ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DF Spoilers => Topic started by: nadia.skylark on June 21, 2019, 05:24:08 AM
-
...Harry hadn't touched Lasciel's coin?
Because the main objection they had was that they couldn't just hunt down Denarians pre-emptively--but at that point, hunting down where the Denarians were hiding would constitute a rescue mission. So I'm wondering how much their concern that Harry was leading them into a trap factored in.
-
I mean Michael's family the Carpenters were attacked by Gruffs, so that pretty much meant their inclusion. But yes the Knights were concerned about Harry, as the conversation about "Harry where is your blasting rod?" was pretty much all about that.
-
While Michael may distrust Harry it is the idea of murdering without waning that Michael is against.
“Guys,” I said, “I know that your first instincts tend to be to stand watch against the night, turning the other cheek, and so on. But he’s here with maybe twice the demon-power he had on his last visit. If we wait for him to come to us, he’ll tear us apart.”
“Agreed,” Sanya said firmly. “Take the initiative. Find him and hit the snake before he can coil to strike.”
Michael shook his head. “Brother, you forget our purpose. We are not given our power so that we can strike down our enemies, no matter how much they might deserve it. Our purpose is to rescue the poor souls trapped by the Fallen.”
“You want to talk to them?” I asked Michael. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”
“I didn’t say that,” Michael replied. “But I will not set out to simply murder them and have done. It’s a solution, Harry. But it isn’t good enough.
-
While Michael may distrust Harry it is the idea of murdering without waning that Michael is against.
Yeah, but he could just say, "I'll help you rescue Marcone, but I'm not going to just kill the Denarians we meet--they must be given a chance to find redemption."
-
Isn't that what he did?
-
Isn't that what he did?
Yup, and that is the difficult concept for would be Holy Knights and non-Holy Knights to grasp.. It is the concept that tripped up Murphy...
-
Hmmm yeah Butters grappling with his Knighthood duties was a fun part of his short story.
-
Isn't that what he did?
No, he refused to go out looking for them.
-
No, he refused to go out looking for them.
No.
-
No.
You're mistaken; here's the quote (bolding mine):
"So," I said, "I think we've got to move fast, and get Marcone away from them before he's forced to join up."
Michael frowned and folded his broad, work-scarred hands on the table before him. "What makes you think he's going to tell them no?"
"Marcone's scum," I said. "But he's his own scum. He doesn't work for anyone."
...
"Guys," I said, "I know that your first instincts tend to be to stand watch against the night, turning the other cheek, and so on. But he's here with maybe twice the demon-power he had on his last visit. If we wait for him to come to us, he'll tear us apart."
"Agreed," Sanya said firmly. "Take the initiative. Find him and hit the snake before he can coil to strike."
Michael shook his head. "Brother, you forget our purpose. We are not given our power so that we can strike down our enemies, no matter how much they might deserve it. Our purpose is to rescue the poor souls trapped by the Fallen."
...
Michael smiled, but it was brief and strained. "My point is that we can undertake such an aggressive move in only the direst of circumstances."
"Faerie stands poised on the brink of an internal war," I said. "Which would probably reignite the war between the Council and the Vampire Courts--and in the bad guys' favor, I might add. One of the most dangerous men I've ever known is about to have involuntary access to the knowledge and power of a Fallen angel, which would give the Denarians access to major influence within the United States. Not to mention the serious personal consequences for me if they succeed in making it happen." I looked back and forth between the two Knights, and held up one hand straight over my head. "I vote dire. All in favor?"
Michael caught Sanya's hand on the way up, and pushed it gently back down to the table. "This isn't a democracy, Harry. We serve a King."
It seems pretty clear to me in this that Michael refuses to hunt down the Denarians (as opposed to agreeing, but qualifying it by saying that he's not giving up on the Knights' "redemption first" policy, and that as such he's not going to go straight to trying to kill them) even after it is pointed out to him that they have kidnapped Marcone and are planning to force him to take up a coin.
-
Still no. Quit looking at Michael and look at what Harry is saying. After your quote there is some back and forth, then Harry calls the Council and gets them to call in the Archive. It's a very well written passage.
