? And does the black stuff crawling up Eb's arm represent Fae magic trying to take over the wielder? Or maybe this is already established and I'm behind the curve?
-
Well Jim has established that their magic is different than mortal magic. For example their magic doesn't interfere with technology. The first thing Molly does odd, is get a smartphone.
One question might be, does the Black Staff allow the wielder to Fae use magic? And does the black stuff crawling up Eb's arm represent Fae magic trying to take over the wielder? Or maybe this is already established and I'm behind the curve?
It is about free will.
Humans are able to change themselves relatively easy. If you get a lot of power that change becomes more and more difficult.
-
It is about free will.
Humans are able to change themselves relatively easy. If you get a lot of power that change becomes more and more difficult.
Also black magic is black magic in my opinion, whether wielded by a wizard or a Fae.. Penalties or lack there of for using it may be different but that is little comfort to the one on the receiving end. I also think as long as she still has a human soul or piece of one Molly will suffer a stain from it. It might be that more than anything that has twisted Mab over a thousand years.. Here is another tin hat thought, we know the black staff protects Eb from the negative effects of black magic.. What if it
performed exactly the same task for Mother Winter? That might account for some of her attitude because she does what she must do now without it's protection.
-
Also black magic is black magic in my opinion, whether wielded by a wizard or a Fae.. Penalties or lack there of for using it may be different but that is little comfort to the one on the receiving end. I also think as long as she still has a human soul or piece of one Molly will suffer a stain from it. It might be that more than anything that has twisted Mab over a thousand years.. Here is another tin hat thought, we know the black staff protects Eb from the negative effects of black magic.. What if it
performed exactly the same task for Mother Winter? That might account for some of her attitude because she does what she must do now without it's protection.
For Molly it is simple now. If it is against her nature she simply can not do it. No changing of the winter mantle that way.
Mother winter can not get that involved now anyway. Maybe her staf was given to a human to do necessary things. The great powers split of small parts of their power to meddle with mortal affairs like the knights and this is similar.
-
For Molly it is simple now. If it is against her nature she simply can not do it. No changing of the winter mantle that way.
Mother winter can not get that involved now anyway. Maybe her staf was given to a human to do necessary things. The great powers split of small parts of their power to meddle with mortal affairs like the knights and this is similar.
Then why does Mother Summer say Mother doesn't go out much now because she lost her stick? If it was given, it apparently wasn't her wish that it be given.. Though yeah, she might have also meant that she lost it because she gave it up.. Jim again gives himself some wiggle room..
-
... We saw in the short story about her since she became Winter Lady that she was willing to break the rules about sex and Winter Ladies. I guess one could argue ignorance, but I think it was more she ignored the rules and Ramirez suffered for it.
No, I think it was genuine ignorance. I think that scene was where Molly learned about the restriction.
I think she was presuming, since she was feeling extra-horny from Winter urges, that Winter wanted her to be sexually-active. I think it was a shock to her that she was being pushed that way, but unable to indulge.
I think Mab was intentionally "letting her learn the hard way," and presuming that she'd learn better if she hurt (or killed) a partner...
I am unclear if the Knights are an exception to the rule; I tend to believe not: I think the Knight-and-Lady pairs are the models upon which the troubadors built those images of chaste-but-intense amours, forbidden love (that was part of the very-transgressive nature of Lancelot & Guenevere).
-
Then why does Mother Summer say Mother doesn't go out much now because she lost her stick? If it was given, it apparently wasn't her wish that it be given.. Though yeah, she might have also meant that she lost it because she gave it up.. Jim again gives himself some wiggle room..
Or she gave it to someone and it just wasn't returned when expected.
She may inherently be black magic to the earth when she walks it.
Completely unrelated, but I normally read on my phone and it's hard to post there. I think a number of posters don't understand the Black Magic *twisting*.
It seems to me that *all magic* reinforces you and makes you more easily able to use it. In other words, the more fire magic Harry uses, the better he is with fire magic- and it's not just that he has practice, but that his abilities with fire magic, like in a RPG, increase because he becomes someone more able to use fire magic. Not just like building up muscle, but his personality because more disposed this way.
It would explain why older wizards become "fixed" and difficult to tamper with; every use of magic reinforces who you are and eliminates extraneous bits. Think of it like wizards becoming less grey and more crisply black and white as they use magic, the opposite of laundry. Use it to heal someone repeatedly, and you become someone who is a healer; a personality trait amplified and focused by your use of healing. It *removes* personality traits that would make you conflicted about the magic, by making you a subtly different photocopy of yourself every time you engage in the act.
Harry's been using force a lot more as he ages, and fire less- he's also becoming more stubbornly focused and less reactionary and angry. He's *become* more force and less fire.
It explains Eb and Langtry- different sides of the French-Indian war, right? Eb's the best at blowing things up and Langtry's the best . . at stopping things being up. They *forced* each other to develop in that way, and it's why they can't get along now. Oil and water. Their magic made them opposite personalities.
Black magic would work the same- it doesn't just overcome normal conscious squeamishness, it erases the personality traits that would make you squeem and re-writes you into someone who will reach for it naturally. Harry's completely unrepentant about killing. He worries about the backlash about killing with magic, but he doesn't bat an eye at killing- mundanely. That's part of his backlash..
-
Black magic would work the same- it doesn't just overcome normal conscious squeamishness, it erases the personality traits that would make you squeem and re-writes you into someone who will reach for it naturally. Harry's completely unrepentant about killing. He worries about the backlash about killing with magic, but he doesn't bat an eye at killing- mundanely. That's part of his backlash..
I disagree, Harry is repentant about killing, but he is a soldier, sometimes lives have to be taken. I totally disagree that killing has become a mundane thing with him.
-
I also think as long as she still has a human soul or piece of one Molly will suffer a stain from it.
This is basically what I was getting at. If Molly still has the ability to "fight" the mantle, as Harry was told mantle holders in fact do, then Molly is not entirely fae. If she's not entirely fae, what is that other part? I'd say human. If she is human and uses black magic, then she can be tainted by that use. Perhaps it's such a small part that the drives of the mantel outweigh the drives of the black magic taint to the point it won't matter to her actions. I imagine it would matter to her soul.
I disagree, Harry is repentant about killing, but he is a soldier, sometimes lives have to be taken. I totally disagree that killing has become a mundane thing with him.
100%.
If using magic shapes you and black magic is bad because it shapes you badly, then the Council's policy doesn't make sense. The death penalty isn't the answer. Forcing the warlock to do the opposite of whatever law the violated until "white" magic has shaped them into a good person. Additionally, the older wizards becoming fixed is largely, if not entirely, physical. That's why Luccio's body switch allowed her to be tampered with.
-
This is basically what I was getting at. If Molly still has the ability to "fight" the mantle, as Harry was told mantle holders in fact do, then Molly is not entirely fae. If she's not entirely fae, what is that other part? I'd say human. If she is human and uses black magic, then she can be tainted by that use. Perhaps it's such a small part that the drives of the mantel outweigh the drives of the black magic taint to the point it won't matter to her actions. I imagine it would matter to her soul...
I'd like to refine your point a bit: if Black Magic is "destructive" to the soul (and I assert that it is), then both the Winter Mantle and her own predilection for warlock ways are acting in mutually-reenforcing ways to strip her soul down to virtually nothing, leaving only the Winter Lady, free to use Black Magic because the Faerie Queens ARE free of those mortal restraints.
... If using magic shapes you and black magic is bad because it shapes you badly, then the Council's policy doesn't make sense. The death penalty isn't the answer. Forcing the warlock to do the opposite of whatever law the violated until "white" magic has shaped them into a good person...
I think it's like a mended point in a larger piece -- there's a sort of "structural flaw" there, a weakness that may break under stress, may degrade over time.
The claim is made to Harry that the "supposedly-Ex" warlock, sooner or later, inevitably returns to type.
I suspect they are "right" but largely because of their largely-mechanical approach to magic, with less of a spiritual component. It's a self-fulfilling Doom. They have ZERO ability to address the needs of the soul.
-
The claim is made to Harry that the "supposedly-Ex" warlock, sooner or later, inevitably returns to type.
I suspect they are "right" but largely because of their largely-mechanical approach to magic, with less of a spiritual component. It's a self-fulfilling Doom. They have ZERO ability to address the needs of the soul.
They are mostly correct because they ignore free will which gives a good approximation of the expected results. The knights of the cross and Uriel look at the problem from a completely different angle. They are all about the importance of free will and want to give the warlock a chance.
In reality each case is different
-
I'd like to refine your point a bit: if Black Magic is "destructive" to the soul (and I assert that it is), then both the Winter Mantle and her own predilection for warlock ways are acting in mutually-reenforcing ways to strip her soul down to virtually nothing, leaving only the Winter Lady, free to use Black Magic because the Faerie Queens ARE free of those mortal restraints.
Thank you, it does, and this is what ultimately destroys the souls of the Ladies and Queens.
-
Thank you, it does, and this is what ultimately destroys the souls of the Ladies and Queens.
Or alternatively what the Ladies and Queens do is not black magic at all.
-
Or alternatively what the Ladies and Queens do is not black magic at all.
Depends on how you define it I suppose.. Under most laws murder is a crime, but what about the few places where it isn't against the law? It is still murder, but one is punished where the other is not..
But the Courts have their own set of rules, It is against those rules for Mab to kill or harm a mortal herself, that is why she has a mortal Knight to carry out her orders.. It is a loop hole, she has a mortal hit man.. Yet since she ordered it, does it stain her?
-
Depends on how you define it I suppose.. Under most laws murder is a crime, but what about the few places where it isn't against the law?
Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Under Icelandic law a killing only became a murder if the killer tried to hide it and did not proclaim it as soon as possible. Murder is not just a crime against the person killed it is a crime against society.
There is a lot of terminology with a lot of different meanings for ending someones life.
It is still murder, but one is punished where the other is not..
Actually it is not if there is no law against it. That is why there is international criminal law:
https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/the-influence-of-the-nuremberg-trial-on-international-criminal-law/
But the Courts have their own set of rules, It is against those rules for Mab to kill or harm a mortal herself, that is why she has a mortal Knight to carry out her orders.. It is a loop hole, she has a mortal hit man.. Yet since she ordered it, does it stain her?
Not according to the councils laws of magic. You can gate in monsters and walk away. You did not kill them with your magic. It is what binder does.
There are a lot of things you can do without breaking the laws of magic. You can cause a lot of harm without breaking the laws of magic.
Maybe the fairy courts did find all the loopholes. They have a different relationship with their magic.
-
Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Under Icelandic law a killing only became a murder if the killer tried to hide it and did not proclaim it as soon as possible. Murder is not just a crime against the person killed it is a crime against society.
But what if the society is okay with it? We know under the Laws of Magic pretty much what is considered black magic.. Supposedly the Fae see things differently, so there is no black magic supposedly.. However the act itself is the same.. The Laws are imposed by society, or an outside force, but if we can believe what creates a warlock, breaking those Laws have a physical, mental, and emotional effect on the practitioner, it leaves a stain whether he/she is caught and punished or not. The very same acts are not dealt with by the Fae, so is there a stain or not?
-
But what if the society is okay with it? We know under the Laws of Magic pretty much what is considered black magic.. Supposedly the Fae see things differently, so there is no black magic supposedly.. However the act itself is the same.. The Laws are imposed by society, or an outside force, but if we can believe what creates a warlock, breaking those Laws have a physical, mental, and emotional effect on the practitioner, it leaves a stain whether he/she is caught and punished or not. The very same acts are not dealt with by the Fae, so is there a stain or not?
Society is never ok with murder because society defines what murder is.
Morality is not a constant and we hope it improves over time. Historically it did improve over time. It is necessary if we want a liveable society with more and more people.
Magic changes over time. It is entirely possible that things that are now black did not used to be. Magic is about what people believe and it is entirely possible that centuries of wizards believing and enforcing the laws of magic made magic as it is now.
