Dresden Files: Winter is coming (Cold Days Spoilers)

[Socratov]

Yeah I think even for humans most people react more to humiliation then minor physical injury.

well, to make it worse: it's compeltely erasing someone's identity. For a creature dependant on belief (and all fey are, it's even mentioned upon that the Grimm Borthers were commissioned by Mab to write their fairy tails), losing your iconic thing basically means to stop exist, at all!

Blue and Orange morality is hard to write. To me neither of these examples come off as "Blue or Orange", and more "LACK of morals". There is a difference.

As for Mr Sith: Actually, my point was that he is LESS Psycho than the normal, mortal housecat.

It's not a lack of morals: they just adhere to the letter of the agreement and hold favours and the like in high regard. Even when giving/accepting a gift, a similar transaction is required to even the scales. Their morals are completely based on the concept of debt and bargains. Remeber that Lea (the Leanansidhe) promised Maggie to keep Harry safe. Lea just assumed that turning Harry into one of her hounds was the best way to do that, therefore fulfilling her end of the bargain(/promise) in the way she deemd most fit. That is not a lack of morals, that is in my opinion a fair example of orange blue morality.

Enforcement of the laws of magic appears to run on the maxim that if it resembles an aquatic bird of any sort, it is a duck, no matter the five signed affadavits and testimony of it's dear mother that it is, in fact, a goose.

Fiorst off: I praise you for the metaphor, it's marvelous!

You can't quite blame them for it, though, considering they're actually more than a little right. Black magic is not something that one can just dip into without consequences.

and here'sis in (a bit too) short the answer.

In the books black magic stains the very soul. Neither is there any 'grey' magic, it'sa fine line between white (or 'ok) magic, and black (not 'ok') magic. I think Yoda's assessment of the dark side of the force is most fitting: once you cross the line into dark side territory your life will focused on either acceptign the dark side or continuous effort to keep from turning. As such the White Council (and thus the wardens by extension) have decreed that if it appears to be an example of the aquatic avian variety, it must be a duck and so it must be shot. Zero tolerance to keep *ahem* ducks out of the pond so to say... *ahem*

There is one way to avoid corruption by balck magic and that is using black magic though the use of Mother winter's staff (or so it has been hinted to be), though this is no walk in the park since it forcefully removes the stains of Black magic though a painful extraction process... (see the scene at Chitchen Itza with Ebenezar McCoy)

[BRC]

I got the impression that the corrupting nature of Black Magic was more due to the nature of Magic itself, rather than anything unique about Black Magic.
Harry is able to create ZombieSue without being corrupted, for example. People still think it's a little skeevy, but nobody acts like Harry crossed the line.

Remember that in Dresdenverse you can only do magic if you thoroughly believe it is right to do so. Controlling the mind of another is corrupting because in order to do it you must honestly believe that it is within your right to violate the soveriegnty another has over their mind, which is a long way from "It would be better if they did X". Killing with magic requires a level of commitment that pulling a trigger or swinging a sword does not. There is no way to detatch yourself from the action.

When Harry raised Sue it was a grey area, but considered acceptable because it only required that he manipulate and control the soul of an animal, rather than a person.

I've always seen it as follows.
If a Wizard uses magic to light a building on fire, not knowing anybody was in there, and somebody dies, that's bad but not Black Magic.
If a Wizard blasts somebody with Fire and they die, that's Black Magic, since the wizard felt with all their heart that it was Right to kill another human (And if it is right to kill one, it can become right to kill another. Power corrupts)
If a Wizard lights a building on fire with magic Knowing somebody is in there, that's ALSO black magic, even though it's the same action as the first time.
Similarly, if a Wizard throws magic in a building thinking they could control it, and accidentally lights the building on fire, and somebody dies, that's bad and stupidity, but not Black Magic.

[123456789blaaa]

I got the impression that the corrupting nature of Black Magic was more due to the nature of Magic itself, rather than anything unique about Black Magic.
Harry is able to create ZombieSue without being corrupted, for example. People still think it's a little skeevy, but nobody acts like Harry crossed the line.

