Lash appears to have gained free will prior to her demise. I believe Jim confirms it in an interview at some point. So we know from Jim's setting that entities with monstrous natures can gain free will.
We were talking about angels, weren't we?
Lash was not an angel. She isn't even Fallen Angel, she was the echo of a Fallen Angel in Harry's mind. She had her own name to differentiate her from the Fallen Angel. If the Fallen Angel ever moved in (i.e. if Harry took up the coin) then she would have ceased to exist.
Nor did she have Freewill. In dying she was just obeying her new nature, the nature that Harry had help make by in someways redefining her.
To quote:
Q) Lash was apparently able to gain free will from harry, a mortal. Can mortals potentially grant free will to other supernaturals like vampires and faries?”
A) That’s… a spectacularly complicated question, really.
Lash didn’t gain free will, per se. Lash gained individuality, became a singular entity, self-motivated and distinct from the personality of Lasciel the Fallen. That personality was strongly influenced by Dresden, who believes very strongly in individual choice and responsibility, but doesn’t necessarily equate to free will in the sense of what mortals possess.
You might note that Lash essentially committed suicide with her “free will.” A choice which rather strongly resembles another choice a few books later in the series.
---
Which is beside the point since we are talking about angels not having freewill.
As a kitchen sink setting, if you want to be true to Jim Butcher, it doesn't help to ask "did he write it already"; instead, try "does it fit the general weirdness of a setting where Harry's perpetually randy air fairy spirit once possessed an undead dinosaur". If it fits, you're being true to the setting.
That would make sense, except where Jim has defined things. For example, Jim has defined Angels. The RPG has not defined Angels.
So that's a false dichotomy, and I still don't really understand the difference. Jim makes very few "absolutes" clear by design, so it feels like using absolutes to distinguish between "game based on" and "game inspired by" doesn't work. Canon isn't...closed, maybe, would be the right word? We know that there are vampire Courts that haven't been and may never be revealed, for instance - should we not make them as templates because they're not known or definitely make them as templates because they do exist?
The thing is, Jim has clearly defined some things. For incident, the Laws of Magic work independent of the White Council - which is why PCs have to take the Lawbreaker stunt even if the White Council doesn't know about their crimes. The Sidhe have been defined as not able to knowingly lie - they literally cannot knowingly utter something that is an out and out lie.
And angels have been defined. Not "angel like beings", not "spirits of good that serve a nice god", not "things from a different culture that are their versions of angels" - Angels.
Angels don't have freewill in the DV because that's how Jim defined.
But nothing in the RPG says that you can't have an angel with freewill.
Can you play an angel with freewill? Pick option 1 for no, pick option 2 for yes.
Richard