“You confused him,” Sanya rumbled.
I glanced at the dark-skinned Knight. “What?”
“You confused him,” Sanya repeated. “Because of what you did.”
“What? Lying to the Council? I don’t see that I had much choice.”
“But you did,” Sanya said placidly. He reached into the gym bag on the floor next to him and drew out a long saber, an old cavalry weapon—Esperacchius. A nail worked into the hilt declared it a brother of Michael’s sword. He started inspecting the blade. “You could have simply moved to attack them.”
“By myself? I’m bad, but I’m not that bad.”
“He’s your friend. He would have come with you. You know that.”
I shook my head. “He’s my friend. Period. You don’t do that to your friends.”
“Precisely,” Sanya said. “So instead you have placed your own life in jeopardy in order to protect his beliefs. You risk your body to preserve his heart.” He brought out a smooth sharpening stone and began stropping the saber’s blade. “I suppose he considers it a particularly messianic act.”
-
The only thing your quote establishes is that Michael is willing to fight to aid and protect Harry. It says nothing about him being willing to rescue Marcone if Harry doesn't force the situation.
-
Okay then.
-
It seems pretty clear to me in this that Michael refuses to hunt down the Denarians (as opposed to agreeing, but qualifying it by saying that he's not giving up on the Knights' "redemption first" policy, and that as such he's not going to go straight to trying to kill them) even after it is pointed out to him that they have kidnapped Marcone and are planning to force him to take up a coin.
It is the hardest thing to grasp and why not everyone is cut out to be a Holy Knight. Yes, they fight evil, yes, they will kill a Denarian if they have to, but they do not go out on seek and destroy missions.. Sanya is clearly willing to, but his background is a bit different than Michael's. Michael has to remind them what their mission as Knights is.
"Agreed," Sanya said firmly. "Take the initiative. Find him and hit the snake before he can coil to strike."
Michael shook his head. "Brother, you forget our purpose. We are not given our power so that we can strike down our enemies, no matter how much they might deserve it. Our purpose is to rescue the poor souls trapped by the Fallen."
Free will still applies, Michael isn't going to try and rescue Marcone to preventhim from taking up a coin.. Actually I don't know if it has been established that one can be forced to do that.. But if Marcone were to take up a coin, then Michael would do everything he could to get him to give it up.
-
It is the hardest thing to grasp and why not everyone is cut out to be a Holy Knight. Yes, they fight evil, yes, they will kill a Denarian if they have to, but they do not go out on seek and destroy missions.. Sanya is clearly willing to, but his background is a bit different than Michael's. Michael has to remind them what their mission as Knights is.
And apparently they don't do rescue missions either, despite the fact that in both Death Masks and Changes they do do rescue missions. It is an inconsistency, unless there is something else going on. I posit that the 'something else' is Michael's distrust of Harry.
Free will still applies, Michael isn't going to try and rescue Marcone to preventhim from taking up a coin..
Why not? Shiro went to rescue Harry from Nicodemus when he was basically in the same situation as Marcone was--i.e. "take up a coin or else."
Here's an analogy: You know that a bunch of terrorists are going to blow up a bomb in an airport. There are no authorities you can call. Do you:
A) Try to kill/arrest all the terrorists beforehand.
B) Try to evacuate the airport and disarm the bomb, while trying to convince the terrorists to stop being terrorists.
C) Allow the bomb to blow up the airport and kill loads of people, then show up afterwords to help with medical care and triage.
I have no problems with the Knights refusing to go with option A. I do, however, see an issue with them choosing option C over option B. Even if it's not their job to protect innocents (and I would argue that it is part of their job, based on what we've seen them do in the books) they can't try to redeem any Denarians if they don't locate Denarians to redeem.
-
Why not? Shiro went to rescue Harry from Nicodemus when he was basically in the same situation as Marcone was--i.e. "take up a coin or else."
Shiro went to Nic's lair in Death Masks to die for Harry, not kill Nic.
-
Shiro went to Nic's lair in Death Masks to die for Harry, not kill Nic.