Remember that in Dresdenverse you can only do magic if you thoroughly believe it is right to do so. Controlling the mind of another is corrupting because in order to do it you must honestly believe that it is within your right to violate the soveriegnty another has over their mind, which is a long way from "It would be better if they did X". Killing with magic requires a level of commitment that pulling a trigger or swinging a sword does not. There is no way to detatch yourself from the action.

When Harry raised Sue it was a grey area, but considered acceptable because it only required that he manipulate and control the soul of an animal, rather than a person.

I've always seen it as follows.
If a Wizard uses magic to light a building on fire, not knowing anybody was in there, and somebody dies, that's bad but not Black Magic.
If a Wizard blasts somebody with Fire and they die, that's Black Magic, since the wizard felt with all their heart that it was Right to kill another human (And if it is right to kill one, it can become right to kill another. Power corrupts)
If a Wizard lights a building on fire with magic Knowing somebody is in there, that's ALSO black magic, even though it's the same action as the first time.
Similarly, if a Wizard throws magic in a building thinking they could control it, and accidentally lights the building on fire, and somebody dies, that's bad and stupidity, but not Black Magic.

I thought that at first too. We have a WoJ that contradicts it though:

"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.

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

Really, I'm not comfortable in speculating about the details of magic in the DF in general. It's murky and we just don't have enough info.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's not a lack of morals: they just adhere to the letter of the agreement and hold favours and the like in high regard. Even when giving/accepting a gift, a similar transaction is required to even the scales. Their morals are completely based on the concept of debt and bargains. Remeber that Lea (the Leanansidhe) promised Maggie to keep Harry safe. Lea just assumed that turning Harry into one of her hounds was the best way to do that, therefore fulfilling her end of the bargain(/promise) in the way she deemd most fit. That is not a lack of morals, that is in my opinion a fair example of orange blue morality.

I give you that one. My original point is that the more we know of them, the less weird they seem.

Anyway... speaking of the dog thing... How powerful IS Mouse, really? My personal opinion is that he on the same level as an angel, since that, basically, is what he is. He threatened to bite Lea's ass off (literally) and she took the threat seriously enough to not provoke him. That is Lea, the third most powerful Winter sidhe.

[Silver Swift]

Anyway... speaking of the dog thing... How powerful IS Mouse, really? My personal opinion is that he on the same level as an angel, since that, basically, is what he is. He threatened to bite Lea's ass off (literally) and she took the threat seriously enough to not provoke him. That is Lea, the third most powerful Winter sidhe.

Aren't angels in de Dresdenverse ludicrously overpowered? I vaguely remember talk about Uriel being able to destroy solar system in the blink of an eye, but maybe that was something specific about Uriel. If not, then I doubt that Mouse is on that level, he is definitely powerful, but not that powerful.

[Avilan the Grey]

Aren't angels in de Dresdenverse ludicrously overpowered? I vaguely remember talk about Uriel being able to destroy solar system in the blink of an eye, but maybe that was something specific about Uriel. If not, then I doubt that Mouse is on that level, he is definitely powerful, but not that powerful.

He (Uriel) is God's Wetworks guy. He is one of the few Archangels. That's a different power level altogether.

I imagine Mouse being about the same level as the guardian angels at Michael's house...
Mouse also seem more powerful in the Nevernever than outside it, which makes sense since his (his "breed") primary purpose is to guard against evil spirits. In the Nevernever he can talk, and it was also there he made the threat. In the real world he was caught by the Rawhide.

[datalaughing]

In the Nevernever he can talk, and it was also there he made the threat.

No, it wasn't. They were in the real world when he "talked" and threatened Lea. Lea had turned them into hounds so they could quickly traverse the jungle around Chichen Itza. That's not the Nevernever. That's Mexico. Either way not a super fun place to be, really.

[Mikeavelli]

Tibetan Temple dogs (what Mouse is) are described in the Dresden Files RPG. From a point-buy mechanical viewpoint, they're on par with Dresden himself from the beginning of the series.