Say we made an eight law against magical torture. Is that black magic now? Will it be black magic after a few centuries? Or will it never be?
What if killing with magic was allowed in war? Same question.
-
Society is never ok with murder because society defines what murder is.
Morality is not a constant and we hope it improves over time. Historically it did improve over time. It is necessary if we want a liveable society with more and more people.
Magic changes over time. It is entirely possible that things that are now black did not used to be. Magic is about what people believe and it is entirely possible that centuries of wizards believing and enforcing the laws of magic made magic as it is now.
Say we made an eight law against magical torture. Is that black magic now? Will it be black magic after a few centuries? Or will it never be?
What if killing with magic was allowed in war? Same question.
"By any other name does a rose smell as sweet?" So an act done by a wizard is soul staining black magic, but the exact same act done by a Fae isn't?
-
The very same acts are not dealt with by the Fae, so is there a stain or not?
I think that is the question. If Lea kills someone in Chicago, it isn't murder because murder is "the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought, express or implied." The laws of magic, as understood by the Council, are basically "don't do X" with an understood "to mortals." What if there is also an understood "mortals" in front of "don't do X?" It could be that Lea can't do black magic because she isn't mortal. Now there is the question of whether or not a fairy queen is at all mortal and therefore is subject to the cosmic, not council, laws of magic.
"By any other name does a rose smell as sweet?" So an act done by a wizard is soul staining black magic, but the exact same act done by a Fae isn't?
Generally speaking, they don't have a soul to stain, so generally speaking, no.
They are mostly correct because they ignore free will which gives a good approximation of the expected results. The knights of the cross and Uriel look at the problem from a completely different angle. They are all about the importance of free will and want to give the warlock a chance.
In reality each case is different
This is an important point. The Merlin's perspective is that Nature determines actions. The KotC's perspective is that mortal's have Choice (the ability to act against their natures). Uriel makes the point in The Warrior that mortals almost never exercise Choice. I think Choice vs. Nature is an important theme of the DF.
-
Generally speaking, they don't have a soul to stain, so generally speaking, no.
But supposedly Mab began as a human, Molly, as far as we know is still human..
-
"By any other name does a rose smell as sweet?" So an act done by a wizard is soul staining black magic, but the exact same act done by a Fae isn't?
In the Dresdenverse, apparently, yes. But the irony is striking, unless I missed something no Fae, in the text, has actually killed with magic. Did I miss something?
-
Depends on how you define it I suppose.. Under most laws murder is a crime, but what about the few places where it isn't against the law? It is still murder, but one is punished where the other is not..
But the Courts have their own set of rules, It is against those rules for Mab to kill or harm a mortal herself, that is why she has a mortal Knight to carry out her orders.. It is a loop hole, she has a mortal hit man.. Yet since she ordered it, does it stain her?
The Queens use a LOT of mental magic. Mab made Harry forget things, Mab AND Maeve filled Harry with lust. This is also Black Magic, but apparently un-damaging to them.
My assertion is that it would be damaging to Molly: to the part(s) of her that are still human, and still cares about people. Eventually, be it the Mantle or the Black Magic, Molly won't really care for humans anymore... except maybe as mild affections.
-
The Queens use a LOT of mental magic. Mab made Harry forget things, Mab AND Maeve filled Harry with lust. This is also Black Magic, but apparently un-damaging to them.
My assertion is that it would be damaging to Molly: to the part(s) of her that are still human, and still cares about people. Eventually, be it the Mantle or the Black Magic, Molly won't really care for humans anymore... except maybe as mild affections.
Harry created a lust potion without problems. Just raising emotions is not seen as entering someone’s mind.
And in a way the Sidhe queens need permission to enter someone’s mind. Mab could not have done it without his debt to her. The way Sidhe deals work might be enough not to make it black magic.
-
This thread seems like the most appropriate place to drop this quote that struck me.
[T]he First Law of Magic prohibited using it[magic] to kill a human being. There was some grey area involved with it, but not much, and it was the sort of thing one didn't play around with.
The Warrior about a third of the way in.
It's almost never as simple as the black letter law, and I think we all can/have agreed to that. That the 1st Law has a grey area isn't what surprised me. It was that I didn't recall Harry ever saying anything like that. (I haven't read the short stories as much as the books). This quote doesn't really inform us of much. He might only be referring to the "defense of self or others from black magic" exception. He might be referring to that and some other things.
I do think this is probably the most succinct and detailed in text description of the 1st Law we have in text.
-
This thread seems like the most appropriate place to drop this quote that struck me.The Warrior about a third of the way in.
It's almost never as simple as the black letter law, and I think we all can/have agreed to that. That the 1st Law has a grey area isn't what surprised me. It was that I didn't recall Harry ever saying anything like that. (I haven't read the short stories as much as the books). This quote doesn't really inform us of much. He might only be referring to the "defense of self or others from black magic" exception. He might be referring to that and some other things.
I do think this is probably the most succinct and detailed in text description of the 1st Law we have in text.
I don't remember reading that but it has been a while since I read "The Warrior," it is one of my favorites. I've always felt that there was a lot of "grey" area when it comes to the First Law. I think the real question is how it is rationalized when one breaks it, some are harder on themselves than others.
-
I'd say there's "not much" grey area and the real question is what is that grey area.
-
I'd say there's "not much" grey area and the real question is what is that grey area.
Anything Jim wants :)
If we talk about the councils laws it is best to ignore the natural underpinning that inspired it and just go for how human law works because the laws and their interpretation are just human work.
A simple law can never include all circumstances of what can happen and there must be a long tradition about how it was interpreted in all kind of situations and the results.
And it is not about morality. You can use a magic sword to kill someone or bind someone with magic an use a knife.
And it is not exactly about black magic taint either. I am sure that there are ways to taint yourself not covered by the laws.
It is about damage control as Lucio explained to Harry (White Night or dead beat if I remember correctly)
-
Anything Jim wants :)
If we talk about the councils laws it is best to ignore the natural underpinning that inspired it and just go for how human law works because the laws and their interpretation are just human work.
A simple law can never include all circumstances of what can happen and there must be a long tradition about how it was interpreted in all kind of situations and the results.
And it is not about morality. You can use a magic sword to kill someone or bind someone with magic an use a knife.
And it is not exactly about black magic taint either. I am sure that there are ways to taint yourself not covered by the laws.
It is about damage control as Lucio explained to Harry (White Night or dead beat if I remember correctly)
That is why a lot of it beyond what blantently breaks the First Law is a matter of rationalization of the one doing it... No, you might not lose your head because of it, perhaps it had to be done, but how do you feel about it? That is what nibbles at the soul..
-
But supposedly Mab began as a human, Molly, as far as we know is still human..
Molly uses a cellphone and magic... Molly isn’t (entirely?) human anymore.
-
Molly uses a cellphone and magic... Molly isn’t (entirely?) human anymore.
Though I don't think that has been fully explained, because though she is Winter Lady now, she is still a wizard. Come to think of it the apartment she had before she became Winter Lady had hot water and all the stuff that Harry's old place didn't. Now it could be because the Stava elves, sorry about the mangled spelling set it up for her... So it is unclear whether or not she is now human has anything to do with it. Or it could be that yeah, wizards and tech don't mix, but maybe Harry's place was like it was because he enjoyed the nineteenth century gloom..
-
I'm pretty sure Molly's place was like that because the Svartalves are master craftsmen. I have a feeling they get Harry a computer (see Vadderung's computer that doesn't explode). I think they have enough understanding of both magic and technology to build either technology that can stand up to a practitioner's aura or whatever, or they can make some sort of magical equivalent.
Molly uses a cellphone and magic... Molly isn’t (entirely?) human anymore.
That's kinda the million dollar question. Faeries don't have souls. Mantels generally overwrite the holder's personality. But not necessarily. So is Molly human? Has her soul been destroyed?
-
That's kinda the million dollar question. Faeries don't have souls. Mantels generally overwrite the holder's personality. But not necessarily. So is Molly human? Has her soul been destroyed?
Or it is a meaningless question because it depends on how you define human in a magical world were humans can transform in countless ways with all intermediates.
Biologically she is human. Mab can breed with humans and get fertile offspring. Does a soul make you human? Apparently not if a human can loose it.
So in this case I would say it is not about a definition of human something different groups in the dresdenverse probably can not agree on anyway but it is about acceptance and self identification.
Does she see herself as human?
Do other humans see her as human?
Do non humans see her as human?
If all three is yes then she is human. Otherwise it is debatable.
-
I'd say having a soul is a fundamental requirement for being a human, at least in the DF, at least metaphysically. Perhaps we should use the term mortal instead of human.
-
I'd say having a soul is a fundamental requirement for being a human, at least in the DF, at least metaphysically. Perhaps we should use the term mortal instead of human.
And how do you decide someone still has a soul? According to woj even Mab might have a little bit left.
And mortal also is a hazy concept. Ask Maeve.
-
Molly quit being mortal when she started being the Winter Lady. The base definition of mortal is someone who can die. That's the least vague definition Jim uses.
-
Molly quit being mortal when she started being the Winter Lady. The base definition of mortal is someone who can die. That's the least vague definition Jim uses.
They can die under specific circumstances. Really immortal here means just more difficult to kill.
-
They can die under specific circumstances. Really immortal here means just more difficult to kill.
Well, that and living forever as long as someone doesn't manage to kill you.
-
Well, that and living forever as long as someone doesn't manage to kill you.
The gatekeeper is older than some immortals. It seems that using a lot of magic keeps you young.
Wizard healing is one step up from normal people. Are they all human?
-
The gatekeeper is older than some immortals. It seems that using a lot of magic keeps you young.
Harry is older than some immortals. Lily for instance, when she was still alive. There are likely a ton of young immortals, what with changelings choosing on a regular basis.
Wizard healing is one step up from normal people. Are they all human?
Yes.
-
Harry is older than some immortals. Lily for instance, when she was still alive. There are likely a ton of young immortals, what with changelings choosing on a regular basis.
Harry was older than Lily when she was a young mortal.. She was still a young mortal when she got roped into becoming an immortal. So yeah, in that sense he was older than her immortal self... However she still could be killed and she was, she died very young.
-
Harry is older than some immortals. Lily for instance, when she was still alive. There are likely a ton of young immortals, what with changelings choosing on a regular basis.
Changelings who choose get eternal youth but they are not immortal. They get killed on a regular basis and do not reform like the queens do.
Yes.
That is your definition. It depends how you look at it. You could argue that immortals are simply mortals who prolong their life and youth by handling big amounts of magic just like wizards do on a smaller scale. Something in principle available to all magically gifted humans. It has been suggested that they can set aside that magic as well. Do they then become human again or were they human all along?
We see the story from the point of view of a wizard who wants to be a human and sees himself as different from the so called immortals but with the winter mantle he is already one step up and some people may question his humanity. Point of view is important.
You can also argue that the whole story about them being better than human, being super human is just propaganda so that they can feel better than us. We don't have to buy into that. They are certainly more powerfull than we and they live longer but biologically they are just human.
-
Changelings who choose get eternal youth but they are not immortal. They get killed on a regular basis and do not reform like the queens do.
Says who? I'm not aware of any WOJ about that.
-
Says who? I'm not aware of any WOJ about that.
It's pretty strongly inferred by Bob in Cold Days discussing specific individuals as immortals and un-killable (except (revealed nervously) in specific circumstances). It it had applied to all the fae, or even all the sidhe, I think it would have come out during that conversation.
Plus, we don't see folks getting fallout from the returns of their prior kills.
I'm pretty sure that "Unaging" or "ever-young" isn't as un-killable as the Queens & Kings and old Gods and other "immortals."
But it isn't explicitly stated, that I know of.
-
It's pretty strongly inferred by Bob in Cold Days discussing specific individuals as immortals and un-killable (except (revealed nervously) in specific circumstances). It it had applied to all the fae, or even all the sidhe, I think it would have come out during that conversation.
