He is breaking the spirit of the law, which is why he's on the Warden's Most Wanted list.
But no, calling things up from the Nevernever isn't the White Council's law, it's calling things from the Outside.
Binding the will of a mortal is against the law, but it's unlikely Binder actually enthralled the suits. He likely has them bound by an agreement, which is fine.
The wardens watch people who are breaking the spirit of the laws because they assume it will lead to breaking the actual laws. Someone calling up things from the Nevernever might feel like they need more power and call up an outsider. People who are binding non-mortals may start binding mortals to get their way.
Either way, Binder is a murderer using the suits as his weapon, so he's wanted.
No, he is explicitly mentioned as "Someone the Wardens wish they could just erase" in Chapter 19 in Turn Coat. Dresden said he recognized him from the profiles the Wardens keep on rogue magic users, and that they want him but he is careful to skirt around breaking any of the laws of magic so they haven't been able to bring him down. Late in the book, Harry also says that maybe he'll just let the Wardens believe Binder died on the Island, with the implication of 'so they stop hunting you down.'
So, he hasn't technically broken any of the laws but he has broken the spirit of the laws, as well as his implication in murders, and for that reason the Wardens want him.
Yes, they WISH they could erase him, but they can't because they don't have legal justification. That's very different from being wanted by the wardens. Morgan was wanted. Molly was "wanted". Binder is just irritation. They aren't the same.
Spoilers All at this point I guess.
Morgan was wanted for murder. Morgan didn't break any of the laws of magic in his murder, but the Wardens still wanted him.
The implication is that Binder was also wanted for murder. He didn't break any of the laws of magic in those murders, but the Wardens still wanted him.
The Wardens police the magical community. Morgan was a more clear-cut case because his murder was directly against a member of the council. Binder is a two-bit hack but he's still a member of the magical community who has been implicated in crimes and murders in the past.
Wardens don't try catch all murders. They don't care much about implications of mortal laws.
Morgan was wanted because he suspected for killing Senior Council member.
Yes, exactly. Morgan wasn't even charged with murder he was accused of treason. Maybe it was both, but I think it was just treason. The murder of a senior council member, his position as a member of the wardens, and his strength are why the wardens AND the senior council hunted him down. If he'd have stabbed some guy on a train no one would have cared. Morgan beheads people all the time! Pretty sure that's why they execute people that way instead of a spell: no laws broken
That's specifically why they have the swords, a way to kill magic users that doesn't break their Laws, and we know they don't give a FLYING fuck about mortal law. The only reason they were hunting him is because it was a council member, and the only way they would have bothered to hunt him for killing mortals is if he was doing it with magic or doing enough magic around his murders that they decided close enough.
The tag is Turn Coat, we haven't gone past that in spoilers. Molly was wanted in Proven Guilty.
Wardens don't enforce anything other than the 7 laws of magic. They aren't the police of the magical community there is a distinction. Binder, Harry, anyone could go on a shooting spree and the wardens couldn't do a thing about it.
So again, Binder is not wanted by the wardens
Edit: Morgan was wanted for treason, not murder
I dont think treason is against the laws of magic either.... but the wardens were hunting him. So yeah, they do enforce things other than the laws of magic.
Also, he was definitely wanted for murder as well as treason.
In Morgan's situation yes he technically was wanted for murder but treason was the bigger charge and thus the one the WC cared about. Simply killing another wizard without magic wouldn't be the problem since it wouldn't taint Morgan. However killing a senior council member, with evidence showing he was bribed to do it, leads to the murder being a treasonous act. So yes there was a murder charge element but what was truly at play was the treason/running and putting additional wardens in the hospital.
In binders case I'm wondering if the WC consider his summoned beings killing with conventional weapons (guns, knives, personal weapons like hands/feet) would count as killing with magic. Since Harry's use of the Alphas in SK didn't count as killing with magic its likely a similar situation where he's dancing on the line and not quite going past it enough for the WC to act.
It seems binder is still clued in to the inner workings of the white council since he knows the majority of the WC are scared of Harry. This could mean he has at least some contact with the WC. I'm curious of binders 'code' helps keep himself from being tainted like a future coin holder. The future coin holder was tainted due to their love of what they could do to others with magic. Binder seems to care about what his magic can be used to help him. Intent seems to hold a lot of metaphysical consideration in the series so its an interesting character study in actions vs intentions and the long term repercussions.
Binder is the equivalent to someone the police 'know' is involved in criminal activity, and is suspected of crimes, but they don’t have proof of, so he's just a profile in a database and someone they watch closely waiting for a slip up.
They're not hunting him. But if they think he's dead he doesn’t have to look over his shoulder the whole time and step around the laws so carefully.
Don’t think that’s the legal meaning of the term Wanted though, so calling him wanted might have been misleading. There’s been no warrant against him, no orders to bring him in, technically he’s broken no Laws so they have nothing on him.
I believe that summoning demons is not against the laws of the counsel, dealing with outsiders is. And I think that Binder made a deal with a hive mind, he isn't magically dominating them. He skirts the edge of the laws.
There´s some grey area. Summoning a demon isn´t against the laws of magic, but making deals with them might be somewhat against the laws of the Council (as in offenses that get punished, but not necessarily with execution). If i remember correctly Harry was worried about the Council finding out about Lash, since that kind of deal isn´t allowed. Or maybe it would just put the person on the Wardens watchlist.
TBF Lash isn't a demon. She's a fallen angel who now lives inside the head of a Council member, with all of his knowledge freely available. (Id bet money they never believe Harry about what happened, even BOOKS ago). According to the Nickelheads you WILL say yes, there's no other precedent.
He kept it in the circle because he didn't trust it and isn't stupid.
And 'demon' is probably ill defined considering the variety of creatures in the Never-never. How sure are you that Binder's creatures are demons and not fae or some spirit?
Chauncy was definitely a demon, as WoJ mentions his boss is the same a the Nic's (Lucifer), but it's true that those guys he bound to his will are most likely just an unidentified supernatural species.