Very true. And I'm saying, "In Small Favor, why didn't the Knights hunt down the Denarians to save Marcone, rather than to kill the Denarians?"
-
How would the Knights hunt down anyone? If they don't get heavenly guidance they're just like me and you in terms of finding people. Harry doesn't find them for that matter, they find Harry. And thus the conversation with Michael. At this point Harry isn't aware the island exists, and has no way to track the Denarians assuming Michael said yes to a preemptive attack.
-
How would the Knights hunt down anyone? If they don't get heavenly guidance they're just like me and you in terms of finding people. Harry doesn't find them for that matter, they find Harry. And thus the conversation with Michael. At this point Harry isn't aware the island exists, and has no way to track the Denarians assuming Michael said yes to a preemptive attack.
1) At this point, none of them know that there is (supposedly) no way to track the Denarians.
2) I still don't see why Harry didn't at least try sending the Za Lord's Guard out looking for them.
3) I wonder if a Denarian coin could be used in tracking spells? (And what the result of doing so would be?)
-
Why not? Shiro went to rescue Harry from Nicodemus when he was basically in the same situation as Marcone was--i.e. "take up a coin or else."
In Harry's case in Death Mask it was a little more complicated than that. The mission from Heaven
was to keep Harry safe, yes, Shiro unknown at the moment was dying of cancer was willing to take Harry's place.
-
In Harry's case in Death Mask it was a little more complicated than that. The mission from Heaven
was to keep Harry safe, yes, Shiro unknown at the moment was dying of cancer was willing to take Harry's place.
I'm not sure how the fact that Shiro was dying of cancer has an impact on the Knights' willingness to rescue people.
Let's use another example of the Knights rescuing someone: Ivy.
The situations are parallel. Both people were kidnapped through use of that giant pentagram, for purposes of forcing them to accept a coin. In both instances the Knights were not getting any holy bat-signals of where to find them, but believed that they could be found in other ways. In Marcone's case, they refused to go look for him, and in Ivy's case, they agreed to go look for her.
Differences between the two are:
1) Marcone's a bad guy, and Ivy's a good guy
2) scale of potential damage
3) by the time they went looking for Ivy, Harry had convinced Michael that Lasciel's shadow wasn't around to screw with him
I can't think of any others.
For 1, the Knights of the Cross aren't supposed to judge people, so I don't see how this should matter. You could argue that, per Skin Game, the Knights of the Cross have a special responsibility towards innocents, which Marcone was not. However, in context of when Michael said that in Skin Game, it seemed to mean that an innocent was someone who hadn't chosen to expose themselves to whatever danger, and since Ivy had chosen to expose herself to the danger of the Denarians when she agreed to mediate the dispute, she shouldn't count either.
For 2, Michael made it clear in Skin Game that the stakes of a single soul was enough to risk an archangel Falling, so the fact that Marcone's soul was in danger should have been enough.
That leaves 3 as the only reason I can think of for the difference.
Can other people think of other reasons?
-
Harry's tracking spells require something linked to the thing he's tracking, Does he have something that I'm unaware of?
When the Denarians aren't looking all demonish, they look just like anyone else. There are over 8 million people in Chicago. Exactly what would you have Toot and company look for.
Say you had a coin to track, you do understand you would find yourself?In Marcone's case, they refused to go look for him, and in Ivy's case, they agreed to go look for her.
They didn't refuse to look for him, Michael refused to strike the Denarians without first offering a chance of repentance to them, which is what Harry wants.
-
I'm not sure how the fact that Shiro was dying of cancer has an impact on the Knights' willingness to rescue people.
I think the argument is:
Shiro did not go to rescue Harry.
Shiro went to die in place of Harry.
I'm not sure if there's any WoJ on this point.
But it makes a strong argument: when a Knight steps up in that way, their choice to pay that price is the key feature of the event. Whether there is a "rescue" involved, or another foil-the-bad-guys plan, the Knight's sacrifice is the defining thing.
Therefore (goes the argument) that incident has no real bearing on any discussion of knightly-rescuing; that wasn't what the event was about.