Of course, that's temple dogs in general, basically the weakest Mouse could possibly be. As a unique individual, he could be even more powerful, and various bits of the narrative point to that being the case.

[The Glyphstone]

Aren't angels in de Dresdenverse ludicrously overpowered? I vaguely remember talk about Uriel being able to destroy solar system in the blink of an eye, but maybe that was something specific about Uriel. If not, then I doubt that Mouse is on that level, he is definitely powerful, but not that powerful.

An Angel would be about as powerful as a mid-level Denarian, which is much closer to Mouse's rough power grade - maybe not in raw combat brutality, but Mouse makes up for it in other ways.


And I thought Mouse was half-Temple dog, half Foo Spirit? Or are all Tibetan Temple dogs Foo Dogs?
Never mind, looked it up. Foo God = celestial spirit, Temple Dog = half-Foo Dog.

[123456789blaaa]

An Angel would be about as powerful as a mid-level Denarian, which is much closer to Mouse's rough power grade - maybe not in raw combat brutality, but Mouse makes up for it in other ways.


And I thought Mouse was half-Temple dog, half Foo Spirit? Or are all Tibetan Temple dogs Foo Dogs?
Never mind, looked it up. Foo God = celestial spirit, Temple Dog = half-Foo Dog.

Denarians are definitely not equal to the actual Fallen Angels inside the coins. Lemme get a WoJ:

It seems to me that as long as the Church has some of the coins, those paerticular Denarians are neutralized. Doing a Mt Doom with the coins might free up the spirits housed within to act freely in the world.

Well. Not quite freely, but MORE freely, certainly. The Fallen bound in the coins are the freaking elite of Hell--everyone the big D didn't want trying to stab him in the back, basically. If they were suddenly freed it would do all kinds of horrible things to about a million balances of power, with repercussions that would last for centuries.

Which assumes that they /can/ be destroyed. I mean, don't think that in 2,000 years, no one has ever TRIED it. And there are still thirty of them kicking around.

Which isn't necessarily to say that it's impossible. But it sure as Hell wouldn't be easy. And given that, while in the coins, they ARE effectively frozen in carbonite without a human agent to assist them, containment certainly seems to be a prudent course.

Funny you should mention that whole notion about redeeming Lasciel . . . >:)

Jim

The Fallen can give a small part of their strength to their hosts-more if the hosts willingly take it-but it's nowhere near their full strength.

It's unknown how powerful angels are. Archangels are at the level of the Mothers.

Newest WoJ about Foo dogs/Temple dogs:

badowntown: Is mouse a Foo dog or a Temple dog? My understanding is that Foo dogs are Tibetan celestial beings, and Temple dogs are Foo dogs crossed with mortal canines (possibly multiple generations removed).
You, at one point, referred to mouse as a Temple dog, but Ancient Mai at one point in Turn Coat exclaims something like "That is a Foo Dog. Where did you get it!?". Could you clarify?
Jim: You're splitting hairs, here. They're the same thing (for every practical purpose). A Foo Dog is a celestial being which chooses to give up its divinity (and immortality) to serve and protect in the mortal world. Part of being mortal is having offspring, who share in their progenitor's power.

[Avilan the Grey]

No, it wasn't. They were in the real world when he "talked" and threatened Lea. Lea had turned them into hounds so they could quickly traverse the jungle around Chichen Itza. That's not the Nevernever. That's Mexico. Either way not a super fun place to be, really.

You're right, it's just AFTER they came out of the NN. My bad.

[Dragonus45]

I give you that one. My original point is that the more we know of them, the less weird they seem.

Anyway... speaking of the dog thing... How powerful IS Mouse, really? My personal opinion is that he on the same level as an angel, since that, basically, is what he is. He threatened to bite Lea's ass off (literally) and she took the threat seriously enough to not provoke him. That is Lea, the third most powerful Winter sidhe.