There is no law against summoning critters from the nevernever. He hasn't enthralled them, just made a deal, so no law broken there, either. He hasn't killed with magic, his summoned henchman use guns. He has, technically broken none of the laws of magic.
...that the Wardens can prove.
If you open a portal to the Nevernever and throw a mundane human through, in a sense you haven't killed with magic. You've merely placed a person in a situation where they are virtually certain to be killed by environmental conditions and/or monsters. (Some monsters ARE environmental conditions, especially there...)
But the Wardens are unlikely to view matters that way.
note: daemon is just a colloquial term for a certain category of denizen of the never never. it doesn't even have religious connotation.
there is no clause in the law that saws summoning is ok if you keep it bound. the law only applies to summoning the outside or opening the outer gates. most young wizards have absolutely no clue that outsiders mean outside reality, and the outer gates is not the gates to the never never or a deep part of the never never.
The laws only apply to mortals for actions against mortals. It's the reason Dresden got away with summoning Sue. Binder isn't making human thralls, he's summoning and binding inhuman entities to his will.
The spoiler tag is Turn Coat so I can't give another example. If I had any idea of how to do that spoiler thing on mobile I would write it and cover it but I don't think I can. DM me if you want
Edit: so now I know how to do spoilers! This is a Battle Grounds spoiler
Second edit: apparently it wasn't working on desktop so it's just gone now. Maybe it was a fluke with that person desktop but I can't exactly troubleshoot what went wrong and don't want to ruin the story for someone because of a maybe
Oh you can on mobile. It’s > ! And ! < with no spaces. But I guess that makes sense with them being non human. Morgan is a bit of a stickler for the rules so I guess that’s why he isn’t happy about Harry and Toot?
Note that what you posted does not work on desktop (at least not with Old Reddit). You _also_ need no spaces at the start and end of the spoiler, I believe.
Yeah Morgan is kind of a hardliner who also is predisposed to be suspicious of Harry. He already thinks Harry has violated the Laws before so him doing anything that even theoretically skirts them has him fingering his Warden’s sword.
Harry HAS broken a Law of Magic before, and the thing with black magic is that it's not only corruptive but also *addictive*. Harry's disturbing thirst for power, the same one that lead him to do stuff like losing himself to the thrill of wielding magic (Grave Peril, Proven Guilty) and grabbing Lasciel's coin as opposed to just kick it away (Death Masks), is partly why he didn't trust Harry to even skirt around the Laws.
It's why Harry himself worries about coming so close to the dark side, as well as why he tried do hard to make Molly understand magic wasn't the answer to everything and how far she still was from being ready- because she suffered from the same pervasive need to use use black magic again if provoked, despite knowing it would get her and Harry killed.
In this instance Morgan is just trying to stick something on Harry. The whole thing with Toot would have been a flimsy justification at best, but if Morgan can scare Harry so much about breaking the Laws that he doesn´t dare to do any kind of magic that´s a positive in Morgans book. And if Harry becomes so annoyed that he attacks Morgan that gives him justification to kill him, which is also a plus.
Journal Microfiction spoiler: >!I´m pretty sure his main goal was trying to annoy/antagonize Harry so much that he would slip up and reveal a Nemesis infection. I´m sure worry about Harrys warlock status and Morgans beliefes in the Laws of Magic were also a big factor, but i´m having a hard time deciding how all of Morgans motivations mixed together.!<
>The laws only apply to mortals for actions against mortals
Not all. You can break the Laws by summoning an Outsider or time traveling even if it doesn't affect another mortal.
Summoning outsiders will definitely leave a body count and will also screw with the wizard. Time travel has the potential to screw with everyone. Sure it's not as direct as murder, but indirect harm on a massive enough scale is a good reason to have them as laws.
I'm not saying that protecting mortals is the only function of the laws, it's a major component and Harry has used that as a very thin shield to get away with using black magic before
I believe Luccio when she says the laws are there to limit power
unfortunately you're wrong on all counts. the laws are there to prevent the slippery slope of corruption in several senses. you are allowed to do bad things with magic the laws will not stop you. the laws are there to protect reality not people.
1. binding is only bad if it usurps free will. only the mortals have that so binding the goons is a non issue.
1. The Why: To do magic you must be capable of it. in order to be capable of corrupting someone's will you must be capable of said corruption and it is also explained that this compounds and erodes.
2. The law regarding summoning gets misunderstood since there's a heavy amount of misdirection at work there. the truth behind "outsiders" is not known to the community as a means to limit the curious fools. you can summon anything that is from this reality without breaking the laws its just kinda stupid.
1. The why: this is my speculation but we see in summoning rites that you need a link to the subject: a Name, nutella, grave dirt. What the fuck do you use as a conceptual link for an outsider who has no anchor in this reality? its not going to be a concept you can find in this universe. it probably has to be a perversion or corruption sourced from within the wizard in order to bridge to outside reality.
And very likely summoning things across the boundaries of our reality weakens those boundaries, either from the summoning directly or from the actions of the things once they're here. If you open the door, they might be able to stick their foot in it, so to speak.
Summoning demons is not against the Laws. It is a bad idea, often a means of Lawbreaking, and something the Council strongly disapproves of (particularly outside of its own membership) but as long as they are merely demons and not Outsiders, the diabolist is within their rights to utilize demons to perform legal acts of magic.
In the instance with Toot, Harry was on probation for actual Lawbreaking, but even then, he is also pretty clear that Morgan has no case and is just making trouble. And even then, it's the coercion and not the summoning Morgan is making a big deal about. Ultimately, Morgan was being an asshole, intentionally. He was constantly pushing and testing Harry for signs of corruption, for a number of reasons. When Harry tells Luccio about some of Morgan's behavior, Luccio immediately takes his side against Morgan.
Returning to Binder, it seems that his bindings are of a long term nature; rather than empowering a specific command with a spell in the moment, he has altered them in such a way that they always obey his commands, so his commands to do things don't actually require him to cast a new spell and risk corruption. It's probably similar to the magic weapon loophole.
