WAG.... Murphy has moved on

[Mr. Death]

Yeah.  You know what's funny.  When Murphy made her error against Nicodemus, he in turn error'd against the Sword.  He took the Sword, and broke it on the ground because he didn't have Faith the Sword could work without the blade.  The correct way is to unmake the Sword by killing an innocent with it.

You know, I always wondered how they know that.

I mean, obviously it hasn't happened before. So how could they know what would or wouldn't unmake it?

[groinkick]

You know, I always wondered how they know that.

I mean, obviously it hasn't happened before. So how could they know what would or wouldn't unmake it?

Hmmm  Good point...  I dunno maybe it's just how the Mantle's/Graces work so it's common knowledge.  The Sword has a purpose, like a Mantle.  Violate that purpose and it's destroyed.  I'm wondering if Molly had

(click to show/hide)

somehow had sex with Carlos it would have destroyed the Mantle which is why it defended itself as Mab put it.

[peregrine]

You know, I always wondered how they know that.

I mean, obviously it hasn't happened before. So how could they know what would or wouldn't unmake it?

I imagine Anduriel knows, thanks to the powers of being a fallen angel.

[Quantus]

I imagine Anduriel knows, thanks to the powers of being a fallen angel.

Id go with that.  They still follow Rules, just Rules that we wee mortals have difficulty understanding.  Or TWG informed the knights somewhere/somehow along the line (seems like the sort of thing the rules would allow the Knights to know). 

Yeah.  You know what's funny.  When Murphy made her error against Nicodemus, he in turn error'd against the Sword.  He took the Sword, and broke it on the ground because he didn't have Faith the Sword could work without the blade.  The correct way is to unmake the Sword by killing an innocent with it. 

That's how you destroy Amoracchius (aka the Sword of Love), which as cold-hearted murder of an innocent is arguably a supremely Loveless Act.  The Sword of Faith is Destroyed by Faithlessness, or an act of treachery (per SmF).  Im guessing the Sword of Hope would be destroyed by an Act of Despair where somebody would need to commit suicide on it. 

But the other aspect is that, per GP, a Swords destruction is a two-stage thing. First it needs to be made Vulnerable through mis-use, rendering it a mundane sword the way Harry did with Lea that time. Then, once a wielder has exposed it the final destruction can be done, which was where Mavra was going to murder an innocent with it.  It's possible that Nic was hoping Murphy's strike would be enough internal/emotional betrayal to do the deed, but I think it more likely that he just went for the lesser Win.  Even if the Sword's magic/spirit wasnt permanently destroyed it should have taken months or years to reforge the Sword into something that would actually threaten him; ensuring that one of the defunct swords stays defunct is a Win for him, especially now when all the Big powers are realizing the clock is almost out, so a few years more is all that really matters.

[peregrine]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on what destroys a Sword.  Amoracchius was rendered vulnerable by an act of faithlessness, in fact, one done out of an act of love.  And would murdering someone with a Sword that exists to protect the innocent not similarly be an act of Faithlessness?

I do broadly disagree with you on what it takes to do it, though.  First render it vulnerable, then destroy or unmake it.  Simply shattering the blade wouldn't do it because the steel is not the Sword.  It takes something like, what you said, Mavra murdering an innocent.  Nic may have wanted to unmake the sword, but he had things to do, so going out of his way and delaying his mission wasn't going to happen.  Especially if he expected to get his hands on upwards of half a dozen other artifacts on par with the Swords.

[groinkick]

Id go with that.  They still follow Rules, just Rules that we wee mortals have difficulty understanding.  Or TWG informed the knights somewhere/somehow along the line (seems like the sort of thing the rules would allow the Knights to know). 
That's how you destroy Amoracchius (aka the Sword of Love), which as cold-hearted murder of an innocent is arguably a supremely Loveless Act.  The Sword of Faith is Destroyed by Faithlessness, or an act of treachery (per SmF).  Im guessing the Sword of Hope would be destroyed by an Act of Despair where somebody would need to commit suicide on it. 

But the other aspect is that, per GP, a Swords destruction is a two-stage thing. First it needs to be made Vulnerable through mis-use, rendering it a mundane sword the way Harry did with Lea that time. Then, once a wielder has exposed it the final destruction can be done, which was where Mavra was going to murder an innocent with it.  It's possible that Nic was hoping Murphy's strike would be enough internal/emotional betrayal to do the deed, but I think it more likely that he just went for the lesser Win.  Even if the Sword's magic/spirit wasnt permanently destroyed it should have taken months or years to reforge the Sword into something that would actually threaten him; ensuring that one of the defunct swords stays defunct is a Win for him, especially now when all the Big powers are realizing the clock is almost out, so a few years more is all that really matters.

I have to disagree. 

