Convincing a Denarian to give up their host.

[Belial666]

Say that you defeat a Denarian whose Fallen is dominating him. The following are usually true;

1) Fallen are really proud beings.
2) They usually hare or scorn the human race.
3) They are supremely self-centered.


So you defeat and capture a Denarian and the Fallen is refusing to relinquish the victim. You want to save said victim. What if you threaten the Fallen with this; the host is taken into a monastery built on a leyline. Some wizards, using the leyline for power, "curse" the host so that the Fallen has to experience whatever is happening but is bound and prevented from actually acting on it. And then you leave the host in the care of the monks, who mouthfeed him and clean him and take him to all church services every day... for as long as the Fallen does not abandon the host. Given that the host would not age with the Fallen inside, that could well last for a very long time.


So, would the Fallen consent to freeing the host and returning to the coin?

[Wordmaker]

Ouch. That might just work on a more impatient Denarian like Magog or Tessa.

[babel2uk]

Given that the host would not age with the Fallen inside, that could well last for a very long time.

I'd say that if you're binding the Denarian's powers to the extent that you outlined, you've bound up the helpful things too, so the host would age normally.

The Denarian may relinquish the host, depending on their personal outlook. But you may be signing the death warrant for all of the monks at that monastery, I can't see the other fallen allowing that sort of thing to go unopposed for long - even if it's Nicodemus deciding that he has a use for the Denarian in question.

I'd also seriously question the ability of a PC group to really deliver on that threat. There's the risk that the Denarian will simply kill the host before you can carry it out, or will throw everything into a bid for freedom (and force the PCs to kill the host). In any case I'd say that any Wizards who perform such a curse/punishment will not only be effectively killing the inhabitants of that monastery, but will also be painting big targets on themselves for an organised strike from the more intelligent and deadly Denarians.

[Papa Gruff]

Hmm ... I don't know. It seems a bit too much like torture to me. Would the church/monks do that? Is it even possible? As I understand it, the coin must be given away freely. In the description there isn't a lot of choice involved: either you stay here bound for all eternity or you renounce your demonic partner once and for all and may go. Hardly a free choice if you ask me.

What does the fallen have to gain by retreating into the coin? Nothing. Thats what. Probably hundreds of years in some high security vault covered by one of those holy hankies. Not very appealing. I'd say no. He wouldn't relinquish the hold over his host. That is something that the host has to decide.    

[Belial666]

The bid here is to get the Fallen to relinquish the host "freely" by forcing it to experience some of the worst/most helpless aspects of human existence - which it would probably hate. Like forcing a rich and powerful human to spend time as a monkey and a quarduplegic monkey at that. By relinqushing the host, the Fallen could retreat into the coin and quiet instead of having to experience human helplessness. Imagine someone like Thorned Nhamshiel that can't even bear a human using soulfire against the awesomeness that is he. How would he feel if he was force into something like that?

Yes, it is spiritual torture. But considering the evil the Fallen did, there are lots of people that would agree with it.

[babel2uk]

PapaGruff raises a good point actually, it does seem that the Host has to give up the coin, not the Denarian give up the Host. It may be that once someone has picked up the coin the Denarian is bound to that person for better or worse until that person dies, or gives up the coin. Lash appears to be a somewhat special case, and cheats in that respect by allowing an external attack to destroy her rather than Harry. In that case, no amount of threat or torture will induce a Denarian to give up the host - and that makes sense, it's the mortal that has the free will to choose here(whether they realise or not).

[Papa Gruff]

PapaGruff raises a good point actually, it does seem that the Host has to give up the coin, not the Denarian give up the Host. It may be that once someone has picked up the coin the Denarian is bound to that person for better or worse until that person dies, or gives up the coin. Lash appears to be a somewhat special case, and cheats in that respect by allowing an external attack to destroy her rather than Harry. In that case, no amount of threat or torture will induce a Denarian to give up the host - and that makes sense, it's the mortal that has the free will to choose here(whether they realise or not).

That. I'd like to add that Harry is only ever confronted with Lash's shadow and never with the real fallen angle. Harry decides not to use the coin, yet keeps it to have the option later on if need may be (witch tells us a lot about him if you ask me).

A very good passage that gives some inside in how it works is the one where Harry, Michal and Sanya confront Quintus Cassius in Death Masks. The knights clearly state there, that it is not their place to part the host from the coin. It is the concept of redemption that is important here. As I understand it, it only works this way around.

[Becq]

The Denarian (the fallen angel in the coin, that is) can release the Host for whatever reason, should it choose to.  Howver, the Host is only redeemed if it's the Host's choice to give up the coin, which is why the Knights tend to be very reticent about forcing the issue.  The fate of the Host's soul is a primary concern for them, and in a sense it's a loss for them each time they are forced to kill a Host to recover a coin.

The plan to capture and trick a Denarian is a highly risky one.  In no particular order: First, while casting magics on the Host would likely be well within the realm of reason, I'm less certain that mortal characters of less than plot-device power could cast a spell that would impact a fallen angel.  So whether the "experience what the host experiences" spell would even work is doubtful.  Second, I don't see why being trussed up in an imprisoned human would be any worse for the fallen angel than having his coin locked up in a vault for the same amount of time.  Third, Denarians are mythic-level temptors.  I'm sure they would simply see this as an opportunity to tempt the bejeezus out of a bunch of monks.  Fourth, you've now invited a being of utter evil past the thresholds of a place dedicated to good, and deserve the corruption of that holy place that is bound to follow.  Fifth, you've created a beacon for any other Denarians that might happen by (the Denarians might not necessarily like each other or play well with each other, but imagine the value one Denarian might place on a major favor owed by another Denarian that was freed from imprisonment).  Sixth, imagine what a shame it would be if a Monk who was 'hand-feeding' the prisoner were to suddenly feel the impact of a small piece of metal against his hand as it fell off his ward's forehead...

The list goes on.

That said, you might get lucky.  It worked for Harry once, so it could work again.  But it seems very, very risky...

[Lanir]

I agree with Becq's analysis of the situation and would only add two small ideas to it. First, as noted the Fallen is a plot device level entity. There's no reason why it shouldn't eventually find a way out of even a perfect prison. Second, a Fallen in the torturous scenario you described would likely start off it's corruption of it's would-be jailers by tempting them to inflict more pain and torture on it's bearer. Not like the Fallen really cares about it's mount and causing people who think their actions are justified to overreact and do evil is a very insidious and dangerous kind of subversion. It destroys from within and does so more effectively than just about any other action the Fallen could take.