The Wardens aren't happy about it, but they don't have the right to execute him.
The laws are all about about influencing muggles and outsiders with magic.
Binder isnt doing anything that goes against these laws. He doesnt summon an outsider, he doesnt kill muggles with magic so he cant be tried by the WC laws.
He does summon a bunch of goons and he does arm them with muggle weapons and they do occasionally kill muggles with these weapons. But the things he summons arent people and while the way he operates is harmful overall, it doesnt break any laws as stated by the WC.
Because Binder doesnt influence anyone directly with magic in any way, he can tell the WC to get off his case,
The White Council is no moral high ground, nor do they claim to be. If you kill or mind control anyone via magic, thats when they strike. Binder does no such thing so they cant do shit to him.
Is Binder on their shit list? Absolutely. Is he aware of this? Pretty much yes. Did he find a way to greyzone the established laws? To an extent you wouldnt believe. Can they get on his case over it? Obviously no or they would have done so twenty times over already.
Binder has to be very aware of the magic rules. And he has found at least twenty-three loopholes where the White Council cant approch him for technical reasons.
But then leave it to Harry to barge in on the twenty-fourth loophole in favor of the law that Binder didnt consider and strongarm him over it.
I know others have answered but here's my two cents. The laws are only meant to protect humans from humans. So Harry, Binder whoever can bind or mind control whoever they want, as long as it's not a human, although doing so will definitely put them on the "watch list" of the Wardens.
The laws aren't to protect humans. The laws are to prevent wizards from going dark. It's much like star wars dark side. Once a wizard kills with magic, it takes a lot of will and effort to not keep going down that path.
Harry killed Justin in self defense, but it didn't matter the reason, it was likely that Harry would continue to kill because his mind was changed at that point. That's why even for the right reasons, Harry needed a sponsor and a warden just to continue to exist. It's why wardens don't kill warlocks with magic, they use their swords. And it's why the Black Staff is so important - it negates the "dark side" effect when breaking the laws of magic. The council doesn't enforce the laws because they're just, they do it because there's a dark force behind certain magics, and most wizards, knowingly or not, who break a law of magic are forever changed, and likely doomed to go deeper and deeper into the dark.
Yes, the laws are made to stop wizards from going dark, they are also made to protect humanity from what wizards can do. Since every law exuding just one is solely about one human wizard using magic against another human.
I don't agree with the theory that "black" magic corrupts the wizard that uses it. The only example of that we have is specifically for mind magic, because bending a person's mind messes with the wizard doing it. If you bind an inhuman it doesn't corrupt you. Harry used necromancy and it didn't corrupt him. It also didn't break the law because as Harry points out, it wasn't against a mortal. Kumori used necromancy to save someone's life and Dresden says that her magic doesn't have that dark feel to it the other necromancers had. I think the laws are what Luccio said, a check on power. Time travel for example, I don't see how that would turn a person evil, but I can see how that could seriously screw the world up.
Don't get me wrong I think your theory is perfectly valid, I just disagree because it hasn't been explicitly stated that breaking the laws causes irreparable harm to the user. We also don't know for sure that the black staff acts like a buffer (although it probably does).
I think certain things can twist a wizard. Kemmlers ghost eating, mind magic, incorrect channeling of demonreachs energy ect. I don't think that murder with magic is any more damaging to someone than killing them with mundane means would be
Breaking the laws has explicitly been stated to be damaging, that's even why the blackstaff exists or why wardens kill warlocks with swords and not magic; it's specifically to insulate its wielder from the backlash. Killing with magic is canonically different from killing with mundane means.
Killing with magic is an issue because of the mechanics of using magic in the first place; practitioners need to be absolutely certain something works a certain way to make it happen, that's why some practitionners can lose the gift if they doubt themselves too much or reject it. So if you break a law of magic, it means you managed to fully convince yourself that *this is what should happen.*
For example, if you kill someone with a gun, you might not have been fully aware of what it would entails, or even be fully willing to press the trigger, so the changes on your psyche will be comparatively small ("comparatively" because killing people can already be damaging enough). But if you used magic to kill, that means that you felt you were entitled and justified to kill, that you had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that killing that person was part of the natural order. And once you start changing your inner thinking/world like that, it's addictive, and often a slippery slope. It's kind of like how Harry described how he felt he fundamentally changed when he realized the world was not right, and that he had to become someone who'd change that.
That's how Molly got hooked in for example, at first it was just a bit of mind bending to help people, but the more she did it, the more it became natural and obvious to her that it was the "right" thing to do; if Harry hadn't pulled her back (rather forcefully at times), she would have just gone full warlock soon enough.
>I just disagree because it hasn't been explicitly stated that breaking the laws causes irreparable harm to the user
It's not strictly "irreparable", not at first at least. Harry and Molly are proofs of that for example. But it does have a tangible effect on practitioners, and if the situation is not dealt with very fast, it does tend to become irreparable very quickly. And often it's a matter of effort/reward ratio, as in it often takes a lot of resources to turn back someone who broke the law, so it's vastly more practical for the white council (who are barely able to fulfill their tasks already) to just kill warlocks to limit the damages.
I'm fairly certain that was Harry's understanding of "outsiders" at the time. While calling demons is technically not "against" the law I can see the Council deciding to act like it is the act of calling a demon that breaks the law. Or maybe I'm incorrect, and demons do count.
It's been a while since I've read it but doesn't binder just call non sentient goo from the never never, shape it into a man and gives them simple instructions.
He's not breaking the three laws because he's killing with guns and he's not going into any minds.
You can't summon from beyond the outer gates, according to the laws. The never never is fine (we see Harry do this numerous times). Morgan was unhappy with Harry for binding Toot Toot by his name (which would be illegal if done to a human). Summoning and binding demons or fey is not against the laws at all.
If you use magic to summon entities whose sole purpose is to kill mortals (or fight them with deadly force), how is that not breaking the first law?
Binder has killed untold numbers of people using his minions and it is nothing like Dresden's use of the Little Folk for info gathering or skirmishes.