I do believe it was mentioned that as a guardian beast his power is in some way linked to his owners or wards home and its threshold. When Lea was talking about him being far away from his place of power that's what she was talking about, apparently they aren't supposed to be able to do what mouse can do when they aren't at home. Now think of this, he was doing all that epic ass biting when he was just attached to Harry's weak sauce threshold. Just imagine for one brief moment what he could pull off if something tried a home invasion with him attached to the Carpenter's threshold.

[hamlet]

I got the impression that the corrupting nature of Black Magic was more due to the nature of Magic itself, rather than anything unique about Black Magic.
Harry is able to create ZombieSue without being corrupted, for example. People still think it's a little skeevy, but nobody acts like Harry crossed the line.

Remember that in Dresdenverse you can only do magic if you thoroughly believe it is right to do so. Controlling the mind of another is corrupting because in order to do it you must honestly believe that it is within your right to violate the soveriegnty another has over their mind, which is a long way from "It would be better if they did X". Killing with magic requires a level of commitment that pulling a trigger or swinging a sword does not. There is no way to detatch yourself from the action.

When Harry raised Sue it was a grey area, but considered acceptable because it only required that he manipulate and control the soul of an animal, rather than a person.

I've always seen it as follows.
If a Wizard uses magic to light a building on fire, not knowing anybody was in there, and somebody dies, that's bad but not Black Magic.
If a Wizard blasts somebody with Fire and they die, that's Black Magic, since the wizard felt with all their heart that it was Right to kill another human (And if it is right to kill one, it can become right to kill another. Power corrupts)
If a Wizard lights a building on fire with magic Knowing somebody is in there, that's ALSO black magic, even though it's the same action as the first time.
Similarly, if a Wizard throws magic in a building thinking they could control it, and accidentally lights the building on fire, and somebody dies, that's bad and stupidity, but not Black Magic.

It's been my impression over the course of the books that, while all of this might be fairly close to true, or as close as we can get nowadays, it's not entirely right. As is pointed out below by the WOJ, there's that old truism about the road to hell and it's paving. Doing wrong, even unintentionally, is still wrong, and you don't get off easy becasue you didn't intend for your actions to do what they did. It's like picking up a gun and pointing it in a random direction and pulling the trigger. The bullet goes through the wall next to you, into the next room, and kills a person on the other side. You didn't intend to do that. You didn't even know that person was there. But you're still 100% culpable. It's only in the word of the legalities that you are guilty of, say, manslaughter rather than murder.

And that's kind of the crux, here. The laws of magic are . . . insufficient I'd say. They're broad, overarching, and meant to be set in stone, but they do leave grey areas that let some bad people lurk. They also are so black and white that people who honestly made a mistake, didn't know, or simply lost control when something went wrong. They don't recognize intent, ignorance, or accident. And that's largely purposeful because, as WOJ has stated and as has been restated here, you can't do it if you don't think it's right to do it.

The Laws exist, as I understand it, to cover those areas that somebody back then, probably Merlin himself, determined that these specific actions really do damage the soul, twist the personality, set you on the path to cackling villainy and so must come under a blanket prohibition. You can't do it, end of discussion, please see the headsman on your way out.

Harry has broken the laws a couple of times over the course of the active series, not even including his first breach as a kid.

In GP (I think), he killed at least a couple of mortals, both in the fire nuke and with the ghost-pocalypse at the end. He even says it himself, he's guilty, and he feels like crap about it. There really is no question about it, he broke the Law and the only reason he didn't lose his head is because a warden wasn't around at that moment to do it to him and, probably, in the end the person in charge pointed out that the mortals that Harry killed in the act were probably already dying or good as in any case.

In DB, raising Sue was bad. It was, though we like to call it "grey," an instance of black magic I'd argue and the only reason he "got away with it" is because it's not a violation of the word of the law. It is, though, still very awesome.

It goes on. Doing these things, no matter what you intended, meant to do, or if you just lost control and got somebody in the crossfire by accident, is bad, and hurts your soul.