I do agree that the Sword must first become vulnerable via the Knight misusing it.  Harry was a Knight for a few moments, and then violated the Sword.  If a Knight was killed and the Sword recovered by an enemy I don't think they could destroy it.  It would either be summoned by an Angel or the Sword could protect itself from said villain.  So it must first be made vulnerable by the Knight, then after that it can be unmade.

The disagreement is how to unmake the Sword.  I think killing any innocent with any of the Swords will unmake them.

Nic may have wanted to unmake the sword, but he had things to do, so going out of his way and delaying his mission wasn't going to happen.  Especially if he expected to get his hands on upwards of half a dozen other artifacts on par with the Swords.

Could be but I don't know.  He was going to be leaving with Harry.  Why not just take it and murder one of his vanilla followers who were back at their make shift base?  I think he error'd.

[Mr. Death]

I have to disagree. 

I do agree that the Sword must first become vulnerable via the Knight misusing it.  Harry was a Knight for a few moments, and then violated the Sword.  If a Knight was killed and the Sword recovered by an enemy I don't think they could destroy it.  It would either be summoned by an Angel or the Sword could protect itself from said villain.  So it must first be made vulnerable by the Knight, then after that it can be unmade.

We know this to be true -- Lea outright says she couldn't even have picked it up if Harry hadn't made it vulnerable, and Fid outright burns Susan in Death Masks when she tries to pick it up. So apparently, monsters and such simply can't touch the thing if it's not vulnerable.

[Mira]

We know this to be true -- Lea outright says she couldn't even have picked it up if Harry hadn't made it vulnerable, and Fid outright burns Susan in Death Masks when she tries to pick it up. So apparently, monsters and such simply can't touch the thing if it's not vulnerable.

Harry was never a Knight, not even for a little while,  he did however misuse the Sword of Love when he tried to kill Lea with it.   It fell out of his hands and Lea was able to pick it up.  Michael said that Holy Swords don't allow themselves to be misused.  Since Harry misused it when he tried to kill Lea, he made it vulnerable to being unmade, which almost happened at the party.

[Arjan]

Harry was never a Knight, not even for a little while,  he did however misuse the Sword of Love when he tried to kill Lea with it.   It fell out of his hands and Lea was able to pick it up.  Michael said that Holy Swords don't allow themselves to be misused.  Since Harry misused it when he tried to kill Lea, he made it vulnerable to being unmade, which almost happened at the party.

If the sword does not accept you you can not abuse it, you can not even touch it. Unless it was made vulnerable before.

So it can only be made vulnerable by someone accepted by the sword. Someone who was going to act with the sword. A de facto knight.

In that sense Harry was a knight. The sword trusted him to do the right thing and he did not.

[groinkick]

Harry was never a Knight, not even for a little while

Harry like Merlin was later entrusted with the Swords.  He must have been considered worthy to be so.  Unless the rule is any mortal who comes in contact with a Sword can unmake it regardless if they are a Knight or not.

In this instance Harry was entrusted with the Sword, and like Murphy he failed.

[Mira]

If the sword does not accept you you can not abuse it, you can not even touch it. Unless it was made vulnerable before.

So it can only be made vulnerable by someone accepted by the sword. Someone who was going to act with the sword. A de facto knight.

In that sense Harry was a knight. The sword trusted him to do the right thing and he did not.

Not necessarily, if you go back and read what Michael said when it happened.  He said a Holy Sword wouldn't allow itself to be misused.   He didn't say anything about a Knight misusing it,  Harry's attempt merely made it vulnerable so Lea could pick it up..  This opened the door for her gifting Bianca with it at the party, in turn she wanted to do a human sacrifice with it, no Knights there, the mere act of killing an innocent would have broken it completely.

The Sword of Faith wouldn't let Susan a half/vamp touch it, but Harry, not a Knight, though he received it from from Shiro, handled it, he didn't abuse it, so it wasn't made vulnerable so someone like Susan could touch it.

[Arjan]

Not necessarily, if you go back and read what Michael said when it happened.  He said a Holy Sword wouldn't allow itself to be misused.   He didn't say anything about a Knight misusing it,  Harry's attempt merely

Not merely, this is absolute essential.

made it vulnerable so Lea could pick it up..  This opened the door for her gifting Bianca with it at the party, in turn she wanted to do a human sacrifice with it, no Knights there, the mere act of killing an innocent would have broken it completely.

The Sword of Faith wouldn't let Susan a half/vamp touch it, but Harry, not a Knight, though he received it from from Shiro, handled it, he didn't abuse it, so it wasn't made vulnerable so someone like Susan could touch it.

Harry telling himself he is no knight means nothing. It is all about human free willed choice and the sword can give you the opportunity to choose. And with choices actions have more meaning than words.

Knighthood is not something bestowed upon you, it is a choice you make. And that is the only rule.

At the moment you pick up the sword, the sword accepts you and you decide to do something with it you are the knight. Even if only for a few minutes. Even if you are not a perfect knight. Even if you tell yourself you are not.