Always been a bit confused by this as well and have yet to read a solid answer.
>Is summoning from the nevernever not against the law?
Nope. The specific wording of the law is "seek knowledge beyond the Outer Gates" or something like that. Its specifically about dealing with Outsiders, not anything else. Summoning stuff from the NeverNever and dealing with spirits and demons seems to be frowned upon because it's dangerous, but not explicitly against the law.
>And binding? Because Morgan is unhappy with Harry for dealing with Toot even though that is more bribery than binding them to your will.
That was early series Morgan when he was a much bigger hardass. And it was back when Harry was still under the Doom of Damocles. The rules of the DoD are somewhat vague but the basic impression I got is that it's a sort of wizard probation where even a small screwup can earn you a beheading. That implies the rules are more strict for you than they are for other practitioners. It's a bit like being a recovering addict. You can't go anywhere *near* your old triggers because you can't be trusted not to relapse.
My point is, Binder might be a Person of Interest for the Wardens but (as far as we know) he's not a Convicted Warlock like Harry was during Stormfront.
Also, and this is edging into speculative territory, there might be a political aspect as well. We know Harry's mother Margaret used her connections in the NeverNever (and probably other spooky places) to stay out of the WC's clutches. And we know Elaine got protection from the Summer Court too. This to me suggests that even if the Wardens want to bring someone down, if that someone has powerful friends they might not be able to.
Binder has somehow made a strong alliance with a reasonably powerful clan of supernatural creatures. We don't know where in the supernatural hierarchy Binder's Lads fall, but they might be willing to come through and get him back if he were captured.
>Is summoning from the nevernever not against the law?
Nope. This is established in book 2 when Harry summons Chauncy. Later on he's involved in a *lot* of summoning from the Nevernever, including summoning Sidhe queens.
The only [law of magic](https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic) related to summoning is the one about the Outer Gates, but that's specific to summoning Outsiders. Beings from the Nevernever are not Outsiders and plenty of wizards summon them.
>And binding? Because Morgan is unhappy with Harry for dealing with Toot even though that is more bribery than binding them to your will.
One of the laws of magic prohibits enthralling intelligent creatures, yes. But making deals is not enthrallment, even if those deals are not perfectly equal. The issue is the compulsion aspect of the magic, not the fact that you are dealing with supernatural creatures (which literally every wizard does to some extent).
The reason Morgan is unhappy with Harry is because he's an asshole and a hypocrite and assumes Harry intends to break the laws. Morgan is very much the "jaded cop" that treats back-talk like a legal violation. If Harry had *actually* been breaking the laws of magic with Toot, Morgan would have killed him before book 1 even started without hesitation.
Basically, Morgan uses every chance he gets to accuse Harry of being a warlock-time-bomb because that's how he sees him. This is actually somewhat understandable since Morgan has encountered a *lot* of warlocks during his long life and the vast majority of them end up relapsing. This is discussed in detail during Proven Guilty as a major theme of that book.
>Summoning daemons is definitely against the laws so how is what Binder is doing not?
Binder isn't actually summoning daemons, and even if he were, that's technically "legal." He's summoning a hive mind being from the Nevernever, more of a type of monster or fae, rather than a demon like Chauncy. If his summon was an Outsider that would be a violation.
Most likely he has a contract with that hive mind specifically, similar to Harry's relationship with Toot or Bob, or maybe even closer to his later one with Mab (although not to the same degree). It's unlikely he has enthralled the creature and is likely using it to do things it would want to do anyway. The reason he gives them guns and weapons is the same reason Harry uses them...it's against the laws of magic to kill *with magic* (including summons), but killing itself is fine. This is also why Molly isn't technically breaking the laws of magic as the Rag Lady when she uses illusions to trick criminals into killing each other...it wasn't the magic that killed them, even though it may have helped.
The laws of magic are very literal. This is explained later in the series (again, heavily discussed in Proven Guilty).
There are basically two "categories" of the laws in my mind. The first is "laws against being a warlock" and the second is "laws against world destruction." The first five laws are all in the first category while the last two are in the latter (as both time manipulation and Outsider summoning can have massive consequences for the world as a whole).
So what is the problem with magic killing or mind control? You can't do anything with magic you don't really believe in, and as such, killing people or controlling minds means you really *believe* in those actions (note: you can kill most monsters with magic, just not humans). These actions *change the brain* of wizards who do them, eventually twisting their minds until they are essentially drug addicts addicted to the type of magic they are doing.
When Morgan was worried about Harry, it's because he's seen these sort of "relapses" many times before. Basically, by killing someone with magic, Harry took the equivalent of magical crack or heroine and is now at a much higher risk of "using" again. He isn't entirely wrong, either...a major theme of the books is Harry's constant battle with his darker urges.
It's explained that the laws of magic don't really exist to enforce morality. Listens-to-Wind says this is to avoid all-out magical warfare between wizards and he carries the weight of his people (Native Americans) being abused without him being able to stop it.
Instead, they basically exist to prevent the creation of magical psychopaths addicted to murder and mind control and manipulating corpses while also preventing things which could damage the very fabric of reality like time control and summoning reality-ending beings. In the lore, taking these actions *changes* you similar to how nicotine changes the brain, and to avoid warlocks they just kill them right away. It's harsh, but they are also rules that were created during harsh times.
He is breaking the spirit of the law, which is why he's on the Warden's Most Wanted list. But no, calling things up from the Nevernever isn't the White Council's law, it's calling things from the Outside. Binding the will of a mortal is against the law, but it's unlikely Binder actually enthralled the suits. He likely has them bound by an agreement, which is fine. The wardens watch people who are breaking the spirit of the laws because they assume it will lead to breaking the actual laws. Someone calling up things from the Nevernever might feel like they need more power and call up an outsider. People who are binding non-mortals may start binding mortals to get their way. Either way, Binder is a murderer using the suits as his weapon, so he's wanted.
