A Non-Evil Denarian?

[Shecky]

FWIW, WoJ (and no, I don't remember where or when; I only remember that he said it) is that the Denarians were put there by Satan because they were the top threats to his authority. That's right, these were the guys wanting not to rebel against an evil overlord and establish a peaceful and harmonious Hell, but to have the whip hand there. The coins put them in the unique position of being able to influence earthly things and people, however, so they have access to things that regular Fallen and demons don't have.

However, all is not status quo, as SmF shows us the definite possibility that the "Prince of f***ing Darkness" threw in on the side of the Denarians. It may be possible that Lucifer is either working a deal with them or is not as much punishing them as may have been believed. We'll see.

[kamilion]

You mean "because they want neither to be imprisoned for all eternity, nor to be subservient to a being they feel has betrayed them in favour of His 'younger children', ie. mankind".
The methods they have chosen, certainly, are not in the best interests of mankind, but then, they were here, first, and it wasn't the Fallen that set this course of action, but rather had a dichotomous ultimatum set for them.  They just responded with 'option C'.

Well, you are welcome to such an interpretation, and I can certainly see such a view. I'm not using it myself, since the references I chose to use (which were primarily detailed scholarly analysis of Revelations, using other sections of the Bible to attempt to interpret those verses) don't mention jealousy. Basically, according to these texts, the angels were given direct dominion (as opposed to Satan's more ephemeral dominion) over mankind in God's name (twice!), they started doing whatever they wanted (twice!), and they had their positions revoked (twice!). I've basically chosen to not paint the Denarians in a sympathetic light (at least not as a group). It's a personal choice, because I love the Denarians as bad guys, and I want them to be bad.

That being said, if you want to go the sympathetic route, I think you could get real mileage out of a Denarian who is seeking redemption, or simply regretful about the path that has to be taken to achieve their goals. Personally I think the "it's all God's fault cause he didn't love me enough!" tact has been done to death, though. Then again, my players (well, former players, my group recently suffered catastrophic failure) tend to be disturbingly savvy in noticing uses of common memes and cliches, and I like to surprise them.

[kamilion]

FWIW, WoJ

I'm going to need a translation of this, I'm not familiar with the forum abbreviations for Dresden Files stuff.

However, all is not status quo, as SmF shows us the definite possibility that the "Prince of f***ing Darkness" threw in on the side of the Denarians. It may be possible that Lucifer is either working a deal with them or is not as much punishing them as may have been believed. We'll see.

Can you point me in the direction of the section that indicates this? Not challenging, I'm just interested (I did mention I love the Denarians as a bad guy, right?).

Now that I think of it, I wonder if my ebook reader will search through the book texts... that might turn up some fun tidbits.

[Richard_Chilton]

FWIW = For What It's Worth.

WoJ = Word of Jim.  It means that Jim posted something on the subject.

There's someone on the Spoilers board who has gathered up all of Jim's posts on the Dresden Files and organised them.  Head to the spoiler's board and you'll find it - it's a sticky post.

SmF = Small Favors.  Harry looks at something that happened there and knows that no mortal agency could have done it - and that includes the mortal host of a Denarian.  In short, he finds evidence that the Big Evil Guy acted on Earth.

Small Favors (where Dresden is talking to one of Denarians) and The Warrior (where Dresden gets a bit of the other side's point of view) really add to this discussion.  I'd urge everyone to read (or re-read) those two bits.

Richard

[Viatos]

Ninja'd while typing it out! And much more detailed then my explanation! Nice.

[kamilion]

Thanks! I'd forgotten about that WoJ section.

[Tedronai]

I've basically chosen to not paint the Denarians in a sympathetic light (at least not as a group). It's a personal choice, because I love the Denarians as bad guys, and I want them to be bad.

That being said, if you want to go the sympathetic route, I think you could get real mileage out of a Denarian who is seeking redemption, or simply regretful about the path that has to be taken to achieve their goals.

I suppose I just don't see a necessary disconnect between 'sympathetic light' and 'bad guys'.  That 'sympathetic light' might be limited a bit when you're talking about an entity that's planning what will, coincidentally, result in the cataclysmic destruction of human society, but I find 'they're doing evil because they're evil' to be rather less engrossing.
Similarly, I don't think I'd ever have one of the Fallen truly, definitively, seeking Redemption, mostly because for a being as old as time, Redemption is a bit of a long-term project, beyond the scope of most Dresden campaigns (they might SEEM to be seeking redemption, but I don't think I'd ever have their ultimate success, or even the good faith of their efforts, definitively confirmed)

[kamilion]

I suppose I just don't see a necessary disconnect between 'sympathetic light' and 'bad guys'.  That 'sympathetic light' might be limited a bit when you're talking about an entity that's planning what will, coincidentally, result in the cataclysmic destruction of human society, but I find 'they're doing evil because they're evil' to be rather less engrossing.