Yeah, re-reading that bit, it is pretty heavily implied that it applies only to big deal Mantle-holders. This of course raises the question as to how much power is required to render someone an unkillable-except-at-conjunctions immortal.
-
The difference between mortals and Molly is that Molly may die, mortals will die. That makes her inhuman. And in terms of Black Magic, Maeve never killed anyone directly with magic, nor have the Queens. Nor I believe human or Fae, except Harry and his happy go lucky family. I'm being more certain here than I actually am, but I don't remember any case.
-
The difference between mortals and Molly is that Molly may die, mortals will die. That makes her inhuman. And in terms of Black Magic, Maeve never killed anyone directly with magic, nor have the Queens. Nor I believe human or Fae, except Harry and his happy go lucky family. I'm being more certain here than I actually am, but I don't remember any case.
Bob says so in Summer Knight:
I frowned. "Hang on a minute. You mean that the Queens can't personally gun down anyone who isn't in their Court?"
"Not unless the target does something stupid like make an open-ended bargain without even trying to trade a baby for-"
-
Bob heavily implies that it is the MANTLE that is immortal, not the wearer. So the mantle reforms, and the wearer with it normally. On Halloween (and in other highly specific circumstances) the mantle doesn't protect the wearer, so they die and the mantle can change. But because it is immortal, that is why it ends up shaping the wearer. I suspect that if the wearer were to reject the mantle, then the mantle might not even protect them forever. Molly will eventually end up much the same as Maeve, as that is what the mantle tries to do. Unless Molly can change the mantle or rid herself of the mantle, she won't BE Molly forever. That much has been said in different ways throughout the series.
Think of it like the office of the President. The President, as an office, is an idea. That is not easily destroyed. The occupant, however, is very much vulnerable. It is not the occupant who has power, but the position. But that power is next to useless unless there is an occupant to direct it. We always respect the position (as a rule), but often not the occupant (depending on our various leanings and values). In psychology, this is called authority or social power (Positional Power). It's seen as legitimate by society (generally, although not always as sometimes Monachs and Leaders are de-powered by society for various reasons, often because there is too much concentration in a single role).
Everyone has a degree of Personal Power, which is that which you have in you. It comes from the physical strength of your body and from your personality, your charisma etc. Sometimes this is split between two ideas: Referent Power and Personal Power, with Referent Power referring to interpersonal skills and ability and Personal mostly referring to the natural physical abilities.
Then there is Expert Power, that which is granted by knowledge and experience and skill in a field or fields. We respect the great masters of sport, art and academia etc because we can see not only how much natural talent they may have, but also how much they have learned about their area and how much skill they have built up. We trust and respect and often admire these people because they are the gatekeepers and the pioneers, those at the pinnacle.
Reward Power is another type, that mostly depends on the ability of the individual to give or withhold valued (generally material) rewards. Sometimes this is split between Reward Power and Coercive Power, with Reward merely referring to the ability to give and Coercive referring to the ability to withhold or even disadvantage the receiver.
In any case, immortals in series are not the same beings as the rest. They mostly cannot be killed and will not die of old age. Whilst there are likely many supernatural beings that are extremely long-lived, and perhaps many cannot die of old age or disease, they can be killed with force. Immortals are a different category. You can atomize them and cast their dust upon the universe but they always reform. This is heavily implied to be because of mantles, but not necessarily. We don't yet know how Angels or Fallen or others fit into this.
When the supernatural in the series refers to Mortals, they are referring to beings with Free Will. They don't mean dogs and cats, generally speaking they mostly mean human beings. There is a good argument to be said that the Forest and Mountain People (like River Shoulders and the Genoskwa) are actually in this category, not in the least because they can pick up a coin or perhaps a sword. I would say all scions and Changellings (pre-change) and beings like Thomas probably are in that category (although not his demon).
Whilst Vampires and most Faeries are not immortals, they do appear to not die of old age or regular mortal problems. It clearly takes either crazy amounts of power and/or a really long time to become immortal. A curious case are Fae that are "Eldest". The title passes on to the next oldest when the previous one dies, but the being (and it's power) seems to pass away. My guess is that it is the barest sort of mantle, but not really powerful enough to be significant. But with added power, and perhaps time, would become a real deal. The difference with a Queen, let's say, is that they're mantle makes the office-holder immortal too. The only exception we have seen is the Knights, and I suspect that is because it is built especially to NOT make the holder Immortal, because that would make the position useless for it's purposes.
The Knight IS the Queens (all 3, and perhaps all 6) ability to really affect the mortal world in a meaningful way (i.e. Choice).
Molly is no longer really going to be worried about Black Magic taint, as she isn't really human anymore. She could possibly Choose to not be a Queen, but I suspect not, which means she is Choosing to sacrifice her Free Will. Not all at once, but over time.
-
Maeve was atypical. Molly probably won’t end like that.
-
How was Maeve atypical? What do you base that on? Whilst she did become infected and such, she actually left her role the same way as some Queens before her - feet first. If anything, she is typical.
Molly won't end like what exactly? Death? Or won't become the Winter Lady? Because, I hate to tell you, she probably will. She is darker than Dresden, she likes her power.
And as has been said multiple times over, the Mantle eventually shapes the occupant to look like the previous one, because they are imitating the Mantle. Lilly would have eventually been near indistinguishable from Aurora, eventually. Look up Dresden's interactions with Lilly post Summer Knight. Jim spells it out.
-
The Fae can be killed, Aurora was killed by steel box knives, Maeve, by a bullet, Lily, by a bullet.
Jim is going by the Tolkien rule for elves, they are basically immortal but they can be killed by violence.
-
How was Maeve atypical? What do you base that on? Whilst she did become infected and such, she actually left her role the same way as some Queens before her - feet first. If anything, she is typical.
Molly won't end like what exactly? Death? Or won't become the Winter Lady? Because, I hate to tell you, she probably will. She is darker than Dresden, she likes her power.
And as has been said multiple times over, the Mantle eventually shapes the occupant to look like the previous one, because they are imitating the Mantle. Lilly would have eventually been near indistinguishable from Aurora, eventually. Look up Dresden's interactions with Lilly post Summer Knight. Jim spells it out.
Maeve did not do her job for more than a century. She was not that old as a queen so I think one of the reasons she could make a deal with nemesis is that her whole personality under the mantle was intact.
She was resisting her mantle. See also Sarissa’s remark about her boyfriends in Cold Days. That deal with nemesis did not come out of thin air.
Besides I do not think Bob is completely correct here. He is somewhat pessimistic just like he thought Harry’s conversion to a monster would be fast and inevitable. Mother summer did not agree. We do not have the complete picture but it is far more complicated than Bob tells us.
-
Besides I do not think Bob is completely correct here. He is somewhat pessimistic just like he thought Harry’s conversion to a monster would be fast and inevitable. Mother summer did not agree. We do not have the complete picture but it is far more complicated than Bob tells us.
We also have to consider Bob's point of view, he and Mab have issues, which may color his opinion on matters concerning the mantles of both Summer and Winter Courts. There are things that Bob may know about but not have understanding of. Harry says that in Cold Days concerning the soul and soul fire when Mother Winter had him pinned to the ground and he used it to throw her off.
page 317 Cold Days
Bob is brilliant, but there are some things he just doesn't get. His definition was a good place to get started, but it was also something that was perhaps too comfortably quantifiable.
In other words Bob may be able to define what the mantles are, say even what they do and mostly how they affect the holder, but not everything. The results are not always the same, a lot depends on the strength of personality and will of the holder, Harry as opposed to Slate, Lily as opposed to Aurora, Maeve as opposed to Molly, this is beyond Bob's expertise.
-
The Fae can be killed, Aurora was killed by steel box knives, Maeve, by a bullet, Lily, by a bullet.
Jim is going by the Tolkien rule for elves, they are basically immortal but they can be killed by violence.
Only at certain times/places, according to Cold Days:
“Right, then!” Bob said. “The only way to kill an immortal is at certain specific places.”
“And you know one? Where?”
“Hah, already you’re making a human assumption. There are more than three dimensions, Harry. Not all places are in space. Some of them are places in time. They’re called conjunctions.”
Otherwise...:
“Maeve’s an immortal, Harry. One of the least of the immortals, maybe, but immortal all the same. Chop her up if you want to. Burn her. Scatter her ashes to the winds. But it won’t kill her. She’ll be back. Maybe in months, maybe years, but you can’t just kill her. She’s the Winter Lady.”
-
Quote
“Maeve’s an immortal, Harry. One of the least of the immortals, maybe, but immortal all the same. Chop her up if you want to. Burn her. Scatter her ashes to the winds. But it won’t kill her. She’ll be back. Maybe in months, maybe years, but you can’t just kill her. She’s the Winter Lady.”
But does that apply after their mantle has found a new vessel? The mantle is immortal, but the vessel is only as long as then mantle resides with in the vessel. Aurora did die, the mantle left her body and entered the body of Lily. Maeve, the vessel died, the mantle of the Winter Lady moved on to Molly, that is the immortal part.
-
I think the implication is that the mantle only moved on because of where Aurora was. If she'd been on the streets of Chicago on Sept 8th, Aurora would have popped up somewhere as more or less the same being. It could be that even if the power had returned to Titania like it's supposed to, Aurora would have "survived."
-
I think the implication is that the mantle only moved on because of where Aurora was. If she'd been on the streets of Chicago on Sept 8th, Aurora would have popped up somewhere as more or less the same being. It could be that even if the power had returned to Titania like it's supposed to, Aurora would have "survived."
page 295 Summer Knight
She was merely a vessel, the mantle is passed on to a reflection of itself.
-
page 295 Summer Knight
She was merely a vessel, the mantle is passed on to a reflection of itself.
Harry was only able to kill her permanently because of where she was:
I frowned. “Huh? I killed the Summer Lady just fine.”
Bob made a frustrated sound. “Yeah, but that was because you were in the right place to do it.”
“How’s that?”
“Mab and Titania created that place specifically to be a killing ground for immortals, a place where balances of power are supposed to change. They’ve got to have a location like that for the important fights—otherwise nothing really gets decided. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and cannon fodder.”
Butcher, Jim. Cold Days (The Dresden Files, Book 14) (p. 95). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
-
However as Harry has pointed out, Bob doesn't know everything.. Maeve and Lily were killed on
Demonreach island, the mantles have moved on. Is this another special place for killing? They are dead, were they not, the mantles would not have moved on.
-
It was Halloween.
-
When the supernatural in the series refers to Mortals, they are referring to beings with Free Will.
Not always. They're kind of sloppy with the term. Sometimes wizards aren't considered mortals and sometimes they are.
See also Sarissa’s remark about her boyfriends in Cold Days. That deal with nemesis did not come out of thin air.
That sounds like a reference to what we saw unfold in Cold Case.
The Fae can be killed, Aurora was killed by steel box knives, Maeve, by a bullet, Lily, by a bullet.
Jim is going by the Tolkien rule for elves, they are basically immortal but they can be killed by violence.
No one is arguing that Fae can't be killed. Fae are killed left and right. The statement is that immortals can't be killed. That's why they're immortals. We learn in Cold Days that immortals can be killed at/during certain conjunctions.
And I say statement because there's no need to make an argument over that point. It's explicit. If you're going to say that the Lady's aren't immortal, you've got the burden to come with an argument other than "they aren't immortals because they were killed during what we've been told are conjunctions where immortals can be killed."
-
No one is arguing that Fae can't be killed. Fae are killed left and right. The statement is that immortals can't be killed. That's why they're immortals. We learn in Cold Days that immortals can be killed at/during certain conjunctions.
And I say statement because there's no need to make an argument over that point. It's explicit. If you're going to say that the Lady's aren't immortal, you've got the burden to come with an argument other than "they aren't immortals because they were killed during what we've been told are conjunctions where immortals can be killed."