Why am I blithering on like this? Becuase I actually think that one of the big things that the series is leading up to is a reformulation of the laws and a reforming of the White Council. Harry's going to push until he realizes his mother's ideals about a reformation of the laws and wizard society.

And it will either occur just in time, or just too late to matter.

[Lamech]

Doing wrong, even unintentionally, is still wrong, and you don't get off easy becasue you didn't intend for your actions to do what they did. It's like picking up a gun and pointing it in a random direction and pulling the trigger. The bullet goes through the wall next to you, into the next room, and kills a person on the other side. You didn't intend to do that. You didn't even know that person was there. But you're still 100% culpable. It's only in the word of the legalities that you are guilty of, say, manslaughter rather than murder.

See this is the thing. Intentions do matter. If a crazy hacker has made it so posting to GitP kills someone we aren't murderers. Similarly, if I go to work, but happen to be carrying some deadly disease (I have no reason to think I'm sick) I'm not responsible for the spread of disease. No matter how many people end up dead.

Maybe its not intention, but knowledge and mental state matter. If you try and shoot me, but I sabotaged the gun? Its attempted murder. If you do the same thing, but know its sabotaged? Still not really okay, making people think you are about to kill them is bad. (Even though I know I'm safe.) Its even less bad if you know I'm the one who sabotaged it? Now we've gotten into inappropriate joke territory.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Intentions matter, but the point here is that they're not the only thing that matters. Evil done is still evil done, and if posting to GitP killed people, "Well, I didn't know and didn't intend to!" is precious little consolation for those who were killed.

(There's also the fact that said situation involves evil coming about due to the intervention of a third party. Black magic here is not a third party, but a malevolent power by nature of what it does.)

[hamlet]

Intentions matter, but the point here is that they're not the only thing that matters. Evil done is still evil done, and if posting to GitP killed people, "Well, I didn't know and didn't intend to!" is precious little consolation for those who were killed.

(There's also the fact that said situation involves evil coming about due to the intervention of a third party. Black magic here is not a third party, but a malevolent power by nature of what it does.)

This right here. That black magic is damaging and bad is objectively observable in this universe. Intentions be damned, it's still wrong even if it's neccessary (i.e., Molly poking around in Harry's head). The simple act of doing it makes it far more likely that you'll do it again and for worse purposes.

[123456789blaaa]

See this is the thing. Intentions do matter. If a crazy hacker has made it so posting to GitP kills someone we aren't murderers. Similarly, if I go to work, but happen to be carrying some deadly disease (I have no reason to think I'm sick) I'm not responsible for the spread of disease. No matter how many people end up dead.

Maybe its not intention, but knowledge and mental state matter. If you try and shoot me, but I sabotaged the gun? Its attempted murder. If you do the same thing, but know its sabotaged? Still not really okay, making people think you are about to kill them is bad. (Even though I know I'm safe.) Its even less bad if you know I'm the one who sabotaged it? Now we've gotten into inappropriate joke territory.

From the previous WoJ I posted:

<snip>
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.
<snip>

And basically, we're talking about what the author said. Whether or not you agree with his views, he's the one writing the books. The morality in the books go according his views.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This right here. That black magic is damaging and bad is objectively observable in this universe. Intentions be damned, it's still wrong even if it's neccessary (i.e., Molly poking around in Harry's head). The simple act of doing it makes it far more likely that you'll do it again and for worse purposes.

Right; the Laws of Magic seem to be mostly about pragmatism.

[BRC]

This right here. That black magic is damaging and bad is objectively observable in this universe.

Is it? The closest thing I can think of is a Soulgaze, which gives you a really good idea of the person, but isn't a guaranteed "Yup, they done them some black magic".

It's objectively observable in that if you see somebody doing it you know that they've done it, and IIRC it seems like magic explicitly designed to kill is detectable as "Black Magic".

But Harry's fireblasts are just as capable of killing as a spell that makes hearts explode. The Laws refer to actions, not methods. Its "Thou Shall Not Kill" not "Thou Shall Not Use Spells Explicitly Designed To Kill". So that "Sense of Black Magic" that Harry describes isn't a guarantee.