And it is not about the final act, the killing of an innocent. Every monster can do that if it is made vulnerable. It is about the first act, making it vulnerable in the first place. No monster can do so.


The only one who can do so is the one trusted by the sword in the first place, the knight.

[groinkick]

Upon reading the scene again it may have been Michael who allowed it to happen by voluntarily dropping the Sword which allowed another mortal to acquire it (Harry) who then screwed up.

[Mira]

Harry like Merlin was later entrusted with the Swords.  He must have been considered worthy to be so.  Unless the rule is any mortal who comes in contact with a Sword can unmake it regardless if they are a Knight or not.

In this instance Harry was entrusted with the Sword, and like Murphy he failed.

  Harry is considered worth to be custodian of the Swords, but that in no way makes him a Knight.  Murphy was considered to be worthy of being a Knight for one night, refused any offer to be one full time... However that doesn't make her a custodian, as stated by Uriel and Michael, that she took upon herself.

Harry telling himself he is no knight means nothing. It is all about human free willed choice and the sword can give you the opportunity to choose. And with choices actions have more meaning than wo

You are not taking into account the reaction of the Swords to the person who touches them.. In Harry's case, though he has handled two of the three Swords, they have never lighted up to his touch.   The Sword of Faith did light up in it's sheath in the presence of the enemy while on his back, but that wasn't a job offer, and Harry didn't take it as such..   It did light up a little while later when Murphy touched it, Harry immediately took that as a job offer.. 

Knighthood is not something bestowed upon you, it is a choice you make. And that is the only rule.

No, you've got that a little backwards, the Almighty or one of his Agents have to bestow the Knighthood first... Only then can the potential Knight chose to accept or not accept the job offer for however long...  Like Susan, when she touched the Sword of Faith before it totally rejected her,  only later in Changes when though Harry she was chosen to a Knight for a night to go and save her daughter did the Sword allow her to make the choice... 

And it is not about the final act, the killing of an innocent. Every monster can do that if it is made vulnerable. It is about the first act, making it vulnerable in the first place. No monster can do so.

I believe that is what I said, Harry misusing it made it vulnerable, then Bianca and company could proceed to use it in a sacrifice and unmake it.   If it had been stolen from Michael and taken to the party, I doubt that they would have been able to even begin to use it in such a way.

At the moment you pick up the sword, the sword accepts you and you decide to do something with it you are the knight. Even if only for a few minutes. Even if you are not a perfect knight. Even if you tell yourself you are not.

No, Harry kept it on his back on the island even with the  idea of trading it for Ivy, but that did not make him a Knight.

[Arjan]

  Harry is considered worth to be custodian of the Swords, but that in no way makes him a Knight.  Murphy was considered to be worthy of being a Knight for one night, refused any offer to be one full time... However that doesn't make her a custodian, as stated by Uriel and Michael, that she took upon herself.

That does not mean she wasn't one. She took the responsibility when there was no alternative. That means she was the de facto custodian with all the responsibilities that brings.

As soon as you end up with one of the swords it is your responsibility.

You are not taking into account the reaction of the Swords to the person who touches them..

On the contrary, that reaction is everything. Does the sword accept you? That is what count, not some angelic appointment because that is rarely available.

In Harry's case, though he has handled two of the three Swords, they have never lighted up to his touch.   

Lightning up is encouraging but not burning counts for a lot. It means you can try. It is after all your free willed decision.

The sword did not light up when Murphy picked it up at the end but it certainly showed enthusiasm when wielded. 

The Sword of Faith did light up in it's sheath in the presence of the enemy while on his back, but that wasn't a job offer, and Harry didn't take it as such..   

The sword might have known Harry was not interested.

It did light up a little while later when Murphy touched it, Harry immediately took that as a job offer..  No, you've got that a little backwards, the Almighty or one of his Agents have to bestow the Knighthood first... Only then can the potential Knight chose to accept or not accept the job offer for however long...  Like Susan, when she touched the Sword of Faith before it totally rejected her,  only later in Changes when though Harry she was chosen to a Knight for a night to go and save her daughter did the Sword allow her to make the choice... 

There is no reason to believe such a thing. The sword can accept or reject wielders according to its nature. Harry explains this to Susan, she had to act out of love to wield the sword of love.

There is no badge of knighthood that needs an archangel to be transferred or something like that. There is the sword, that is your badge of knighthood.

I believe that is what I said, Harry misusing it made it vulnerable, then Bianca and company could proceed to use it in a sacrifice and unmake it.   If it had been stolen from Michael and taken to the party, I doubt that they would have been able to even begin to use it in such a way.No, Harry kept it on his back on the island even with the  idea of trading it for Ivy, but that did not make him a Knight.

If Harry had taken the sword to fight Nicodemus and the sword had accepted him he would have been a knight, no heavenly appointment needed, just a free willed choice to take the responsibility.

If you have the sword, it accepts you and you decide to do something knightly you are the knight. It probably was no accident you got it in the first place anyway.