Dead is dead, there may be conditions, times, and places only that they can be killed.. But dead is dead. That is why I mentioned that Jim seems to be going by Tolkien's rule for elves, they are immortal for the most part, but they can be killed in battle, lots of dead elves haunting the Dead Marshes for example.
Titania wouldn't be so upset if she knew for a fact that Aurora would live again, she isn't.
-
That sounds like a reference to what we saw unfold in Cold Case.
Yes and I got the impression that she kept trying. Something Molly would never do.
-
Mira, not to be rude, but you are being stubborn. Didymos has shown you evidence, and you are refusing it because it doesn't line up with your theory. Sorry, but you're wrong.
As for the whole Bob doesn't know everything...Harry's opinion on Bob is subjective, not objective. So Harry could be wrong about Bob, according to you logic. See the issue?
Besides which that was just poor writing on Jim's part. I have pointed it out before but the "revelation" about Soulfire that Harry has in Cold Days is almost exactly the same as Bob's explanation of it to him in Small Favor when he first gets it. I know Jim gets to read several different versions of each book so he forgets sometimes what he has written, and is often very busy both professionally and personally (he is only human after all) but nonetheless, it was almost a flat out error. But I love his work, so I make it work in my head. But looking at it dispassionately it is poor form.
So to repeat:
Immortals are qualitatively different from mortals. They can only be truly killed in certain places in space (Chicago-above-Chicago) and time (conjunctions - Halloween). They are not the same as the Elves of middle-earth, although normal Fae might be similar. Immortals like Hades, Mab, the Mothers, Angels and the Ladies can be burned, chopped up or shot etc but will always reform, unless killed in those specific circumstances mentioned above. Then the actual holder of the mantle changes, and the mantle can be consumed. That's the whole plot of Summer Knight, trying to absorb the energy of the Knight to unbalance the Courts. And is also what Bob talks about when he is explaining his secret in Cold Days, that this is how Immortals feed/run free. That was why Bob's information was so dangerous it warranted his destruction.
-
Immortals are qualitatively different from mortals. They can only be truly killed in certain places in space (Chicago-above-Chicago
Thank you for making my argument.. If they can die under any circumstances no matter how special they are not truly immortal. Uriel is immortal, the fallen trapped in the coins are, Vadderung most likely is, many of the inmates on Demonreach most likely are, but the Ladies and the Queens are not, simply because in certain places under certain conditions they can be killed.
-
They're called immortals in the text.
-
The closer you look at this the less there is to see. Immortality is an inferred state. It's meaningless in any true sense. You can't see the endpoints. How would you know the White God can't be killed? All Bob can know is that the WG hasn't been killed yet. In the books, immortality means precisely what Butcher needs it to mean.
Immortals are qualitatively different from mortals. They can only be truly killed in certain places in space (Chicago-above-Chicago) and time (conjunctions - Halloween)..
I'll point out the problem. If this is true why not detonate Demonreach on Halloween? Use the banefire and end the problem forever. Obviously an eternal prison was way cooler, storywise. And I'm not seeing why this would make any difference to Norse God like Odin.
Probably the closest Jim has come to making sense of this is considering it in terms of matter and energy, which can change state but not be destroyed. Which is what immortals are doing during Halloween and Chicago over Chicago.
A slight digression here. Have you ever considered why Maeve was so pissed? I'll share my opinion. Momma turned Maeve into an eternal virgin while Sarissa got eternal youth without all the silly limitations. Talk about screwed? :o
Well, carry on.
-
A slight digression here. Have you ever considered why Maeve was so pissed? I'll share my opinion. Momma turned Maeve into an eternal virgin while Sarissa got eternal youth without all the silly limitations. Talk about screwed? :o
I thought that was obvious.
But here you see the difference between Maeve and Molly.
Maeve thinks I am screwed, I get everything else screwed even more.
Molly thinks I have a duty, it is really important, get over it.
-
They're called immortals in the text.
Perhaps, but if there is a way to kill them, they aren't. Yes, if nothing happens to where they are plotted against and murdered under the right conditions, so immortal, but there are loop holes for the sake of the plot if nothing else.
The closer you look at this the less there is to see. Immortality is an inferred state. It's meaningless in any true sense. You can't see the endpoints. How would you know the White God can't be killed? All Bob can know is that the WG hasn't been killed yet. In the books, immortality means precisely what Butcher needs it to mean.
Exactly, loop holes to be used by the author to further the plot.. If Aurora, Maeve, or Lily need to die to further the plot, Jim will dream up a loop hole so they can be killed, Halloween, the Stone Table, whatever..
A slight digression here. Have you ever considered why Maeve was so pissed? I'll share my opinion. Momma turned Maeve into an eternal virgin while Sarissa got eternal youth without all the silly limitations. Talk about screwed? :o
Indeed.. ::) No doubt as time goes on Molly will be a bit pissed about it also.. It also may account for Mab's sadistic application of sex when needed to her knight.. It was used to inflict pain on Slate, and to make Harry supposedly hers...
-
Indeed.. ::) No doubt as time goes on Molly will be a bit pissed about it also.. It also may account for Mab's sadistic application of sex when needed to her knight.. It was used to inflict pain on Slate, and to make Harry supposedly hers...
I have high hopes that Molly will escape from the trap she is currently in. Most likely by Mab having the good grace to take one for the team, thus getting a promotion for Molly. Of all the devices used in the book, this is the only one that offends me.
-
I have high hopes that Molly will escape from the trap she is currently in. Most likely by Mab having the good grace to take one for the team, thus getting a promotion for Molly. Of all the devices used in the book, this is the only one that offends me.
It's possible she could abdicate. Mother Summer once did, according to WOJ (https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,11033.msg494010.html#msg494010). Don't see why the other queens couldn't.
-
The problem with blowing up Demonreach isn't that the occupants would survive, it's that a large part of the continent would go with it.
-
It's possible she could abdicate. Mother Summer once did, according to WOJ (https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,11033.msg494010.html#msg494010). Don't see why the other queens couldn't.
Difficult. Both Mab and Molly have one thing in common. A very strong sense of duty.
-
... I have pointed it out before but the "revelation" about Soulfire that Harry has in Cold Days is almost exactly the same as Bob's explanation of it to him in Small Favor when he first gets it. I know Jim gets to read several different versions of each book so he forgets sometimes what he has written, and is often very busy both professionally and personally (he is only human after all) but nonetheless, it was almost a flat out error ...
Don't forget that Jim, as a working professional author, may add such repetition to aid the understanding of at new readers, who haven't been following his work for a decade or more, aren't busy on forums like this one, obsessively deconstructing the plot, the metaplot, the vocabulary, the universe, & the metaverse ...
;D
(which reminds me, I've gotta get my new WAGs posted soon...)
-
The problem with blowing up Demonreach isn't that the occupants would survive, it's that a large part of the continent would go with it.
You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ;)
-
Not always. They're kind of sloppy with the term. Sometimes wizards aren't considered mortals and sometimes they are.
Perhaps, but really what is meant is the difference between the supernatural community and the natural one; muggles and magical worlds (to use JK Rowling's term). When they refer to Mortal Magic (such as when summoning Outsiders) there is a qualitative difference between it and vampire magic, yet also seems to be a difference between Faeries and their Monarchs, between Gods and their servants. Jim is rather loose with his terms, but that is probably because the terms are loose intrinsically, and so is their usage today. It would be more helpful if Jim had specific nouns for such things, but I imagine he didn't want the reader to need a glossary to read his book (rather like another famous author).
Dead is dead, there may be conditions, times, and places only that they can be killed.. But dead is dead. That is why I mentioned that Jim seems to be going by Tolkien's rule for elves, they are immortal for the most part, but they can be killed in battle, lots of dead elves haunting the Dead Marshes for example.
Titania wouldn't be so upset if she knew for a fact that Aurora would live again, she isn't.
Actually, dead isn't dead - at least not in the Dresden Files anyway. We may not know about the Fae afterlife (or if they have one) but we have been repeatedly told that death is a squishy line, a spectrum of colors in the Dresden Files. Titania was upset that her daughter was gone beyond her reach. But even regular people who believe in an afterlife get upset when a loved one dies. Why should Titania be any different? Life has more meaning than the idea that we do or do not get an afterlife.
Except your Tolkien analogy is not strong enough. Tolkien's elves were eternally young, and immune to disease. But could be killed by conventional methods, such as in battle or by falling over and breaking their neck. They had a "mortal" biology. Immortals, at least in the Dresden Files, are not like that. If they can be damaged at all, they always eventually regenerate, with the will returning to the beings corporeal form. However, in the specific circumstances I have previously mentioned, the beings essence is changed. Perhaps they are absorbed, or the energy moves to another host (such as the Mantle of the Winter Lady to Molly), I suspect that couldn't have happened in almost any other circumstances. Consider the Mothers to Harry in Summer Knight:
"But think, wizard. How was it done? Theft is theft, whether the prize is food, or riches, or beauty or power."
Since it didn't seem to matter either way, I did my thinking out loud. "When something is stolen a couple of things can happen to it. It can be carried away where it cannot be reached."
"Hoarded," Summer put in. "Such as the dragons do."
"Yeah, okay. Uh, it can be destroyed."
"No, it can't," Mother Winter said. "Your own sage tells you that. The German fellow with the wild hair."
"Einstein," I muttered. "Okay, then, but it can be rendered valueless. Or it can be sold to someone else."
Mother Summer nodded. "Both of which are change. "
I held up a hand. "Hold it, hold it. Look, as I understand it, this power of the Summer Knight, his mantle, it can't just exist on its own. It has to be inside a vessel."
"Yes," Winter murmured. "Within one of the Queens, or within the Knight."
This is pretty much exactly what Bob is talking about, but on a much more significant scale. The power within Immortals can't be stolen under normal circumstances, their essences cannot be hoarded, rendered valueless, given away or absorbed. If you think of the vessel of immortality being a time-lock safe, and the power within is the valuables, it can only be opened at certain times (or in the case of immortals, certain places too).
Morris is right, don't get too hung up on the standard definition of the word immortal. Jim has reinvented the term to fit his own purposes within his universe. Go off that evidence. If you go off the standard definition, then nothing (not Uriel, not the Fallen, not even the White God) would be immortal - at least according to the series. But they are a category in the series, and therefore must be examined from that base, not from our own notions. Note what Bob actually says in this passage:
"I know how to kill an immortal."
"Like Maeve?" I asked him.
"Maeve," Bob said. "Mab. Mother Winter. Any of them"
...
If the skull knew how to subtract the im from immortal
Any of them. Any immortal is mortal on Earth on Halloween. Uriel is in that category. Although you actually have to be able to still damage them, which might be hard enough anyway. And they still will fight back probably.
Consider this as well:
“Because there’s no reason for it,” Bob said, his tone unhappy. “I mean, when Maeve dies, there will just be another Maeve.”
I frowned. “What do you mean?”
Bob sighed. “You keep thinking of the Faerie Queens as specific individuals, Harry,” Bob said. “But they aren’t individuals. They’re mantles of power, roles, positions. The person in them is basically an interchangeable part.”
“What, like being the Winter Knight is?”
“Exactly like that,” Bob said. “When you killed Slate, the power, the mantle, just transferred over to you. It’s the same for the Queens of Faerie. Maeve wears the mantle of the Winter Lady. Kill her, and you’ll just get a new Winter Lady.”
“Maybe that’s what Mab wants,” I said.
“Doesn’t track,” Bob said.
“Why not?” I asked.
“Because the mantle changes whoever wears it.”
My guts felt suddenly cold.
(I’m not Lloyd Slate.)
(Neither was he. Not at first.)
“Doesn’t matter who it is,” Bob prattled on. “Over time, it changes them. Somewhere down the line, you wouldn’t be able to find much difference between Maeve and her successor. Meet the new Maeve. Same as the old Maeve.”
I swallowed. “So . . . so Lily, who took the Summer Lady’s mantle after I killed Aurora . . .”
“It’s been what? Ten years or so? She’s gone by now, or getting there,” Bob said. “Give it another decade or two, tops, and she might as well be Aurora.”