I'm not convinced the argument is correct; but I observe it to be a very-strong argument, and one not readily susceptible to being refuted.
-
3) I wonder if a Denarian coin could be used in tracking spells? (And what the result of doing so would be?)
Now I'm picturing Harry traipsing across Chicago and finding a portal to Hell. Probably near the DMV.
On topic: I don't think they would, no. Michael's argument is ideological; he does not want to risk the Swords in a preemptive strike. You argue that they could have gone after them without the intent to kill; that's what they eventually do. But the stakes were much higher at that point. Not only is there a child in danger, there's the risk of nuclear strike(s).
As far as Michael mistrusting Harry, I don't believe that, at that point in the story, Michael found Harry's behavior odd yet. I think it was the battle in the train station that tipped Michael off; in pitch blackness against Hobbs, which are harmed by light itself, fire is kinda the obvious weapon. Harry didn't use it offensively at all—he only used his Ball o' Sunshine spell (an important distinction; Harry doesn't think of it as Fire. Also funny to note that that's when Middle Gruff shows up.)
I think that the train station fight cued Michael that there was something wrong, and that that's when he began seriously suspecting that Lasciel was messing with his head—trying to prevent Dresden from fighting at his best, and possibly keep him from messing with the Denarians.
-
I'm not sure how the fact that Shiro was dying of cancer has an impact on the Knights' willingness to rescue people.
Shiro took Harry's place for Nic to torture and then infect with the plague... Harry felt guilty about that so before any of that even began, Shiro wrote a letter along with his diagnosis saying that he was dying anyway... Shiro was willing to rescue Harry, but there was a special reason for him doing it.. The fact that he was dying anyway altered a bit his sacrifice for Harry...
Rescuing Ivy wasn't all that important, keeping the Archive out of Denarian hands is another matter all together..
-
Michael passed the report to Sanya and smiled. "Shiro must have known that we would need you to stop the Denarians. It's why he traded himself for your freedom. And why he accepted the curse in your place."
Now if you want to call it a rescue mission then please do so, but this is the motivation. And Shiro is led to Nic's lair by angelic intervention. Had Michael been destined to go early then he would have gone, and his King would have showed him the way. Shiro also recognizes the difference between Harry and the Knights.Your path is often a dark one. You do not always have the luxury that we do as Knights of the Cross. We struggle against powers of darkness. We live in black and white, while you must face a world of greys. It is never easy to know the path in such a place.
Now some quotes from Small Favor“That’s the real reason you didn’t want to hat up and go gunning for the Denarians right at first, the way I wanted to. You were worried I was leading you into a trap.”
“I didn’t lie to you, Harry,” Michael said. “But I’d be lying right now if I didn’t admit that, yes, the thought had crossed my mind.”
He nodded. “Molly became concerned sometime yesterday. I asked her to have a look at you while you were sleeping earlier. I apologize for that, but I didn’t know any other way to be sure that someone had tampered with you.”
He searched my eyes again. “I will,” he whispered, “if you answer one question for me.”
I frowned at him and tilted my head. “Okay.”
He took a deep breath and spoke carefully. “Harry,” he said quietly, “what happened to your blasting rod?”
Edit
Answering the questions did Michael refuse to look for the Denarians for a reason other then what he originally stated, who spotted the problem and I believe how.
-
Harry's tracking spells require something linked to the thing he's tracking, Does he have something that I'm unaware of?
Harry's tracking spells that we've seen on screen do, but both Harry and Luccio make mention of having tried tracking spells on the Denarians and having them fail, so I assume that there are other ways.
When the Denarians aren't looking all demonish, they look just like anyone else. There are over 8 million people in Chicago. Exactly what would you have Toot and company look for.
Give them a picture of either Marcone or Nicodemus and say "find that guy." It's how Harry finds Susan in Changes.
Say you had a coin to track, you do understand you would find yourself?
You could wear gloves. (And you could also get a nasty shock when it turns out spellcasting with a coin is as good as touching it ;D. I didn't say this was necessarily a good idea, only that I would like to know what would happen.)
