I understand, but if you go back and read the different definitions of what an unreliable narrator is, Harry really doesn't fit, at least not consistently ...

The naive (aka ignorant) POV is one of the key types of "unreliable narrator."

And Harry is always ignorant.

He starts that way (q.v. Jim writing an actual, literal, "talking head" to "educate" Harry); but, despite how much he has learned, Harry stays that way:

• he's a magical heavyweight, and he's fighting his way into the deeper & murkier end of the supernatural power-pool
• he's also a PI, so he inquires & investigates as a central element of his professional life

Despite all he has learned, he keeps forging out beyond what he knows, into new areas... areas where he's still ignorant.

Again:  the books rely upon Harry's ignorance.  Even when he's not working for a "paying customer," he's usually investigating things.  This is central to the genre that Jim's writing (with the DF novels).  If Harry were to become "knowledgeable" he'd become a quest-giver minor character, instead of a questing protagonist.

Finally, I reiterate:  Jim himself says that Harry is an unreliable narrator.  When professional writer (who has not only a bunch of successful novels, but a bunch of academic & workshop training in writing) says "I used this well-known method" ... I honestly don't understand why it's so important to you to deny it.

... Too many times the term "unreliable narrator" is the fall back crutch when there is no evidence to prove the poster's point one way or another ...

OK, this is an entirely different point!  And it can be a crutch, yes; but equally, it can be simply point out that just because Harry says such-and-such is "true" (like his early reports of Mab being "the archetypal evil queen"), that too isn't really "evidence" that "such-and-such" is a "truth" of the Dresdenverse.

Harry can tell us 100% "the truth as he understands it," and simultaneously Jim can be 100% lying (without even that Faerie veneer of "technically true, but you misunderstood").  Harry is just wrong, very very often.
 

RE "Harry the Unreliable Narrator" --

Is he?  Everyone says that yet outside of a few short stories he is the only narrator we've got. So is he a liar? Just stupid? Maybe senile when he wrote his story?  Unless you got an alternative story out there ...

Harry is simply ignorant; that's different from "stupid."  But most of his training came from Justin, who seems to have kept him intentionally-uninformed about many facets of the supernatural world.  There's good Doylist reasons for this -- we have the talking-head character who can lore-dump to us (the readers), even as he educates Harry on the fundamentals.

It's a 1st-person-POV story, so Harry only "knows" what the author writes him as knowing... and as noticing, in the moment (for example, there's the scene where Lash reveals there was a veiled figure at the Ordo Lebes meeting); though Harry is a keen observer, e.g. Harry noticed Abby's medic-alert bracelet.

But most of all, Jim himself attests that Harry is an unreliable narrator, and that Harry has a fairly simple & "straightforward" perspective, and mostly doesn't  grasp the subtler (and more-correct) nuances of many situations & individuals.

Some examples where Harry "narrates unreliably:"

• Early Morgan was written as a flat, 2-dimensional, nearly-villainous character; a bully who had pre-judged Harry and was unwilling to revise his thinking.  Later we learn a much more favorable and nuanced view of Morgan, making him a hard but heroic figure & decidedly one of the "good guys," who was continuously testing Harry, but always giving him room to prove himself.
• Early Mab was written as the stereotypical "mythical villain" figure, the archetype and prototype of all Evil Queens (and Kings, &c); later we see that she's cold&hard because she's Winter, but possibly the single mightiest champion who's fighting on behalf of Creation.
• Early Demonreach is written as "spooky ruins," whereas in reality it's a vitally-active prison, and the strongest we know of (other than places like Hades' realm).
• All of Proven Guilty was a long-con story (probably Mab's), whereas Harry saw it as just the phobophages preying upon SplatterCon!!! attendees, likely with some spell-caster who was summoning them in a bid for personal power.

In the end, Harry must be an "unreliable narrator," for the sake of the story.  He grows in power throughout the story, but more importantly he grows in perspective and knowledge.  If he began the story fully-informed, there wouldn't be much of a story to tell (or at least, it'd be a very different one).

Harry's "unreliable" narration is from a place of ignorance, & an unrealistically-simplistic perspective.
 

... Though I think it is fair to say that Malcolm knew Margaret was a wizard, I think less clear, how much he knew of her world ...

IS that fair to say, though?  It's a viable speculation, but do we have any unambiguous canonical statement (or WoJ) that speaks directly to this?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't recall any such clarity.

... He knew enough apparently to go along with her desire to give birth to a star child ...