Just because the safe is unlocked, doesn't mean that the valuables are lost. The will that drives the mantle changes, but the mantle can be left intact.
In fact there are only a few ways we know of to truly get rid of Immortals. Banishment to oblivion, by causing humanity to forget them is one way. Absorbing them into another being and creating something else would be another.
Morris - Thank you, you understand the issue. To answer your problem, it is because they wouldn't have died, they would have reformed. They would have been released on November 1st and therefore the banefire would have only put them down for a while, not in any permanent sense. Possibly that is why Maeve was angry...it is certainly implied to some degree. But it could also be that she wanted to be the favorite. At the end of the day, she eventually gave up. Also, I think it rather defeats the purpose if you kill most of the mortals - an explosion that separated a continent might well end life on Earth. Think about what one meteor did for the dinosaurs!
Arjan - Maeve may not have been unhappy with the job originally. Consider that. Molly has only just begun her career. She might feel differently in 50 years or 100 years when all her family is dead.
g33k - I quite agree that he might have done it for that reason, but it was inelegantly done. It creates conflicts!
-
“To fulfill one’s purpose is not to be a slave, my daughter,” Mab said.
Maeve never understood that. I think she was rebelling against her job from the beginning.
-
Perhaps, but it is an assumption nonetheless. We don't have anything about Maeve from that time, none of her thoughts or actions and no WOJ. So it's all just speculation.
-
Maeve never understood that. I think she was rebelling against her job from the beginning.
I'd agree with that, not only that but resentment towards her sister, while she had all the glory of her title and job, Sarissa got all the joy of living like a normal mortal woman. What was worse, it sounds like Sarissa had a loving mother/daughter thing going with their mother.. Now the last person you'd think capable of that would be Mab, but apparently that was true as well. So it isn't rocket science that Maeve would feel resentment, anger, then rebellion towards her mother, sister, her job, the whole Winter Court. Like one is suseptable to illness if one's immunity is low, this long standing emotional state made Maeve very suseptable to Nemesis infection. Once infected, she never had a chance. If Mab feels grief and guilt over her daughter, it isn't because she didn't recognize the Knife was the source of the infection in time, it was her own actions made her daughter fatally vulnerable to it.
Perhaps, but it is an assumption nonetheless. We don't have anything about Maeve from that time, none of her thoughts or actions and no WOJ. So it's all just speculation.
However we do have the tale that Sarissa tells of her life, her relationship with their mother and how it affected Maeve. Maeve's story is pretty clear from that, and if we heard it from Maeve I bet it would be a lot worse.
-
I think that's a fair analysis. Although I don't know it was a "loving" mother/daughter thing in a way that makes sense to us. They certainly displayed their affection differently. But they were definitely closer than Mab and Maeve were.
From the beginning is just speculation though.
Didn't Maeve also have a congenital defect, that manifested differently than Sarissa's yet was just as much a burden? I seem to remember the implication was that it contributed to her state of mind.
-
I think that's a fair analysis. Although I don't know it was a "loving" mother/daughter thing in a way that makes sense to us. They certainly displayed their affection differently. But they were definitely closer than Mab and Maeve were.
From the beginning is just speculation though.
Didn't Maeve also have a congenital defect, that manifested differently than Sarissa's yet was just as much a burden? I seem to remember the implication was that it contributed to her state of mind.
I need to go back and read, but I seem to remember that bit about the defect also. Though weren't Maeve and Sarissa twins? However I don't remember whether or not they were identical or not. While it may not be loving as we understand it, it doesn't mean it wasn't either. We know the Fae are different from humans, but Mab was human once, and if the father of Maeve and Sarissa was a mortal man, they would be half human, so human emotion cannot be totally excluded either. It is interesting that Mab would even have that kind of contact with Sarissa if she was devoid of feeling. Actually when you think about it, we know that Mab feels and can express great anger, that is an emotion, a very human one, so why not love?
-
I need to go back and read, but I seem to remember that bit about the defect also. Though weren't Maeve and Sarissa twins? However I don't remember whether or not they were identical or not. While it may not be loving as we understand it, it doesn't mean it wasn't either. We know the Fae are different from humans, but Mab was human once, and if the father of Maeve and Sarissa was a mortal man, they would be half human, so human emotion cannot be totally excluded either. It is interesting that Mab would even have that kind of contact with Sarissa if she was devoid of feeling. Actually when you think about it, we know that Mab feels and can express great anger, that is an emotion, a very human one, so why not love?
All basic emotions are there, Lea describes in Changes how she felt shame that drove her to seek Mab's aid for example and Titania was very explicit about the emotions she felt when Harry summoned her.
The one emotion mortals seem to monopolize is true love. One might think that is just a nice story created so humans can feel superior in having the sole right on this superior emotion but Mab seems to agree when she thought Thomas mortal enough for knighthood because he was in love.
-
The whole point of the show on the mountain was about Mab's love of Maeve. She discovers she's been taken by the Adversary in PG and Becomes so angry that she can't speak without driving people mad. And in the end Mab still can't make herself do what must be done. So she frees Murphy to kill her. This is some of Jim's best writing.
I thought that was obvious.
But here you see the difference between Maeve and Molly.
Maeve thinks I am screwed, I get everything else screwed even more.
Molly thinks I have a duty, it is really important, get over it.
We'll see. Molly has impulse control issues as well and has shown an unnerving tendency to value her own opinion pretty highly. In Turn Coat the only thing that kept her from running afoul of the Council was Morgan's decision not to share what he knew. That Molly had invaded Luccio's mind.
-
The whole point of the show on the mountain was about Mab's love of Maeve. She discovers she's been taken by the Adversary in PG and Becomes so angry that she can't speak without driving people mad. And in the end Mab still can't make herself do what must be done. So she frees Murphy to kill her. This is some of Jim's best writing.We'll see. Molly has impulse control issues as well and has shown an unnerving tendency to value her own opinion pretty highly. In Turn Coat the only thing that kept her from running afoul of the Council was Morgan's decision not to share what he knew. That Molly had invaded Luccio's mind.
Molly was quite young at that time and showed continuous improvement over time in sometimes difficult circumstances.
-
The whole point of the show on the mountain was about Mab's love of Maeve. She discovers she's been taken by the Adversary in PG and Becomes so angry that she can't speak without driving people mad. And in the end Mab still can't make herself do what must be done. So she frees Murphy to kill her.
At the same time she can control her emotions, at this point anyway she isn't seeking revenge on Murphy. I think it can go either way, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was Mab herself that had moved Murphy's trigger finger. Contrast to Titania wild grief over Aurora even though she knows full well that she also had to be taken down. However I think a lot of it is how she was taken down, by steel in the hands of the least of the fae..
-
Mira - I would be shocked. It would defeat the purpose of most of the book and Harry's mission. If Mab was capable emotionally of killing Maeve, she would have from the beginning. But I think she did know that Murphy would protect Dresden. Titania's rage is just the opposite of Mab's rage, which makes sense. Yeah I believe that Maeve and Sarissa were twins. I guess my reasons for believing that Sarissa and Mab wouldn't have a very normal loving relationship is that wouldn't be how Mab would do it. She is more like, "let's go clubbing and have crazy sex" or "let's see how can kill the most elk with only our hands on a hunting trip". Not traditional mother/daughter bonding activities. Also clearly the type of parent who believes you should learn through surviving.
Morris - I agree, was a powerful scene I think. Yeah, Molly in some ways has been saved by the mantle. I think she could well have gone darkside otherwise. One of Dresden's most incredible qualities is that he tries to be a good man, despite having every reason not to. I highly doubt Molly would have dealt half as well.
I think the closer to the mortal world a supernatural being or race is, the closer they emulate it. Including emotions. The White Court are a great example, as are the Fae to a point. However. Humanity are the benchmark, so it seems that no other race feels emotions the way they do and have the impact they do. No idea what to make of the Forrest People, but I would say they are somewhere in between human and Fae.
-
Emotions are not typical human. Everything that has a survival instinct knows fear if it has enough intelligence to understand danger.
Magic has everything to do with emotions. Life has everything to do with emotions and magic comes from life. I think that is the reason the Sidhe are highly emotional. Maybe not the emotion we humans value most but highly emotional nonetheless.
Mab values restraint and control because she needs them.
-
Mira - I would be shocked. It would defeat the purpose of most of the book and Harry's mission. If Mab was capable emotionally of killing Maeve, she would have from the beginning. But I think she did know that Murphy would protect Dresden. Titania's rage is just the opposite of Mab's rage, which makes sense. Yeah I believe that Maeve and Sarissa were twins. I guess my reasons for believing that Sarissa and Mab wouldn't have a very normal loving relationship is that wouldn't be how Mab would do it. She is more like, "let's go clubbing and have crazy sex" or "let's see how can kill the most elk with only our hands on a hunting trip". Not traditional mother/daughter bonding activities. Also clearly the type of parent who believes you should learn through surviving.
Why would you be shocked? She ordered the hit in the first place, had her replacement ready to go, though that didn't quite work out as she had planned. Yes, Sarissa and Mab apparently enjoyed going to the opera together, sporting events, so yeah, ordinary mother/daughter mortal things together. The only way Murphy could have gotten her hand free from the enchanted black ice, was by Mab's hand, her hand had to be totally numb from that, not very good for grabbing anything fast, let alone aiming a gun and pulling the trigger as fast as it had to be done. Mab moves her finger and it happened, no, Mab in the end killed her daughter. She understood it had to be done, while she rather someone else did it, and perhaps can rationalize that Murphy did it, it was Mab who did it. She did love Maeve, that is why she blinded herself to her antics for so so long, but an infected Maeve was another story, she had to be put down. Mab is a true queen, she believes in duty and did as painful as it was, what had to be done because there was no choice.. It was no accident that Maeve was going on about choices just before she was shot. She thought her mother was out of choices, she thought she had won the game of chess, she was wrong.
-
Why would you be shocked? She ordered the hit in the first place, had her replacement ready to go, though that didn't quite work out as she had planned. Yes, Sarissa and Mab apparently enjoyed going to the opera together, sporting events, so yeah, ordinary mother/daughter mortal things together. The only way Murphy could have gotten her hand free from the enchanted black ice, was by Mab's hand, her hand had to be totally numb from that, not very good for grabbing anything fast, let alone aiming a gun and pulling the trigger as fast as it had to be done. Mab moves her finger and it happened, no, Mab in the end killed her daughter. She understood it had to be done, while she rather someone else did it, and perhaps can rationalize that Murphy did it, it was Mab who did it. She did love Maeve, that is why she blinded herself to her antics for so so long, but an infected Maeve was another story, she had to be put down. Mab is a true queen, she believes in duty and did as painful as it was, what had to be done because there was no choice.. It was no accident that Maeve was going on about choices just before she was shot. She thought her mother was out of choices, she thought she had won the game of chess, she was wrong.
Mab enabled Murphy. She melted the ice which was not normal ice anyway. There were no complains about numbness anyway.
I do not think Mab could have directed Karen's hand, there was no deal or debt between them strong enough for that. Mab could only hurt Harry because of that deal.
There was also no complaint about ice damage afterwards. I do not think the ice made her numb at all.
-
Mab enabled Murphy. She melted the ice which was not normal ice anyway. There were no complains about numbness anyway.
I do not think Mab could have directed Karen's hand, there was no deal or debt between them strong enough for that. Mab could only hurt Harry because of that deal.
There was also no complaint about ice damage afterwards. I do not think the ice made her numb at all.