They didn't refuse to look for him, Michael refused to strike the Denarians without first offering a chance of repentance to them, which is what Harry wants.
Harry asked them at the beginning of the quote to help him find and rescue Marcone. Michael refused by implication when he refused to attack the Denarians--and even if you disagree with that interpretation, he certainly didn't agree to look for Marcone.
I think the argument is:
Shiro did not go to rescue Harry.
Shiro went to die in place of Harry.
That makes sense.
But it makes a strong argument: when a Knight steps up in that way, their choice to pay that price is the key feature of the event. Whether there is a "rescue" involved, or another foil-the-bad-guys plan, the Knight's sacrifice is the defining thing.
Therefore (goes the argument) that incident has no real bearing on any discussion of knightly-rescuing; that wasn't what the event was about.
I'm not convinced the argument is correct; but I observe it to be a very-strong argument, and one not readily susceptible to being refuted.
Refutations: pre-Grave Peril, Michael and Harry had spent at least a week hunting ghosts every night without Michael sacrificing himself, and Michael was able to rescue Luccio's boot camp at the end of Proven Guilty without a sacrifice.
On topic: I don't think they would, no. Michael's argument is ideological; he does not want to risk the Swords in a preemptive strike. You argue that they could have gone after them without the intent to kill; that's what they eventually do. But the stakes were much higher at that point. Not only is there a child in danger, there's the risk of nuclear strike(s).
I have mentioned the stakes issue. But the stakes in Marcone's kidnapping are "a soul plus a lot of bad stuff" and the stakes in Ivy's kidnapping are "a soul plus a lot of worse stuff." According to Skin Game, the soul is supposed to be the important part.
Rescuing Ivy wasn't all that important, keeping the Archive out of Denarian hands is another matter all together..
No. Not to the Knights. The Knights' explicit job is saving souls. If they were willing to prioritize preventing the Denarians' acts of mass destruction over that, they wouldn't have refused to touch Cassius after he surrendered his coin.
-
No. Not to the Knights. The Knights' explicit job is saving souls. If they were willing to prioritize preventing the Denarians' acts of mass destruction over that, they wouldn't have refused to touch Cassius after he surrendered his coin.
No, once Cassius gave up his coin he became a free mortal once again.. The Knights do not save souls they give souls enthralled by the Fallen of the coins a chance at free will once more... From the point where he surrenders the coin until his death, what he decides to do with what remains of his life is up to Cassius... If he chooses to atone and seek redemption, well and good... If he doesn't, well it is his choice and no longer the concern of the Knights.
-
No, once Cassius gave up his coin he became a free mortal once again..
Yes, obviously. What I'm saying is that if the Knights' purpose was to prevent the harm that the Denarians do to others, that wouldn't matter because, per their hypothetical different priorities, stopping the plague curse would be more important.
The Knights do not save souls they give souls enthralled by the Fallen of the coins a chance at free will once more...
Two points:
One: The Fallen cannot take away free will--if they could, it would be impossible for anyone to give up a coin, because they would not have the free will with which to do so.
Two: Everything I have seen from the Knights in the books, and everything I've seen from Uriel in the boos, indicates that the Knights are, in fact, in the business of saving souls. This is made most clear in Uriel's discussion with Harry in "The Warrior" and in Michael's discussion with Uriel in Skin Game.
From the point where he surrenders the coin until his death, what he decides to do with what remains of his life is up to Cassius...
True, but seemingly irrelevant to the point I was making.
If he chooses to atone and seek redemption, well and good... If he doesn't, well it is his choice and no longer the concern of the Knights.
I think mostly the Knights were just seriously pissed off at Cassius. I'm fairly confident that if A) there wasn't a plague curse immanent; and B) Cassius wasn't being a smug bastard and mocking the Knights by reminding them that he had helped torture one of their own and that there was nothing they could do about it, then one or both of the Knights would have stayed to argue with him and try to convince him to actually redeem himself.
-
No one other than you can save your soul.
-
No one other than you can save your soul.