It's objective in that the Laws are binary, Do Not do the thing, but I got the impression that the Laws were written by Merlin, rather than beign some nature of Magic. More like Hammurabi's Code than the Laws of Physics.

That said, I'm kind of curious about that WoJ, was he talking about "I didn't mean to do the thing" or "I meant to do the thing, but my intentions were good".
Molly's intentions were good when she sent the nightmare to her friends. She wanted to break their heroin addictions for the good of themselves and their baby.

However, she still fully INTENDED to violate the sanctity of their minds. She did not accidentally drill holes into their psyches.

So when Jim said "Intent matters less", was he referring to their Intent behind breaking the laws, or whether or not they Intentionally broke the laws.

Let's say a Wizard is fighting somthing, he thinks it's a ghoul so he blasts it (A-OK by the Laws of Magic). It turns out that it was human.
So, Wally Wizard has violated the laws, but he did so unintentionally. Is his soul still corrupted?
Mechanically speaking his actions were identical to the ones done by an upstanding wizard fighting a ghoul, so the magic ITSELF was not "Black Magic".
His intentions were to kill a ghoul, not a human.
You could argue that he broke the laws against his will.
Is he still corrupted?
Lets say he KNEW his target was mortal. Did the Corruption occcur when the target died, when he cast the spell, or when he decided to cast the spell.

[123456789blaaa]

Is it? The closest thing I can think of is a Soulgaze, which gives you a really good idea of the person, but isn't a guaranteed "Yup, they done them some black magic".

It's objectively observable in that if you see somebody doing it you know that they've done it, and IIRC it seems like magic explicitly designed to kill is detectable as "Black Magic".

But Harry's fireblasts are just as capable of killing as a spell that makes hearts explode. The Laws refer to actions, not methods. Its "Thou Shall Not Kill" not "Thou Shall Not Use Spells Explicitly Designed To Kill". So that "Sense of Black Magic" that Harry describes isn't a guarantee.

It's objective in that the Laws are binary, Do Not do the thing, but I got the impression that the Laws were written by Merlin, rather than beign some nature of Magic. More like Hammurabi's Code than the Laws of Physics.

That said, I'm kind of curious about that WoJ, was he talking about "I didn't mean to do the thing" or "I meant to do the thing, but my intentions were good".
Molly's intentions were good when she sent the nightmare to her friends. She wanted to break their heroin addictions for the good of themselves and their baby.

However, she still fully INTENDED to violate the sanctity of their minds. She did not accidentally drill holes into their psyches.

So when Jim said "Intent matters less", was he referring to their Intent behind breaking the laws, or whether or not they Intentionally broke the laws.

Let's say a Wizard is fighting somthing, he thinks it's a ghoul so he blasts it (A-OK by the Laws of Magic). It turns out that it was human.
So, Wally Wizard has violated the laws, but he did so unintentionally. Is his soul still corrupted?
Mechanically speaking his actions were identical to the ones done by an upstanding wizard fighting a ghoul, so the magic ITSELF was not "Black Magic".
His intentions were to kill a ghoul, not a human.
You could argue that he broke the laws against his will.
Is he still corrupted?
Lets say he KNEW his target was mortal. Did the Corruption occcur when the target died, when he cast the spell, or when he decided to cast the spell.

Well, look at the second example:

<snip>
"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.
<snip>

So yeah, that wizard is corrupted at least somewhat.

You'll note that every single person we've seen in the series who employs Black Magic frequently goes insane and evil. That's the whole reason the Blackstaff is special. Eb maybe a bit morally ambiguous but he's not Grevane or Victor Sells.

As for whether the Laws are human made or not...kind of:

Note also the killing law only applies to Humans.
You can kill as many faeries as you want with magic.

Bingo. It hardly seems fair, does it?

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.

Jim

The Laws do kind of exist as universal rules. The WC-made Laws are an imperfect approximation but they are correct.

[Dragonus45]

Well, look at the second example:



So yeah, that wizard is corrupted at least somewhat.