No deal was needed, Mab had it all planned out, Murphy was just part of the gun or tool that killed Maeve.. You are mistaken as far as thinking any kind of deal between Mab and Murphy would have hurt Harry.. On the contrary, if Murphy had bargained to kill Maeve, or if Mab felt it would put her in debt to Murphy, the first thing Murphy would ask for is Harry's freedom. Mab's plans did backfire a little as far as she wanted Sarissa and not Molly to be her Winter Lady. Mab also has shown if she wants to manipulate a mortal's hand she can, remember Harry's hand on the mail spike in Summer Knight? Now I realize she had bought Harry's debt from Lea, so she could inflict harm on him.. However no harm was inflicted on Murphy, she was merely part of the weapon that Maeve had left lying around because she thought she had won, and Mab used it like any other pawn... Why do you think Harry asked her if it was hard to kill her daughter? Why do you think Murphy was a bit confused after it happened by asking, "what just happened?" I don't think she'd react quite that way if it was her deliberately shooting Maeve.
-
Mab can not just take over any mortal and make her do something. When Lea healed Harry in grave peril it was to show him that she had power over him because of his debt. Mab would and could not control Murphy in any way. She could only create the circumstances for her to act by melting the ice bindings.
Murphy knee what she was doing and she handled out of reflex trained most of her life. The confusion was about what happened to Molly and what was the meaning of everything that happened. I do not think the freezing harmed or numbed her al all.
-
Mab can not just take over any mortal and make her do something. When Lea healed Harry in grave peril it was to show him that she had power over him because of his debt. Mab would and could not control Murphy in any way. She could only create the circumstances for her to act by melting the ice bindings.
Murphy knee what she was doing and she handled out of reflex trained most of her life. The confusion was about what happened to Molly and what was the meaning of everything that happened. I do not think the freezing harmed or numbed her al all.
Wouldn't have happened at all without Mab, Harry knew something was up, Mab moved her finger, suddenly Murphy's hand was loose and she shot, she was merely a tool.
-
Wouldn't have happened at all without Mab, Harry knew something was up, Mab moved her finger, suddenly Murphy's hand was loose and she shot, she was merely a tool.
Mab would not agree. Karen was not in Mab’s service. Mab just made it accidentally possible for Karen to do what she wanted to do anyway by removing bounds her daughter should not have placed anyway.
-
Karrin’s hands flew out from behind her back in a shower of broken chips of black ice. She tore her little holdout gun from a concealed ankle holster.
“No!” I shouted.
Two shots rang out, almost simultaneously.
Something hissed spitefully past my ear. A neat, round black hole appeared just to the side of Maeve’s nose, at the fine line of her cheekbone.
Butcher, Jim. Cold Days (The Dresden Files, Book 14) (p. 506). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I'm sure Karrin would have mentioned that her hands moved by themselves when Harry spoke to her afterwards. She didn't. As to the "What just happened?", Karrin was referring to the weird light that flew out of Maeve and went into Molly, rendering her unconscious:
“Harry,” Karrin said. “What just happened? Is Molly all right?”
Butcher, Jim. Cold Days (The Dresden Files, Book 14) (p. 507). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
-
Mira, I appreciate the theory. I do. But it isn't fact, at least not yet. It doesn't say or give any indication in the text that Mab controlled Murphy in that scene, in that moment. And as far as I am aware there is no WOJ to support it either.
I do feel Jim could have explained better why after everyone being frozen there was no numbness and no damage to the firearm. But Arjan's explanation is as good as any here - it could well have been magical ice, or perhaps Mab removed the numbness.
Arjan is right -In Summer Knight Mab says this when controlling Dresden to make him stab himself with a letter opener
"Wizard, you know as well as I. Were you not bound to me, I would have no such power over you." At that moment, most of what I knew was that my hand hurt, but some dim part of me realized she was telling the truth. Faeries don't just get to ride in and play puppet master. You have to let them in. I'd let my godmother, Lea, in years before, when I was younger, dumber.
Summer Knight, ch 2, pg 20
And Bob explains it:
I frowned. "Hang on a minute. You mean that the Queens can't personally gun down anyone who isn't in their Court?"
"Not unless the target does something stupid like make an open-ended bargain without even trying to
trade a baby for—"
"Off topic, Bob. Do I or don't I have to worry about getting killed this time around?"
"Of course you do," Bob said in a cheerful tone. "It just means that the Queen isn't allowed to actually, personally end your life. They could, however, trick you into walking into quicksand and watch you drown, turn you into a stag and set the hounds after you, bind you into an enchanted sleep for a few hundred years, that kind of thing."
Summer Knight, ch 10, pg80
Queens can't just come in and play puppet master, they need a channel. A specific type of bargain with the person. Murphy didn't have that, so no possible way Mab could have done it - unless she made a bargain with Murphy off screen. But I really highly doubt it. Especially since as Lea points out to Michael, once they hold a Sword of the Cross they can shatter a compact easily enough. So it wouldn't be a sound long-term deal.
The thing is that Mab didn't need to pull the trigger anyway. She gave Murphy the freedom to act, she knew Murphy would do it. It would have been redundant.
The whole reason I would have been shocked, as I said, would be that it invalidates most of the story and Harry's mission. While she was pragmatic enough to accept she had to order her daughter's death, she couldn't be the one to plunge the knife in herself. She always has had the power but couldn't actually do it herself. Mother Winter confirms this when she says Mab is too much the romantic. Which probably tells you that if Mother Winter wanted to kill a Queen, they would just die.
As for Sarissa and Mab's hang outs, I always put that less down to bonding (at least on Mab's end) and more her learning about mortals. But I can understand it might not be that way, or that people might not see it like that. Mab certainly wouldn't be the type to hug or say I love you, so I suspect the closest she could do was spend time with her daughters and teach them as best she could. As Leah points out, that is a incredible gift "the dissemination of power from one generation to the next" which when you consider what Mab can teach them...is invaluable. I do imagine Maeve was the daughter who got the harsher training, which made her tougher (as befit her role, Mab wanted her daughter to be successful/survive - in her eyes the best thing she could do for her...talk about being cruel to be kind...). I expect she resented that Sarissa got the much softer and perhaps more enjoyable treatment (and freedom, as morris points out). But I don't think Sarissa was the favorite initially necessarily. Mab had to treat each child differently, based on their circumstances. Like most parents, Mab quite probably thought she was doing the best she could by them.
-
Mab would not agree. Karen was not in Mab’s service. Mab just made it accidentally possible for Karen to do what she wanted to do anyway by removing bounds her daughter should not have placed anyway.
That was no accident... Lily was dead so her mantle went to Sarissa... Maeve didn't know about Molly, but Mab did...
I'm sure Karrin would have mentioned that her hands moved by themselves when Harry spoke to her afterwards. She didn't. As to the "What just happened?", Karrin was referring to the weird light that flew out of Maeve and went into Molly, rendering her unconscious:
Would she? She had just witness what happened when Lily died and her mantle moved to Sarissa..
If it wasn't Mab who killed Maeve, why did Harry ask her this question?
page 503 Cold Days..
"Was it hard for you to kill Maeve?
He didn't ask if it was hard for her to watch Murphy do it... Nor did he ask if was hard to turn Murphy loose so she could accidently kill Maeve.. It was a direct question to Mab, "Was it hard for you to kill Maeve?"
It was Halloween, so maybe the rules change for Queens wanting to kill their daughters that need killing? Maybe Mab used a loop hole, [something she is good at by the way and why you do not
bargain with the Fae] if she manipulated Murphy's hands, technically it wasn't her... Harry knows
who killed Maeve, that is who he addressed his question to, Mab.. I repeat, "Was it hard for you to kill Maeve?"
-
I think you're reading that a bit literally.
If you order someone's death, you a still guilty of conspiracy to murder. Just because you don't pull the trigger yourself doesn't make that any less terrible.
Jim's writing could have been clearer I suppose. He could have written "Was it hard for you to allow Maeve to be killed?". Which would have been more clear and more obvious. But writing isn't really about that. It is much more about being real. When you construct dialogue it is just as much for the benefit of the reader to understand it logically as to connect to them, emotionally. Readers won't believe a scene if the dialogue doesn't feel natural. You'll also notice that Mab doesn't answer that question directly. She answers "I was mortal once, you know". While she is implying that she still feels enough of her old mortal self to care, to feel loss and grief and rage and pain, she doesn't actually agree that she pulled the trigger. So if we take her literally, and read sentences that literally, then you certainly cannot say she did kill Maeve.
In fact Harry initially asks "Was it hard for you? Tonight?" and she just can't answer. He then says "“Even tonight, with everything going to hell, you couldn’t hurt her,” . Which to me says implies that despite it all, she couldn't be the one to pull the trigger herself. She still needed an agent to act for her. Harry was her initial agent and just like with Aurora, his agent acted for him. I suppose you could think of it as Harry being Mab's weapon, and Murphy being his.
-
If it wasn't Mab who killed Maeve, why did Harry ask her this question?
Of course Mab killed Maeve. She sent her Knight to carry out her will as his Queen. You were given the Mab's law in the first chapter.Blood may not be spilled upon the floor of the Court without the Queens express command.
Maeve died in the first chapter. She just didn't quit breathing until there on Demonreach.
-
Of course Mab killed Maeve. She sent her Knight to carry out her will as his Queen. You were given the Mab's law in the first chapter.Maeve died in the first chapter. She just didn't quit breathing until there on Demonreach.
It is not about that. Mab ordered, manipulated, enabled.
But she did not use Karen as a puppet. She can not.
-
You're preaching to the choir. Murphy would have shot Mab if she thought Mab was going to shoot Harry. She's highly motivated in that respect.
-
You're preaching to the choir. Murphy would have shot Mab if she thought Mab was going to shoot Harry. She's highly motivated in that respect.
I know but for some reason people think Mab was moving her hand literally.
-
One of the biggest reasons to be afraid of Mab is that she doesn't need to possess you in order to control your movements. Murphy was an agent of Mab's will but there was no magic involved.
ETA: Regarding Tolkien's cosmology, death is not when the corporeal form ceases to sustain life but when the spirit passes beyond the boundaries of the world. Elf spirits go hang out in an actual physical space in the world and can re-take physical form (I'm not sure if they do as a regular thing or if it's just limited to a few special cases). Human spirits are only around for a short time after death then they go somewhere else.
-
One of the biggest reasons to be afraid of Mab is that she doesn't need to possess you in order to control your movements. Murphy was an agent of Mab's will but there was no magic involved.
ETA: Regarding Tolkien's cosmology, death is not when the corporeal form ceases to sustain life but when the spirit passes beyond the boundaries of the world. Elf spirits go hang out in an actual physical space in the world and can re-take physical form (I'm not sure if they do as a regular thing or if it's just limited to a few special cases). Human spirits are only around for a short time after death then they go somewhere else.
It gets tricky in Tolkien, according to Tolkien Gateway
The Elves did not suffer death from old age or disease, as do Men, but they could be slain by injuries and their own grief. Unlike the Valar, experiencing death (which is the separation of their fëa and hröa) violates the Elves' nature, since they were made to live as incarnate beings. The Elves were not free from change and aging, either, but they aged in a different sense than Men: the Elves became ever more weary of the world and burdened by its sorrows, and lived more in the past. In Middle-earth, their bodies would slowly be consumed by their spirits until they were little more than wraiths, in the Unseen. Yet, the Elves could escape this fate by traveling west to Aman.
The Elves are also bound to Arda and cannot escape it as long as it lasts, and can thus be reincarnated after their hröa is destroyed. When their fëa and hröa are separated, the fëa could travel to the Halls of Mandos. There they can either stay or be reincarnated with a new body identical to the previous hröa, after being released by Námo, and judged by Manwe and Varda to be absolved of any sins or regrets from their previous life. Once they were reincarnated they generally remain in Aman. There are only two Elves known to have left Aman after reincarnation, Glorfindel who was sent back to Middle-earth and Lúthien Tinúviel who was also sent back to Middle-earth as a mortal.
However, this same fact of their nature means that their fate after Arda's end is unknown; it seems that the Elves must die when Arda ends. They must rely on estel to give them hope that this will not be the case. For this reason, the envy often felt by mortals of the Elves' lifespans comes from ignorance of the nature of these lifespans.