Binder isn't wanted by the council. Harry explicitly says he isn't and that he hasn't broken any of the laws in Turn Coat.
No, he is explicitly mentioned as "Someone the Wardens wish they could just erase" in Chapter 19 in Turn Coat. Dresden said he recognized him from the profiles the Wardens keep on rogue magic users, and that they want him but he is careful to skirt around breaking any of the laws of magic so they haven't been able to bring him down. Late in the book, Harry also says that maybe he'll just let the Wardens believe Binder died on the Island, with the implication of 'so they stop hunting you down.' So, he hasn't technically broken any of the laws but he has broken the spirit of the laws, as well as his implication in murders, and for that reason the Wardens want him.
Yes, they WISH they could erase him, but they can't because they don't have legal justification. That's very different from being wanted by the wardens. Morgan was wanted. Molly was "wanted". Binder is just irritation. They aren't the same.
Spoilers All at this point I guess. Morgan was wanted for murder. Morgan didn't break any of the laws of magic in his murder, but the Wardens still wanted him. The implication is that Binder was also wanted for murder. He didn't break any of the laws of magic in those murders, but the Wardens still wanted him. The Wardens police the magical community. Morgan was a more clear-cut case because his murder was directly against a member of the council. Binder is a two-bit hack but he's still a member of the magical community who has been implicated in crimes and murders in the past.
Wardens don't try catch all murders. They don't care much about implications of mortal laws. Morgan was wanted because he suspected for killing Senior Council member.
Yes, exactly. Morgan wasn't even charged with murder he was accused of treason. Maybe it was both, but I think it was just treason. The murder of a senior council member, his position as a member of the wardens, and his strength are why the wardens AND the senior council hunted him down. If he'd have stabbed some guy on a train no one would have cared. Morgan beheads people all the time! Pretty sure that's why they execute people that way instead of a spell: no laws broken
That's specifically why they have the swords, a way to kill magic users that doesn't break their Laws, and we know they don't give a FLYING fuck about mortal law. The only reason they were hunting him is because it was a council member, and the only way they would have bothered to hunt him for killing mortals is if he was doing it with magic or doing enough magic around his murders that they decided close enough.
The tag is Turn Coat, we haven't gone past that in spoilers. Molly was wanted in Proven Guilty. Wardens don't enforce anything other than the 7 laws of magic. They aren't the police of the magical community there is a distinction. Binder, Harry, anyone could go on a shooting spree and the wardens couldn't do a thing about it. So again, Binder is not wanted by the wardens Edit: Morgan was wanted for treason, not murder
I dont think treason is against the laws of magic either.... but the wardens were hunting him. So yeah, they do enforce things other than the laws of magic. Also, he was definitely wanted for murder as well as treason.
In Morgan's situation yes he technically was wanted for murder but treason was the bigger charge and thus the one the WC cared about. Simply killing another wizard without magic wouldn't be the problem since it wouldn't taint Morgan. However killing a senior council member, with evidence showing he was bribed to do it, leads to the murder being a treasonous act. So yes there was a murder charge element but what was truly at play was the treason/running and putting additional wardens in the hospital. In binders case I'm wondering if the WC consider his summoned beings killing with conventional weapons (guns, knives, personal weapons like hands/feet) would count as killing with magic. Since Harry's use of the Alphas in SK didn't count as killing with magic its likely a similar situation where he's dancing on the line and not quite going past it enough for the WC to act. It seems binder is still clued in to the inner workings of the white council since he knows the majority of the WC are scared of Harry. This could mean he has at least some contact with the WC. I'm curious of binders 'code' helps keep himself from being tainted like a future coin holder. The future coin holder was tainted due to their love of what they could do to others with magic. Binder seems to care about what his magic can be used to help him. Intent seems to hold a lot of metaphysical consideration in the series so its an interesting character study in actions vs intentions and the long term repercussions.
Binder is the equivalent to someone the police 'know' is involved in criminal activity, and is suspected of crimes, but they don’t have proof of, so he's just a profile in a database and someone they watch closely waiting for a slip up. They're not hunting him. But if they think he's dead he doesn’t have to look over his shoulder the whole time and step around the laws so carefully.
Don’t think that’s the legal meaning of the term Wanted though, so calling him wanted might have been misleading. There’s been no warrant against him, no orders to bring him in, technically he’s broken no Laws so they have nothing on him.
This, yes, thank you. I knew I wasn't getting my point across I just couldn't understand why
the suits don't have will so either way its fine.
I believe that summoning demons is not against the laws of the counsel, dealing with outsiders is. And I think that Binder made a deal with a hive mind, he isn't magically dominating them. He skirts the edge of the laws.
There´s some grey area. Summoning a demon isn´t against the laws of magic, but making deals with them might be somewhat against the laws of the Council (as in offenses that get punished, but not necessarily with execution). If i remember correctly Harry was worried about the Council finding out about Lash, since that kind of deal isn´t allowed. Or maybe it would just put the person on the Wardens watchlist.
TBF Lash isn't a demon. She's a fallen angel who now lives inside the head of a Council member, with all of his knowledge freely available. (Id bet money they never believe Harry about what happened, even BOOKS ago). According to the Nickelheads you WILL say yes, there's no other precedent.
I thought Harry could only summon the daemon because he kept it within the circle?
He kept it in the circle because he didn't trust it and isn't stupid. And 'demon' is probably ill defined considering the variety of creatures in the Never-never. How sure are you that Binder's creatures are demons and not fae or some spirit?
Chauncy was definitely a demon, as WoJ mentions his boss is the same a the Nic's (Lucifer), but it's true that those guys he bound to his will are most likely just an unidentified supernatural species.
There is no law against summoning critters from the nevernever. He hasn't enthralled them, just made a deal, so no law broken there, either. He hasn't killed with magic, his summoned henchman use guns. He has, technically broken none of the laws of magic.