Again:  do we know this?  Was he on-board with the "starborn" scheme?  I don't really count the scene in the dream (around the campfire), because it's evident that Malcolm was VERY clued-in at that point.

... he named Harry after a magician that he admired ...

Three(4?) magicians:  Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, & the Blackstones (Sr. & Jr),  if you'll forgive the nitpick.

I don't think so, the impression I got from both Lara and Thomas that at puberty it is about choices and there is a more natural process for it.

There is a more natural process, yes; I think most Whampires avoid that.

The DF Wiki says so, too:

The tradition of the White Court is to not tell a young potential succubus what they will become, or even anything about the supernatural world. In their childhood and early teens they are raised as a vanilla human. Their first feeding, which is always fatal, comes as a surprise to them, and introduces them into the world of the White Court.

(footnoting this factoid to White Night ch.27; I have not gone back to find the original passage(s) supporting this.)

... That's why both of them wanted their little sister away from their father ...

They did want that; but most whampires want to maintain their familial power.  For all their sexual prowess, whamp-reproduction is a rarity.  Even a small proportion of their children choosing not to become a serial sexual predator would spell doom for any family pursuing such "weakness."

... I think the point of both Thomas and Lara were making was the way their father pushed and tricked them into that first kill was to gain control and power over them, and they didn't want that for their little sister.

Again, I agree.  It's just that Raith père was following the mainstream tradition of House Raith, while Thomas & Lara wanted something better for Inari.


But again:  we are wandering afield from the OP topic (Thomas' actions against the Svartalves, and a "free pass" (or not) for that); @OutsideIn has asked us to stay on-topic.  I don't mind further whamp-centric discussion, but let's spin it off to a new Thread if we do.

I don't see the svartalves being an issue really, they're old school in the same view as Mab? They more than likely know of Nemesis?

Harry remarked that he took notice of exactly who (at the Peace Talks) showed realization of what was implied by the Outer Gates being assaulted by the Outsiders, simultaneously with Ethniu's attack.

Jim -- that bastard! -- didn't tell us which parties were which.  I suspect he's leaving himself wiggle-room for future writing, where some groups that you'd think would know, do not; and some that you'd expect not to, do (maybe Jim even has some specific ideas in that direction).

I'd think that:

• if Harry&co could prove that Nemesis was actually the bad actor
• if the Svartalves know of Nemesis

then Thomas could escape the most-severe Svartalven penalties.

But I'm not at all confident that (in Jim's Dresdenverse) this is the case.

Just because his babies held hostage in a way... Doesn't give you a free pass to murder. I think Thomas if he survives imprisonment. He'll die a martyr saving the day of some type..
The bill comes due...

I think it's worth noting that there are two questions being addressed in the thread:
1st (as posed in this OP) - Is "Karma" a bitch?  Does "Fate" now have a violent end in store for Thomas?  Is Thomas (having murdered) now doomed to face a violent (albeit possibly heroic) end?  It's worth noting here that Thomas has been a murderer ever since we met him:  whampires only manifest fully after their 1st full feeding, which AFAIK is always to the death (n.b. Connie & Irwin are an odd case)... so Thomas must have killed his first lover.

The 2nd question is the physical & practical one:  can he escape the Svartalven demands for retribution?

I note a similar parallel between the White Council's "Laws of Magic" -- which they enforce legalistically, at trial -- and the "natural law" laws of magic, which comes in to form of psychic trauma & damage (and, as Jim likes to say, "cackling villainy").  The WC laws are "only human:"  they can fail to detect broken Laws, they can fail to convict wrong-doers, they can falsely-convict those who aren't fallen to the Dark Side.   The "natural laws" come for Black Magicians willy-nilly (though evidently the Blackstaff (MW's WS) can stave that off, for the wielder), and impose their own penalties (often madness).

I don't know for sure, but I blame Fate Core. It was a big success, and it's just different enough from DFRPG to be incompatible.

But that doesn't preclude them from publishing another DFRPG book; nothing requires them to adhere to any particular ruleset; the existence of Fate Core doesn't prevent Fate Accelerated, and vice versa, so DFRPG seems perfectly valid & viable (noting also that EH is doing other, entirely-non-Fate RPG's).  And if (as I am given to understand) the DFRPG volumes sold exceptionally well for them, it seems like a simple business decision.

Maybe the 3rd volume didn't sell as well as the 1st two, making a 4th less-tempting?
Maybe Jim and/or Fred changed their minds about it?
 
Honestly puzzled!