Because the Elves can reincarnate, and because their fate after Arda's end is undiscernable, the life of the Elves is "serial longevity", not "immortality".
Murphy knew that Harry had called Mab to help against Maever, so it is unlikely that she'd think she was going to kill Harry.
I agree, Murphy was an angent of Mab's will.. It is significant that afterward Harry asked Mab twice about her killing of Maeve. The first time on the same page he merely asked if it was hard for her? He adds that she was her daughter and even with all that was at stake she had held back.. Then finally at the bottom of the page he is direct, "Was it hard for you to kill Maeve?" Mab sounds vulnerable, her answer is "I was mortal once, you know," she said, very quietly..
From the above, yes, however you want to slice it, Mab killed her daughter, and yes, it was hard because she still possesses a trace of human feeling..
-
Mira - pretty much what I was getting at about Tolkien Elven Immortality versus Dresden Files Immortality. Very different concepts, based on a real world belief that existed for much of history (and still does, depending on who you talk to). But both Butcher and Tolkien have transformed that into their own interpretations, which are quite different both from the source and from each other's works (although there are shades of Tolkien in Butcher's works).
As to the Mab literally, personally, physically killing Maeve debate...clearly this has to be an agree to disagree. You have your interpretation of the text, others have a different one. You are welcome to believe your interpretation of course. But I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with you on it, either. You have made your case but I think largely it has been rejected by the rest. You could be right and may well one day be vindicated, but for now let it rest. Your argument is not yet a fact - like a lot of what's in these forums we are all just speculating by and large. Let's just move on.
Noblehunter -
One of the biggest reasons to be afraid of Mab is that she doesn't need to possess you in order to control your movements. Murphy was an agent of Mab's will but there was no magic involved.
Please provide evidence of that fact. She literally says in Summer Knight (as I quoted earlier) that if a mortal ISN'T bound to her, she CANNOT override them and play puppet master. If you have any text or WOJ contradicting that, go ahead and enlighten me. Also, how can no magic be involved in Mab was puppeting Murphy? How else would she get it done? Electrodes taped to each of their brains/arms connecting them via a machine (technically possible but completely impractical and certainly not what happened in the text).
Getting back to the point of this thread: Harry using Black Magic. He has had a few instances we know of, however he appears to be not going full Warlock as they seem to be limited. Hard to tell though considering all the other things vying for his soul/sanity. Why isn't the taint affecting him OR how much black magic does it take before you go Warlock? The White Council seems to think that one violation is dangerous enough, with the pure exception of self-defense under very specific circumstances (and of course the Blackstaff..but that's a whole other thing). Perhaps it all about how much power goes to your head? When you start trying to shape the universe to your will? In fairness, that essentially is magic (enforcing your will to override the universe whether for good or bad reasons). Maybe it only really applies when your start trying to override other mortals Free Will (or take away their choices).
And another thing...in earlier books Harry noticed he had some taint in his own magic. Where do we think he is now compared to then? More or less?
-
Using black magic taints you, changes your nature. But free will is the ability to make choices against your own nature. It is difficult to do and most people don't but the coice is there not to go full warlock.
-
Hmm. I think that's only possible answer that suits the text. Interesting though that Harry mostly has resisted. But I wonder who else has used lots of Black Magic but hasn't gone full Warlock...Cowl might be a good example, and Kumori.
-
Hmm. I think that's only possible answer that suits the text. Interesting though that Harry mostly has resisted. But I wonder who else has used lots of Black Magic but hasn't gone full Warlock...Cowl might be a good example, and Kumori.
If you use it a lot then you do no have resisted it and you are a warlock. Not all warlocks get dysfunctional crazy probably because they have other goals in life but in real life the most dangerous lunatics are not in the asylum either.
-
Hmm. I think that's only possible answer that suits the text. Interesting though that Harry mostly has resisted. But I wonder who else has used lots of Black Magic but hasn't gone full Warlock...Cowl might be a good example, and Kumori.
Kumori is interesting because her magic doesn't feel like the other necromancers:
It felt strange somehow. Dawn had dispersed most of the energy that had been there, but even as an aftertaste of the magic that had been worked there, the cold was dizzying. I’d felt dark power similar to this before today—similar, but not identical. There was something about this that was unlike the horrible aura surrounding Grevane, or that I had sensed from wielders of black magic in my past. This was undeniably the same power, but it somehow lacked the greasy, nauseating sense of corruption I’d felt before.
Butcher, Jim. Dead Beat: A Novel of The Dresden Files (pp. 128-129). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.
-
As to the Mab literally, personally, physically killing Maeve debate...clearly this has to be an agree to disagree. You have your interpretation of the text, others have a different one. You are welcome to believe your interpretation of course. But I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with you on it, either. You have made your case but I think largely it has been rejected by the rest. You could be right and may well one day be vindicated, but for now let it rest. Your argument is not yet a fact - like a lot of what's in these forums we are all just speculating by and large. Let's just move on.
Nor has yours been proven, time will tell... Looking at the elephant's tail, Murphy pulled the trigger ergo, it was her, she saved the day... Verses the whole elephant, none of it would have happened had Harry not summoned Mab, who freed Murphy's hand, thus using her... Harry knows, Harry to Mab, "You didn't answer my question." I said. She stopped her back straight. "Was it hard for youto kill Maeve?" Not witness, not enable Murphy, but for Mab to kill her daughter.
Rest my case, yes, let's move on.
-
Noblehunter -
Please provide evidence of that fact. She literally says in Summer Knight (as I quoted earlier) that if a mortal ISN'T bound to her, she CANNOT override them and play puppet master. If you have any text or WOJ contradicting that, go ahead and enlighten me. Also, how can no magic be involved in Mab was puppeting Murphy? How else would she get it done? Electrodes taped to each of their brains/arms connecting them via a machine (technically possible but completely impractical and certainly not what happened in the text).
I was speaking metaphorically. It's the same way Mab gets Harry to do what she wants or the way Lash got Harry to kill himself.
-
If this is true why not detonate Demonreach on Halloween? Use the banefire and end the problem forever.
Maybe so you can put more "people" in the prison?
-
I was speaking metaphorically. It's the same way Mab gets Harry to do what she wants or the way Lash got Harry to kill himself.
My apologies, due the nature of the debate previously I assumed you were being literal. And I quite agree, Mab's ability to manipulate and influence and force people to do what she wants is second to none in the series.
Even if that were possible - pretty sure Demonreach wouldn't be a fan, the question is why Merlin and the following Wardens chose to imprison rather than kill all those nasties. We know Naagloshii are immortal, but I suspect the one that Morgan destroyed was merely put down for a time or else would have had to be blown up in a special place in space or time. My guess is either Merlin and his following Wardens didn't know how to kill immortals OR they thought trapping them was far easier, more efficient and better overall.
Even assuming you could live with the guilt of murdering millions of people and causing untold destruction yourself by blowing up Demonreach on Halloween - that energy of all those immortals has to go somewhere, it can't be destroyed. Mother Summer confirms this in Summer Knight. So I would guess it either goes out to Oblivion or Outside (assuming they are different places) or that energy goes into the Nevernever and something or a group of somethings get a whole lot of power to add to their own. You quite likely create a problem worse than the solution, is my point.
Not to mention, not only would Demonreach not cooperate with this plan (not in the least because it too would die, but it's primary function is to stop this event all together) but I imagine Vadderung, most of the Gray Council and several other interested parties wouldn't allow it, you know like the guys who primarily don't want to see an apocalypse. I would say there are a fair few (both good and bad) who are in the know and wouldn't like that outcome.
Kumori, Cowl and several others have had a distinctly different flavor of dark magic. My theory is that Harry's own bias has colored how he sees Dark Magic, and isn't aware of the mechanisms and subtleties all that much. Meaning if he knew the source of black magic, if he knew how corruption works, he might understand why Kumori and Cowl and himself have a different feel of black magic too them. And consider this: Justin was a bad guy using black magic, but he had been hiding his power while he was still considered a Warden. Not only that but Harry or Elaine would have felt the wrongness of Justin's magic if he had been horribly tainted, yet they didn't. Meaning there are nuances and tricks that Harry is blind to. Even Peabody quite likely hid his magical taint (assuming he had some). We know this is possible from WOJ.
Arjan, I think it's a lot more grey than that. I don't think it is so black and white as if you use too much you are a Warlock. The Council has definitions that don't necessarily match up with the universe's. Jim said something about that when people asked him about the Laws of Magic.
-
Maybe so you can put more "people" in the prison?
Have they put any new prisoners in? :oEven assuming you could live with the guilt of murdering millions of people and causing untold destruction yourself by blowing up Demonreach on Halloween - that energy of all those immortals has to go somewhere, it can't be destroyed. Mother Summer confirms this in Summer Knight. So I would guess it either goes out to Oblivion or Outside (assuming they are different places) or that energy goes into the Nevernever and something or a group of somethings get a whole lot of power to add to their own. You quite likely create a problem worse than the solution, is my point.
To the first, not my dimension, not my problem. To the second, it does what energy does, it radiates, probably flashes Lake Michigan to steam, something like that. And you may be over estimating the problem. Morgan nuked a nagwhatever and nobody ever noticed. ;)
-
Have they put any new prisoners in? :o
Either they have, or they managed to put all of them in there at once. I don't imagine the second is likely. Additionally, Harry seems to think he could have Alfred take Mab below in Skin Game. For those two reasons, I think they have or at least could.
-
Demonreach
I always thought the point of keeping Demonreach around was to use the prisoners for knowledge/ to power whatever spells the Warden feels is necessary. We have some inkling that Harry is going to use this power sometime in the future.
Mantles & the Ladies
Remember that Harry still had to kill Maeve on Halloween - my understanding from what Bob says in CD is that it wouldn’t take on any other day. While Bob might’ve just been talking about the mantle & it’s effect on it’s holder over time, remember that he was told that Maeve personally had to go not the Winter Lady mantle - he still believed that Maeve was an immortal.
This raises an interesting philosophical notion about mantles - if the holder is immortal, why is a mantle needed in the first place? Hades or Odin are not mantles & they are immortal, yet we know of several changes to the Sidhe royalty.
Black magic taint
I think the issue is that almost every wizard (especially the politically active/ combat type) has some level of black magic taint (agreed with Yuillegan that there are likely nuances) - perhaps managing to keep sane while performing black magic greatly reduces the taint? Cowl, Justin & Peabody were relatively sane where as the warlocks & Kemmlerites who ooze the stuff were noticeably less so. Or perhaps those who seek knowledge/ power from beyond the Outer Gates are also told of ways to minimize or disguise any such taint?
-
Morris, it might become your problem. If you bury a bunch of weapons in the desert, and a whole bunch of people (both good and bad) grab them, you can't really say not my problem when they come to your town.
Kbrizzle - Interesting idea about Demonreach. The most dangerous thing is that Harry has an army, or rather a menagerie perhaps, of monsters that he could send at anyone or free for power etc. But I don't see how it would power any spells that the Wardens use...apart from tapping into the Ley Line. But I believe Harry isn't yet able to do such a thing without being changed by it, or that is what Rashid believes. But I don't believe Demonreach was created to be a power source as its sole purpose...I don't think Merlin was that bad. But it is possible.
I think it is an assumption that Hades and Odin are immortal intrinsically. They could well be wearing mantles that allow that. We just don't know enough. I suppose that's true, Harry's mission was to kill Maeve. It wasn't to destroy the Mantle of the Winter Lady. Different tasks. But Maeve isn't intrinsically immortal any more than any other Fae. Lily could only be killed on Halloween, same with Maeve. But it was the Mantles they wore that provided that immortality. Hence why Molly is immortal now, and why Lily became so, and Maeve and Mab for that matter. Mab was mortal once, she even says it.
My guess about the differences between Gods and Sidhe Queens is probably to do with how the Queens were created and why. And what role the Gods originally had and how they came into being. The origins of the Erlking and Hecate provide some hint to this. And Vadderung hints to their purpose. Thomas outright says they existed to help mortals survive the old demons early on in humanity's history.