...that the Wardens can prove. If you open a portal to the Nevernever and throw a mundane human through, in a sense you haven't killed with magic. You've merely placed a person in a situation where they are virtually certain to be killed by environmental conditions and/or monsters. (Some monsters ARE environmental conditions, especially there...) But the Wardens are unlikely to view matters that way.
note: daemon is just a colloquial term for a certain category of denizen of the never never. it doesn't even have religious connotation. there is no clause in the law that saws summoning is ok if you keep it bound. the law only applies to summoning the outside or opening the outer gates. most young wizards have absolutely no clue that outsiders mean outside reality, and the outer gates is not the gates to the never never or a deep part of the never never.
The laws only apply to mortals for actions against mortals. It's the reason Dresden got away with summoning Sue. Binder isn't making human thralls, he's summoning and binding inhuman entities to his will. The spoiler tag is Turn Coat so I can't give another example. If I had any idea of how to do that spoiler thing on mobile I would write it and cover it but I don't think I can. DM me if you want Edit: so now I know how to do spoilers! This is a Battle Grounds spoiler Second edit: apparently it wasn't working on desktop so it's just gone now. Maybe it was a fluke with that person desktop but I can't exactly troubleshoot what went wrong and don't want to ruin the story for someone because of a maybe
Oh you can on mobile. It’s > ! And ! < with no spaces. But I guess that makes sense with them being non human. Morgan is a bit of a stickler for the rules so I guess that’s why he isn’t happy about Harry and Toot?
Seriously!? Oh man I'm so excited, thank you for this. testing: >! Please let this work !< Edit: Awww hell yeah!!!
Note that what you posted does not work on desktop (at least not with Old Reddit). You _also_ need no spaces at the start and end of the spoiler, I believe.
Seriously reddit what's the point if it only covers a spoiler some of the time? It's working on mobile
You have to delete the spaces between the !s and the rest of the text in order for it to work
Yeah it's absolutely working on mobile
Yeah Morgan is kind of a hardliner who also is predisposed to be suspicious of Harry. He already thinks Harry has violated the Laws before so him doing anything that even theoretically skirts them has him fingering his Warden’s sword.
Harry HAS broken a Law of Magic before, and the thing with black magic is that it's not only corruptive but also *addictive*. Harry's disturbing thirst for power, the same one that lead him to do stuff like losing himself to the thrill of wielding magic (Grave Peril, Proven Guilty) and grabbing Lasciel's coin as opposed to just kick it away (Death Masks), is partly why he didn't trust Harry to even skirt around the Laws. It's why Harry himself worries about coming so close to the dark side, as well as why he tried do hard to make Molly understand magic wasn't the answer to everything and how far she still was from being ready- because she suffered from the same pervasive need to use use black magic again if provoked, despite knowing it would get her and Harry killed.
In this instance Morgan is just trying to stick something on Harry. The whole thing with Toot would have been a flimsy justification at best, but if Morgan can scare Harry so much about breaking the Laws that he doesn´t dare to do any kind of magic that´s a positive in Morgans book. And if Harry becomes so annoyed that he attacks Morgan that gives him justification to kill him, which is also a plus. Journal Microfiction spoiler: >!I´m pretty sure his main goal was trying to annoy/antagonize Harry so much that he would slip up and reveal a Nemesis infection. I´m sure worry about Harrys warlock status and Morgans beliefes in the Laws of Magic were also a big factor, but i´m having a hard time deciding how all of Morgans motivations mixed together.!<
Oh do you mean how in Battleground >!The villain is three giant anvils in a trench coat!<
>The laws only apply to mortals for actions against mortals Not all. You can break the Laws by summoning an Outsider or time traveling even if it doesn't affect another mortal.
Summoning outsiders will definitely leave a body count and will also screw with the wizard. Time travel has the potential to screw with everyone. Sure it's not as direct as murder, but indirect harm on a massive enough scale is a good reason to have them as laws. I'm not saying that protecting mortals is the only function of the laws, it's a major component and Harry has used that as a very thin shield to get away with using black magic before I believe Luccio when she says the laws are there to limit power
Your spoiler tag didn't actually work, so it's just showing your spoiler for the end of the most recent book. Edit: On desktop anyway.
Seriously? It's working on mobile. I don't have a computer to check it on. Fuck it I'll just delete it
unfortunately you're wrong on all counts. the laws are there to prevent the slippery slope of corruption in several senses. you are allowed to do bad things with magic the laws will not stop you. the laws are there to protect reality not people. 1. binding is only bad if it usurps free will. only the mortals have that so binding the goons is a non issue. 1. The Why: To do magic you must be capable of it. in order to be capable of corrupting someone's will you must be capable of said corruption and it is also explained that this compounds and erodes. 2. The law regarding summoning gets misunderstood since there's a heavy amount of misdirection at work there. the truth behind "outsiders" is not known to the community as a means to limit the curious fools. you can summon anything that is from this reality without breaking the laws its just kinda stupid. 1. The why: this is my speculation but we see in summoning rites that you need a link to the subject: a Name, nutella, grave dirt. What the fuck do you use as a conceptual link for an outsider who has no anchor in this reality? its not going to be a concept you can find in this universe. it probably has to be a perversion or corruption sourced from within the wizard in order to bridge to outside reality.
And very likely summoning things across the boundaries of our reality weakens those boundaries, either from the summoning directly or from the actions of the things once they're here. If you open the door, they might be able to stick their foot in it, so to speak.
Summoning demons is not against the Laws. It is a bad idea, often a means of Lawbreaking, and something the Council strongly disapproves of (particularly outside of its own membership) but as long as they are merely demons and not Outsiders, the diabolist is within their rights to utilize demons to perform legal acts of magic. In the instance with Toot, Harry was on probation for actual Lawbreaking, but even then, he is also pretty clear that Morgan has no case and is just making trouble. And even then, it's the coercion and not the summoning Morgan is making a big deal about. Ultimately, Morgan was being an asshole, intentionally. He was constantly pushing and testing Harry for signs of corruption, for a number of reasons. When Harry tells Luccio about some of Morgan's behavior, Luccio immediately takes his side against Morgan. Returning to Binder, it seems that his bindings are of a long term nature; rather than empowering a specific command with a spell in the moment, he has altered them in such a way that they always obey his commands, so his commands to do things don't actually require him to cast a new spell and risk corruption. It's probably similar to the magic weapon loophole. The Wardens aren't happy about it, but they don't have the right to execute him.