You'll note that every single person we've seen in the series who employs Black Magic frequently goes insane and evil. That's the whole reason the Blackstaff is special. Eb maybe a bit morally ambiguous but he's not Grevane or Victor Sells.

As for whether the Laws are human made or not...kind of:



The Laws do kind of exist as universal rules. The WC-made Laws are an imperfect approximation but they are correct.

I think his wording was more that they were to a degree less Incorrect. Which i find very ominous.

[Avilan the Grey]

As I said I just started the series over, and already there is a hint about things to come.

The junkie in the police station in Storm Front who looks at Harry with his (drug-induced) sight and screams about "Those who walk before and He Who Walks Behind are coming for you, Dresden!"

Notice the bolded part. Did Jim avoid using caps on those letters to not tip off readers, or was He Who Walk Before not invented yet? I don't know, but it stood out to me.

[hamlet]

Is it? The closest thing I can think of is a Soulgaze, which gives you a really good idea of the person, but isn't a guaranteed "Yup, they done them some black magic".

It's objectively observable in that if you see somebody doing it you know that they've done it, and IIRC it seems like magic explicitly designed to kill is detectable as "Black Magic".
<snip>

Yes, it's actually discussed more than once. Most prominently in, I believe, Proven Guilty and in a couple of the books afterward where Harry is talking to Molly about it. Using magic in contravention of one of the Laws actually twists the user so that the next time it comes up, the justification is easier and the threshold lower until you're "filling out your evil overlord membership card."

[F.H. Zebedee]

Now, this might be a little off topic, but I figure, this is the Dresden Files thread...

In Changes, I must say I was pretty disappointed by the performance of the Lords of Outer Night. They're implied to thirteen monstrously powerful beings, on par with Odin and the Winter and Summer Ladies. So each one is punching substantially above Harry's weight class. They clearly outrank Ariana Ortega, who is almost on-par with Harry as a Winter Knight. That's thirteen characters that each have the power to be a primary antagonist for a novel.

And yet they go down like chumps, and don't really do anything, except using their power in a way that forces Harry's hand and makes him have to use the curse. It's my biggest problem with the series as a whole; it feels like he could have used fewer of them, and made them have more presence Three or six would have been quite grand, for example. Three is the "Magic Number", and six is the next best number to thirteen for ominous implications. As it was, it seems like they were barely speed bumps.

I mean, at least, if you're going to have Odin, Harry, Leanansidhe, and a senior council member mixing it up with these demigod opponents, let us see a FIGHT.

(otherwise, the series is pretty dang brilliant, though.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The Swords are total OP hax?

[Rakaydos]

As I said I just started the series over, and already there is a hint about things to come.

The junkie in the police station in Storm Front who looks at Harry with his (drug-induced) sight and screams about "Those who walk before and He Who Walks Behind are coming for you, Dresden!"

Notice the bolded part. Did Jim avoid using caps on those letters to not tip off readers, or was He Who Walk Before not invented yet? I don't know, but it stood out to me.

I think we can lay that at the feet of the unreliable narrator. HARRY hadnt known about He Who Walks Before, so he had no reason to reconize the title.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think the more elegant solution would have been to restrict the Mind Crush ability to just the Red King personally.

Probably impossible to avoid Lords of the Outer Night from not sounding a bit pretentious while remaining beatable enough for Dresden to triumph. But that's probably an artifact of early in the series more then anything else since they were first invoked by Bianca.

And while Mr Butcher has gotten much better in general over the years... things are still not entirely without rough spots.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think we can lay that at the feet of the unreliable narrator. HARRY hadnt known about He Who Walks Before, so he had no reason to reconize the title.

On a tangent: my current money is on the group including "He Who Walks Within".

*gulp*

[Soras Teva Gee]

On a tangent: my current money is on the group including "He Who Walks Within".

*gulp*

That's a much better name for Nemesis you ask me.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's a much better name for Nemesis you ask me.

The thought certainly crossed my mind...