Your initial idea about Demonreach gave me an idea about black magic. Rashid actually implies that one day Dresden will be able to tap the extremely dark energy of Demonreach without being changed by it. Which says to me that over time a user could develop a natural resistance to black magic taint..and not necessarily need a Blackstaff. Perhaps even Rashid has experienced this. So I think your very close to the answer - it either is that like a immunity, exposure at "safe" levels makes you more resistant OR that there are ways of hiding the effects and perhaps Outsiders are linked to that.
-
Arjan, I think it's a lot more grey than that. I don't think it is so black and white as if you use too much you are a Warlock. The Council has definitions that don't necessarily match up with the universe's. Jim said something about that when people asked him about the Laws of Magic.
The council's laws are rough approximations which is inevitable because though black and white exist there is also a world of grays. But being a warlock does not necessarily mean you are a compulsive idiot solving all your problems with black magic without any insight in your situation.
It depends on your definition of warlock. The council would say that everyone who broke the laws is a warlock. That keeps things simple. All other definitions have grey areas build into them.
If you keep it more vague the term warlock tells you what you can expect from someone. It tells you something about his nature that can be changed using free will but so few people do.
The use of magic, not just law breaking magic, is strongly based on your nature and free willed choices to use your magic have a strong influence on your nature. The laws of magic shape the wizards believing in it. Lucio did not use magic to kill LaFortier because she could not even in the state she was in.
Black magic is said to be addictive so that has to be taken into account.
In that sense Harry is still a warlock, his barriers from using black magic are too low, he has to be carefull. But he tries not to use it and he is quite successful at that. In that sense he is not. If you trust him that is.
Grevaine was unhinged but he knew what he was doing and Cowl was actually avoiding breaking the laws if he did not think it necessary. But cowl is an outsider agent and that influence can disturb the picture. The same for Peabody.
That terminal state of crazyness the korean boy was in is not the only type of warlock and just the least dangerous one.
-
I should give up humor. The point, such that it was one, was in the plot to free the prisoners at Demonreach. Had they succeeded it would have set off the Banefire on Halloween. Bob's rule for immortals means that it would have permanently killed the inmates.(Including Maeve and Lily) Yet Harry implies otherwise.
-
I should give up humor. The point, such that it was one, was in the plot to free the prisoners at Demonreach. Had they succeeded it would have set off the Banefire on Halloween. Bob's rule for immortals means that it would have permanently killed the inmates.(Including Maeve and Lily) Yet Harry implies otherwise.
It would have killed the inmates but their mantles would find new hosts. The energy would find new ways to express. It would have taken them some time though to get back to their previous power and experience.
But that is why they are locked up. That buys even more time.
-
Why would the critters in Demonreach have mantles? To clarify. Odin wears any number of hats apparently, Santa, Vadderung for two. But Odin is Odin what would be left if Odin took it off?
-
Why would the critters in Demonreach have mantles? To clarify. Odin wears any number of hats apparently, Santa, Vadderung for two. But Odin is Odin what would be left if Odin took it off?
Mantles, masks, Grace, ...
There are all kinds of critters locked up in demonreach. At least some of them will have mantles and for most of them it will be useless to kill them in the long run, maybe because humans still know about them.
And who says that if Odin drops all his masks there won't be a perfectly ordinary norwegian left called Olaf?
-
@Yuillegan: Thomas doesn't say the gods existed to protect mortals from the old demons. He said that "in some parts of the world" "humans wouldn't have survived" without the help of those "old gods." (quotes from memory). At some point near that statement, Bob cites some Babylonian gods.
I should give up humor. The point, such that it was one, was in the plot to free the prisoners at Demonreach. Had they succeeded it would have set off the Banefire on Halloween. Bob's rule for immortals means that it would have permanently killed the inmates.(Including Maeve and Lily) Yet Harry implies otherwise.
If I recall correctly, while the attack was happening on Halloween, the explosion was going to happen on November 1st.
-
Have they put any new prisoners in? :o
I suspect it takes having an active Warden to do so.
We don't know how long the island operated with no Warden, when or who the last Warden was, or whether that Warden put anyone into the prison.
I suspect -- from that "weary British" voice Harry spoke to briefly at the beginning of Skin Game -- that it was sometime in the late 30's or early 40's: the usage seems to have originated specifically in 1934, based on an earlier (1920's) more mild version that was just a colloquial for "depart".
https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2018/08/30/piss-off/
-
To the second, it does what energy does, it radiates, probably flashes Lake Michigan to steam, something like that. And you may be over estimating the problem. Morgan nuked a nagwhatever and nobody ever noticed. ;)
That was in Nevada, right? I'm tempted to look up to see if there were any tests on potentially significant days with higher than expected yields. I know some tests were more powerful than expected but I'm pretty sure the ones I'm thinking about were in the Pacific.
-
I suspect it takes having an active Warden to do so.
We don't know how long the island operated with no Warden, when or who the last Warden was, or whether that Warden put anyone into the prison.
I suspect -- from that "weary British" voice Harry spoke to briefly at the beginning of Skin Game -- that it was sometime in the late 30's or early 40's: the usage seems to have originated specifically in 1934, based on an earlier (1920's) more mild version that was just a colloquial for "depart".
https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2018/08/30/piss-off/
I suspect it takes an active warden with testicles or ovaries made out of stainless steel given the inmates. I'ma gonna have to go with Merlin stuck em in there and called it good.
The English guy ain't English. To be English he would have to first be human. And why would a human be in a jail made for old gods. Being nemfected does not make you Superman. Ask Maeve.
-
That was in Nevada, right? I'm tempted to look up to see if there were any tests on potentially significant days with higher than expected yields. I know some tests were more powerful than expected but I'm pretty sure the ones I'm thinking about were in the Pacific.
Yeah, Nevada:
“It was the fifties,” he said. “Started in New Mexico. It followed me to Nevada. I lured it onto a government testing site, and stepped across into the Nevernever just before the bomb went off.”
Butcher, Jim. Turn Coat (The Dresden Files, Book 11) (p. 55). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
-
Yeah, Nevada:
Checking Wikipedia, no indications that tests in the 50s in Nevada had higher yields than expected. A few candidates if taking out the nagloshii caused a lower than expected yield. But how big a yield would you need?
-
... The English guy ain't English. To be English he would have to first be human ...
But he used modern(ish) language, modern(ish) accent, and a vernacular construction that originated in 1934. So he is a relatively-recent arrival to the prison.
Unless you wish to posit that the prisoners can learn such things from an ambient gestalt or "overmind" of some sort... But he spoke of a "stasis" (that Harry was disrupting) which doesn't sound like he would have been learning during that time.
I think this (mid/late 1930's (maybe 1940's (maybe post-WWII?))) is the last time there was a Warden, and this prisoner went in at that time.
-
Maybe he time traveled to the past and missed his bus back and borrowed a bed from Merlin with a lock that doesn't unlock until book 21 or so. I think he's Merlin but Jim says no. But Jim talks like Obiwan, and that may only be true in a certain way. Just saying. 8) WAG 10!(read that like it's math)
-
But he used modern(ish) language, modern(ish) accent, and a vernacular construction that originated in 1934. So he is a relatively-recent arrival to the prison.
Unless you wish to posit that the prisoners can learn such things from an ambient gestalt or "overmind" of some sort... But he spoke of a "stasis" (that Harry was disrupting) which doesn't sound like he would have been learning during that time.
I think this (mid/late 1930's (maybe 1940's (maybe post-WWII?))) is the last time there was a Warden, and this prisoner went in at that time.
He could have something like Toot when it comes to language; see Toot's explanation for where he learned to speak Russian in Changes.
Something I noticed last time I read Turn Coat was that when Shagnasty arrives on Demonreach, the island is apprehensive. Taking prisoners even on the island may be more difficult than some have theorized.
-
He could have something like Toot when it comes to language; see Toot's explanation for where he learned to speak Russian in Changes.
Something I noticed last time I read Turn Coat was that when Shagnasty arrives on Demonreach, the island is apprehensive. Taking prisoners even on the island may be more difficult than some have theorized.
Harry wasn't properly Warden then. There's commentary later (the beginning of Skin Game?) that he could take Mab down if she set foot on the island on he'd gotten up to speed on what the island could do.
-
He could have something like Toot when it comes to language; see Toot's explanation for where he learned to speak Russian in Changes.
That's a fair point.
I suppose the thing where he was "trying to recall" the phrase could merely have been a rhetorical flourish.
Everything about that figure is at the pretty-wild end of the WAG spectrum, just because we know so little about it... except that Harry is going to revisit that figure, one way or another.
-
There's commentary later (the beginning of Skin Game?) that he could take Mab down if she set foot on the island on he'd gotten up to speed on what the island could do.
That's why it kind of surprised me.
-
Harry wasn't properly Warden then. There's commentary later (the beginning of Skin Game?) that he could take Mab down if she set foot on the island on he'd gotten up to speed on what the island could do.
Actually it was at the end of Cold Days.. Page 502, Molly just got the mantle and Mab is threatening Harry with a gun, they were having a little debate about who is who's servant...
and Harry says;
"Demonreach," I said. "If our guest pulls that trigger, take her below and keep her there."
The guardian spirit's vast shadow fell over us even though there was nothing actually casting it, and Mab's eyes widened.
So while Harry at that point might not know everything there was to know about the island or being it's warden, it is clear that on the island he had the authority to jail the Winter Queen if he so ordered.
-
Harry doesn't learn what he's Warden of until Cold Days.
-
Actually it was at the end of Cold Days.. Page 502, Molly just got the mantle and Mab is threatening Harry with a gun, they were having a little debate about who is who's servant...
and Harry says;
So while Harry at that point might not know everything there was to know about the island or being it's warden, it is clear that on the island he had the authority to jail the Winter Queen if he so ordered.
It also comes up in Chapter Two of Skin Game. Harry asks what's to stop him from having Alfred imprison her. Mab responds "I am," shows Harry his blood on her finger, and states that the consequences to the mortal world would be "dire" if there would be no Mab and the consequences to Harry would worse if he tried it. She also stated that she was willing to throw down. Harry thought that the world needed Mab, and he was scared he might fail to take her down.
-
Harry doesn't learn what he's Warden of until Cold Days.
Actually it is hinted at at the end of Ghost Story.. At any rate he tells Alfred to take Mab below and throw her in the slammer at the end of Cold Days if she shoots him and Alfred moves forward to comply.
It also comes up in Chapter Two of Skin Game. Harry asks what's to stop him from having Alfred imprison her. Mab responds "I am," shows Harry his blood on her finger, and states that the consequences to the mortal world would be "dire" if there would be no Mab and the consequences to Harry would worse if he tried it. She also stated that she was willing to throw down. Harry thought that the world needed Mab, and he was scared he might fail to take her down.
Harry simply thinks it through, Mab is a bad guy, but our bad guy, as he puts it, putting her in the slammer would upset the balance and that might not be a good thing. Then he does second guess himself a bit, no, by himself he might not be able, but on the island? Yeah, I think he could do it. It could have been a lawyerly bluff on Mab's part because she knows that Harry could do it while they were on the island.
-
@Mira: I think he could take her, but I also think the cost to him would be worse than dire as Mab plainly stated. I don't think it's a fight he would "win" in any meaningful sense. It would be a Pyrrhic victory.
-
@Mira: I think he could take her, but I also think the cost to him would be worse than dire as Mab plainly stated. I don't think it's a fight he would "win" in any meaningful sense. It would be a Pyrrhic victory.
Oh Molly would do fine and Lacuna would be a great winter lady.
-
Oh Molly would do fine and Lacuna would be a great winter lady.
I think that thought crossed his mind...
-
I think that thought crossed his mind...
And Molly could make up with Carlos. I only see upsides ;D
-
Mab wouldn't be dead. She'd be imprisoned. Molly would still be the Lady, and Mab would still be the Queen.