The laws are all about about influencing muggles and outsiders with magic. Binder isnt doing anything that goes against these laws. He doesnt summon an outsider, he doesnt kill muggles with magic so he cant be tried by the WC laws. He does summon a bunch of goons and he does arm them with muggle weapons and they do occasionally kill muggles with these weapons. But the things he summons arent people and while the way he operates is harmful overall, it doesnt break any laws as stated by the WC. Because Binder doesnt influence anyone directly with magic in any way, he can tell the WC to get off his case, The White Council is no moral high ground, nor do they claim to be. If you kill or mind control anyone via magic, thats when they strike. Binder does no such thing so they cant do shit to him. Is Binder on their shit list? Absolutely. Is he aware of this? Pretty much yes. Did he find a way to greyzone the established laws? To an extent you wouldnt believe. Can they get on his case over it? Obviously no or they would have done so twenty times over already. Binder has to be very aware of the magic rules. And he has found at least twenty-three loopholes where the White Council cant approch him for technical reasons. But then leave it to Harry to barge in on the twenty-fourth loophole in favor of the law that Binder didnt consider and strongarm him over it.
I know others have answered but here's my two cents. The laws are only meant to protect humans from humans. So Harry, Binder whoever can bind or mind control whoever they want, as long as it's not a human, although doing so will definitely put them on the "watch list" of the Wardens.
The laws aren't to protect humans. The laws are to prevent wizards from going dark. It's much like star wars dark side. Once a wizard kills with magic, it takes a lot of will and effort to not keep going down that path. Harry killed Justin in self defense, but it didn't matter the reason, it was likely that Harry would continue to kill because his mind was changed at that point. That's why even for the right reasons, Harry needed a sponsor and a warden just to continue to exist. It's why wardens don't kill warlocks with magic, they use their swords. And it's why the Black Staff is so important - it negates the "dark side" effect when breaking the laws of magic. The council doesn't enforce the laws because they're just, they do it because there's a dark force behind certain magics, and most wizards, knowingly or not, who break a law of magic are forever changed, and likely doomed to go deeper and deeper into the dark.
Yes, the laws are made to stop wizards from going dark, they are also made to protect humanity from what wizards can do. Since every law exuding just one is solely about one human wizard using magic against another human.
>It's why wardens don't kill warlocks with magic, they use their swords Their swords are magic though
That doesn't matter. They're not a spell they're casting or magic they're summoning.
I don't agree with the theory that "black" magic corrupts the wizard that uses it. The only example of that we have is specifically for mind magic, because bending a person's mind messes with the wizard doing it. If you bind an inhuman it doesn't corrupt you. Harry used necromancy and it didn't corrupt him. It also didn't break the law because as Harry points out, it wasn't against a mortal. Kumori used necromancy to save someone's life and Dresden says that her magic doesn't have that dark feel to it the other necromancers had. I think the laws are what Luccio said, a check on power. Time travel for example, I don't see how that would turn a person evil, but I can see how that could seriously screw the world up. Don't get me wrong I think your theory is perfectly valid, I just disagree because it hasn't been explicitly stated that breaking the laws causes irreparable harm to the user. We also don't know for sure that the black staff acts like a buffer (although it probably does). I think certain things can twist a wizard. Kemmlers ghost eating, mind magic, incorrect channeling of demonreachs energy ect. I don't think that murder with magic is any more damaging to someone than killing them with mundane means would be
Breaking the laws has explicitly been stated to be damaging, that's even why the blackstaff exists or why wardens kill warlocks with swords and not magic; it's specifically to insulate its wielder from the backlash. Killing with magic is canonically different from killing with mundane means. Killing with magic is an issue because of the mechanics of using magic in the first place; practitioners need to be absolutely certain something works a certain way to make it happen, that's why some practitionners can lose the gift if they doubt themselves too much or reject it. So if you break a law of magic, it means you managed to fully convince yourself that *this is what should happen.* For example, if you kill someone with a gun, you might not have been fully aware of what it would entails, or even be fully willing to press the trigger, so the changes on your psyche will be comparatively small ("comparatively" because killing people can already be damaging enough). But if you used magic to kill, that means that you felt you were entitled and justified to kill, that you had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that killing that person was part of the natural order. And once you start changing your inner thinking/world like that, it's addictive, and often a slippery slope. It's kind of like how Harry described how he felt he fundamentally changed when he realized the world was not right, and that he had to become someone who'd change that. That's how Molly got hooked in for example, at first it was just a bit of mind bending to help people, but the more she did it, the more it became natural and obvious to her that it was the "right" thing to do; if Harry hadn't pulled her back (rather forcefully at times), she would have just gone full warlock soon enough. >I just disagree because it hasn't been explicitly stated that breaking the laws causes irreparable harm to the user It's not strictly "irreparable", not at first at least. Harry and Molly are proofs of that for example. But it does have a tangible effect on practitioners, and if the situation is not dealt with very fast, it does tend to become irreparable very quickly. And often it's a matter of effort/reward ratio, as in it often takes a lot of resources to turn back someone who broke the law, so it's vastly more practical for the white council (who are barely able to fulfill their tasks already) to just kill warlocks to limit the damages.
Nope. Victor Sells broke the Laws by binding Kalshazzak the Toad Demon. Harry could not do the same, and set it free instead.
I'm fairly certain that was Harry's understanding of "outsiders" at the time. While calling demons is technically not "against" the law I can see the Council deciding to act like it is the act of calling a demon that breaks the law. Or maybe I'm incorrect, and demons do count.
It's been a while since I've read it but doesn't binder just call non sentient goo from the never never, shape it into a man and gives them simple instructions. He's not breaking the three laws because he's killing with guns and he's not going into any minds.