I was going to say I agree on the "evil for evil's sake" statement, since what the Denarians want in my Dresdenverse is evil primarily to humanity and certain forces of Good (big G), and probably perfectly reasonable to incredibly powerful beings from the beginning of time. My point focuses more on the "Denarian agenda" as evil, rather than the individuals. I think we're arguing semantics, really. To address the OP's original point, I personally wouldn't have a "good Denarian," but I think a ton of fun could be had with a Denarian who isn't straight up cackling, kitten-eating evil, but is instead behaving in a way that is at least, on the surface, being good, with a much more complicated reason.

So, yes, I guess you could have a "goodish Denarian" anyway.

What were we talking about again?

... Incidentally, this makes me want to start a topic about Evil for Evil's Sake in reference to certain entities that essentially Are What They Are.

[Tedronai]

I was going to say I agree on the "evil for evil's sake" statement, since what the Denarians want in my Dresdenverse is evil primarily to humanity and certain forces of Good (big G), and probably perfectly reasonable to incredibly powerful beings from the beginning of time. My point focuses more on the "Denarian agenda" as evil, rather than the individuals. I think we're arguing semantics, really.

So long as we remember that the primary distinction between 'capital-G-Good' and 'capital-E-Evil' in such a case is, first and foremost, the team they're playing for, and not their goals, or even necessarily their means (there are plenty of examples of the White God engaging some pretty nasty means in the Old Testament).

To address the OP's original point, I personally wouldn't have a "good Denarian," but I think a ton of fun could be had with a Denarian who isn't straight up cackling, kitten-eating evil, but is instead behaving in a way that is at least, on the surface, being good, with a much more complicated reason.

So, yes, I guess you could have a "goodish Denarian" anyway.

Or at least a 'Denarian that seems to be acting as a 'good' entity would, but it IS a Denarian, so you really should still expect it to stab you in the back at the worst possible moment, no matter how many times it neglects to take you up on what seems to be such an opportunity'.

What were we talking about again?

... Incidentally, this makes me want to start a topic about Evil for Evil's Sake in reference to certain entities that essentially Are What They Are.

I think that's really the territory of 'pure' spirits, Demons, or Outsiders (or a combination, in differing flavours).

[sinker]

Here's a different direction to approach it from. Do they have Refresh?

[Tedronai]

They have a Refresh value.



...



(Oh.  Right...It's almost certainly negative.)

[DFJunkie]

Well, since the Denarians are the holders of the coins I would say it's perfectly possible for one of the coin holders to be non-evil, at least temporarily by maintaining a positive refresh while still dangling the occasional bit of tractability before the Fallen residing in the coin.  As for the Fallen itself?  Not so much.

[Tedronai]

Just because you have a positive refresh level doesn't mean you're 'non-evil', it just means that you have choice.  And among the options such choice affords you is Evil.  And, as a result of having that choice, get even less sympathy if you take those options than a being that is evil because being evil is simply a part of their nature.

[Contrarius]

Woops, didn't notice where I was posting this. Nevermind!

[DFJunkie]

Just because you have a positive refresh level doesn't mean you're 'non-evil', it just means that you have choice.  And among the options such choice affords you is Evil.  And, as a result of having that choice, get even less sympathy if you take those options than a being that is evil because being evil is simply a part of their nature.

Granted, but in the case of the Denarians maintaining a positive refresh value is a necessary precondition to being non-evil. 

In addition, it seems to be necessary for the holder of one of the coins to play ball, at least to an extent, with the Fallen.  Lash could manipulate Harry's perceptions, causing staggering pain and inflicting potentially deadly illusions, and that was just the shadow of Lasciel.  I'm sure a full-blown Fallen would be orders of magnitude harder to resist.

So yes, I suppose it's possible for one of the Denarians (again, the human holder, not the Fallen) to remain non-evil, provided they walk a very fine line, and probably provided that they bring something impressive to the table before the coin is taken into account.  I imagine some of the Fallen would be more willing to be patient with a truculently moral bearer if the eventual payoff was impressive enough.