Killing only affects mortals, which in setting refers to people with souls. Animals have no souls, therefore they aren't mortal and don't count towards the First Law. The Fifth Law may be different, however, because it draws on a different source of magic than the regular kind, which may be innately corruptive.

Also, the Laws are written so that they're primarily humanocentric. The Council would like to expand the Laws to cover everyone and everything, but they're not powerful enough so they limit the scope to something they can cover. In this case, humanity in general. It means that the likes of White Court vampires and (possibly) the human servants of the Fomor may slip under the radar when it comes to detecting Black Magic.

 

So it does seem to be a very messy issue.

I knew 1 was obviously against the law. But 2 and 3 can be argued that you didn't kill someone with magic, magic just aided in it.

Put it this way:

Harry is in California visiting. He throws a bit of fire magic around training some wardens in the country. He doesn't notice a small patch of flames before he leaves. Fire spreads, wild fire burns for miles. A dozen die, millions in damage.

Does it corrupt him? Does he get out on trial?

 

Corrupt him? No. Wouldn't mean he wouldn't feel bad, I suppose. Not sure about the distinction there, as I said.


Does he get killed? Possibly. Depends on how vital to the war effort he is. General case? He used his magic irresponsibly and should pay for the consequences.

Reality? Politics decide. Proof is going to be really difficult to locate.

 

According to Butcher, that would definitely count as a violation of the First Law. Whether or not the Council would punish him for it though is an entirely different, mostly political, question.

 

It's always bothered me in "Grave Peril" that Harry had pretty much just gotten off parole, burns down Bianca's mansion with humans and non-humans alike, walks the narrow line with destructive ectomancy, starts a war, and the council doesn't even try to put him on trial, so they could send his head the vampires. They put it to council vote as to whether he had committed a crime on a foreign dignitary, or whether they could strip him of wizard-hood.

He didn't know Liberty, Joe, or Pietrovich, and even with Ebenezar on his side it seems politically unlikely there wouldn't be a trial that could preempt any Red Court Claims. As such, I think there has to be some protocol exempting 'collateral' damage.

 

Yeah I thought it odd. That was his most blatant act of unlawfulness in the early books.

But there was a statement at some point latter, that the Reds were going to war anyway and this just made it sooner, which at the end of the day, may have been better for the Council. A early hit often goes astray.

 

Even that early into the series we knew (and presumably, the council knew) that Dresden was going to be a heavy hitter. We've been drowned in foreshadowing about Dresden's "magical thuggery" and how unusual his ability with (I forgot the in universe name) evocation (maybe? on the fly magic). It'd be stupid of them to cut off one of their fingers (there aren't that many wizards, after all) to put off a war that was going to happen sooner or later anyway.

 

I remember reading this Dresden fic and I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I believe it's a Molly POV, but in this world Harry went on the run after his confrontation with Justin DuMorne and Elaine went to the White Council. At the time of the story he's an ex-Denarian and Elaine is somehow friends with the Carpenters. Ring any bells?

 

That sounds like this one. It's been forever since I read it, so I could be wrong, but your description rings a few bells.

 

His evocation was noteworthy in how much energy he put in, making the spillage less problematic. He knows he has no finesse (at the time). Where he truly excels is tracking charms iirc.

The White Council also firmly believed that the war wasn't guaranteed. That they could negotiate.

 

Yes, that's the one. An interesting premise, if somewhat short and with somewhat mediocre technical writing.

Here's another question: what was the advantage to Lasciel's demonic form? Is it ever made clear in Skin Games? There are the bruisers like Ursiel and Magog, there are the weird-but-effective combat forms like Deirdre's and Tessa's, and there are ones not suited to combat but extremely useful in other ways, like Nicodemus'/Anduriel's form. All I can recall about Lasciel's is that the host's clothes turned into purple smoke, and when Harry hit her with a bunch of smoke it seemed to punch her out of it. I'm trying to think of a non-combat applications involving variations of such a form that "the Temptress" would use but I'm coming up short. Is there anything we know, or can gleam from the books?

 

Negotiate what? It was basically a gang war with bigger organizations.

We note later in the series that his evocation is truly impressive. A lot of the younger wardens look up to him because of what he has achieved, and basically none of it was achieved in a 'traditional' wizard way.

 

No it was supernatural nations squaring off over a.. war criminal? Whatever the proper term is for a diplomat that burns down another nation's embassy and kills its staff.

As for the evocations: http://dresdenfiles.wikia.com/wiki/Evocation In terms of being non-traditional. I think the passage you're thinking of is one with Ramirez. If it is he's talking more about Harry's willingness to use a gun/taking a moral stand on issues/not being part of the establishment.

 

There's nothing in the books to suggest she gives her wielder any specific combat-form, though I'm assuming she might if she was given to someone without any magical talent. Namshiel was mostly human, too.

 

We know from OOtP that Snape's worst memory was his fifth year OWLs. However was it ever specified when and in which year Sirius talked Snape into going into the shrieking shack? I think it must have been before his fifth year because Lily was was his friend at the time.

 

Wrong thread, dude. This is the Dresden questions thread.

 

Necroing for a questionable cause.

In Dresden Files, all the Knights of the Cross are descended from various kings. Michael is descended from Charlemagne, Sanya from the Caliphate, and even Shiro is a descendant of the kings of Okinawa. With this in mind, who is Butters descended from?

 

He's Jewish, so probably King David. That said, if you go back far enough everyone has royal blood, so it doesn't really make a difference.

 

Do the Swords eliminate all supernatural advantages? We saw it deal with Nicodemus' shadow, but would it also get rid of something like a vampire's supernatural strength and speed or outright prevent magic form working around it?

 

The way the swords work is to bring the enemy down to human level, so that they're both on an equal playing field. With Denarians it counters the Fallen, with myrk it spread light, with vampires it burns. It has a varied effect depending on who the knight is going up against, though I don't know if it would work against mortals.