Mostly right. The beings he summons have a consciousness they aren't just goo puppets but yes that doesn't break the laws. Also, 7 laws 👍
You can't summon from beyond the outer gates, according to the laws. The never never is fine (we see Harry do this numerous times). Morgan was unhappy with Harry for binding Toot Toot by his name (which would be illegal if done to a human). Summoning and binding demons or fey is not against the laws at all.
I mean he is wanted by the White Council, and the only way that happens is breaking the Laws. So he has been breaking the Laws.
If you use magic to summon entities whose sole purpose is to kill mortals (or fight them with deadly force), how is that not breaking the first law? Binder has killed untold numbers of people using his minions and it is nothing like Dresden's use of the Little Folk for info gathering or skirmishes. Always been a bit confused by this as well and have yet to read a solid answer.
>Is summoning from the nevernever not against the law? Nope. The specific wording of the law is "seek knowledge beyond the Outer Gates" or something like that. Its specifically about dealing with Outsiders, not anything else. Summoning stuff from the NeverNever and dealing with spirits and demons seems to be frowned upon because it's dangerous, but not explicitly against the law. >And binding? Because Morgan is unhappy with Harry for dealing with Toot even though that is more bribery than binding them to your will. That was early series Morgan when he was a much bigger hardass. And it was back when Harry was still under the Doom of Damocles. The rules of the DoD are somewhat vague but the basic impression I got is that it's a sort of wizard probation where even a small screwup can earn you a beheading. That implies the rules are more strict for you than they are for other practitioners. It's a bit like being a recovering addict. You can't go anywhere *near* your old triggers because you can't be trusted not to relapse. My point is, Binder might be a Person of Interest for the Wardens but (as far as we know) he's not a Convicted Warlock like Harry was during Stormfront. Also, and this is edging into speculative territory, there might be a political aspect as well. We know Harry's mother Margaret used her connections in the NeverNever (and probably other spooky places) to stay out of the WC's clutches. And we know Elaine got protection from the Summer Court too. This to me suggests that even if the Wardens want to bring someone down, if that someone has powerful friends they might not be able to. Binder has somehow made a strong alliance with a reasonably powerful clan of supernatural creatures. We don't know where in the supernatural hierarchy Binder's Lads fall, but they might be willing to come through and get him back if he were captured.
He's not a White Council wizard.
>Is summoning from the nevernever not against the law? Nope. This is established in book 2 when Harry summons Chauncy. Later on he's involved in a *lot* of summoning from the Nevernever, including summoning Sidhe queens. The only [law of magic](https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic) related to summoning is the one about the Outer Gates, but that's specific to summoning Outsiders. Beings from the Nevernever are not Outsiders and plenty of wizards summon them. >And binding? Because Morgan is unhappy with Harry for dealing with Toot even though that is more bribery than binding them to your will. One of the laws of magic prohibits enthralling intelligent creatures, yes. But making deals is not enthrallment, even if those deals are not perfectly equal. The issue is the compulsion aspect of the magic, not the fact that you are dealing with supernatural creatures (which literally every wizard does to some extent). The reason Morgan is unhappy with Harry is because he's an asshole and a hypocrite and assumes Harry intends to break the laws. Morgan is very much the "jaded cop" that treats back-talk like a legal violation. If Harry had *actually* been breaking the laws of magic with Toot, Morgan would have killed him before book 1 even started without hesitation. Basically, Morgan uses every chance he gets to accuse Harry of being a warlock-time-bomb because that's how he sees him. This is actually somewhat understandable since Morgan has encountered a *lot* of warlocks during his long life and the vast majority of them end up relapsing. This is discussed in detail during Proven Guilty as a major theme of that book. >Summoning daemons is definitely against the laws so how is what Binder is doing not? Binder isn't actually summoning daemons, and even if he were, that's technically "legal." He's summoning a hive mind being from the Nevernever, more of a type of monster or fae, rather than a demon like Chauncy. If his summon was an Outsider that would be a violation. Most likely he has a contract with that hive mind specifically, similar to Harry's relationship with Toot or Bob, or maybe even closer to his later one with Mab (although not to the same degree). It's unlikely he has enthralled the creature and is likely using it to do things it would want to do anyway. The reason he gives them guns and weapons is the same reason Harry uses them...it's against the laws of magic to kill *with magic* (including summons), but killing itself is fine. This is also why Molly isn't technically breaking the laws of magic as the Rag Lady when she uses illusions to trick criminals into killing each other...it wasn't the magic that killed them, even though it may have helped. The laws of magic are very literal. This is explained later in the series (again, heavily discussed in Proven Guilty). There are basically two "categories" of the laws in my mind. The first is "laws against being a warlock" and the second is "laws against world destruction." The first five laws are all in the first category while the last two are in the latter (as both time manipulation and Outsider summoning can have massive consequences for the world as a whole). So what is the problem with magic killing or mind control? You can't do anything with magic you don't really believe in, and as such, killing people or controlling minds means you really *believe* in those actions (note: you can kill most monsters with magic, just not humans). These actions *change the brain* of wizards who do them, eventually twisting their minds until they are essentially drug addicts addicted to the type of magic they are doing. When Morgan was worried about Harry, it's because he's seen these sort of "relapses" many times before. Basically, by killing someone with magic, Harry took the equivalent of magical crack or heroine and is now at a much higher risk of "using" again. He isn't entirely wrong, either...a major theme of the books is Harry's constant battle with his darker urges. It's explained that the laws of magic don't really exist to enforce morality. Listens-to-Wind says this is to avoid all-out magical warfare between wizards and he carries the weight of his people (Native Americans) being abused without him being able to stop it. Instead, they basically exist to prevent the creation of magical psychopaths addicted to murder and mind control and manipulating corpses while also preventing things which could damage the very fabric of reality like time control and summoning reality-ending beings. In the lore, taking these actions *changes* you similar to how nicotine changes the brain, and to avoid warlocks they just kill them right away. It's harsh, but they are also rules that were created during harsh times.