Basically, that is what the point. If I remember correctly that Harry argues that Michael or Sanya should kill Cassius after he surrendered and gave up his coin because Cassius is a killer and worse.. Michael says and Sanya agrees that it isn't for them to judge Cassius and that he was free now for the rest of his life to redeem himself or not....
-
No one other than you can save your soul.
I agree that you have to be the one to make the choice to do the right thing; what I mean by saying that the Knights' job is saving souls is the whole thing in "The Warrior," where Harry basically goes around doing things that end up helping people to do the right thing and improve their lives, even though he doesn't realize it until Uriel points it out. I figure the Knights probably have more awareness of what they're doing, but otherwise...Uriel explicitly describes people doing this as being "warriors for the light" or something--it seems like exactly what the Knights' job is, only they're more focussed on Denarians rather than innocent kids (probably because there are lots of people who would help innocent kids, and not many who would help Denarians and such).
-
I agree that you have to be the one to make the choice to do the right thing; what I mean by saying that the Knights' job is saving souls is the whole thing in "The Warrior," where Harry basically goes around doing things that end up helping people to do the right thing and improve their lives, even though he doesn't realize it until Uriel points it out. I figure the Knights probably have more awareness of what they're doing, but otherwise...Uriel explicitly describes people doing this as being "warriors for the light" or something--it seems like exactly what the Knights' job is, only they're more focussed on Denarians rather than innocent kids (probably because there are lots of people who would help innocent kids, and not many who would help Denarians and such).
Harry unknowingly helped others to make the "right" choice.. His actions created the climate where the right thing could be done... Though he did prevent Michael from beating to death the guy who would harm his son, that was more direct action.. Knights are a little different, when confronted with an evil action they'd try to stop it like any good person would, but they do not judge the person who did it, nor do they feel it is their place to punish that person... That is why except for that one night Murphy realized she couldn't be a Knight.. All her life she had been a cop and she used her own judgement to stop bad guys and she saw them or judged them as being bad.. When she judged Nic with a "Damn you," after he had surrendered and tried to execute him, she broke the rules and the Sword. Like Murphy, Harry has no problem in punishing those he judges as bad or criminal, he also often repeats that he is no Knight. After the foolishness with Lea has never tried to use a Holy Sword again. Though one wonders if he would have if pushed on the island in Small Favor.
-
Harry unknowingly helped others to make the "right" choice.. His actions created the climate where the right thing could be done... Though he did prevent Michael from beating to death the guy who would harm his son, that was more direct action.. Knights are a little different, when confronted with an evil action they'd try to stop it like any good person would, but they do not judge the person who did it, nor do they feel it is their place to punish that person... That is why except for that one night Murphy realized she couldn't be a Knight.. All her life she had been a cop and she used her own judgement to stop bad guys and she saw them or judged them as being bad.. When she judged Nic with a "Damn you," after he had surrendered and tried to execute him, she broke the rules and the Sword. Like Murphy, Harry has no problem in punishing those he judges as bad or criminal, he also often repeats that he is no Knight. After the foolishness with Lea has never tried to use a Holy Sword again. Though one wonders if he would have if pushed on the island in Small Favor.
"Acting in such a way as to create a climate which encourages/allows people to do the right thing" seems to be a good summary of the Knights' job. Whether they judge people or not seems immaterial to that.
And to relate this back to what I was originally saying: rescuing Marcone would certainly be acting in such a way as to help people do the right thing/reduce the chances of them doing the wrong thing. It would prevent Marcone from being tortured into taking up a coin, would prevent the Denarians from torturing Marcone, would give the Knights a chance to attempt to convince the Denarians they encountered to give up their coins, would prevent the stability Marcone imposed on the Chicago criminal underworld from falling apart (it's been pointed out that it is far easier for Hell to collect souls when there's mass chaos and destruction), and would prevent Harry lying to Luccio to get the White Council's help (as has been pointed out to me on another thread, Michael quite sincerely believes lying to be Wrong).
-
[quote
And to relate this back to what I was originally saying: rescuing Marcone would certainly be acting in such a way as to help people do the right thing/reduce the chances of them doing the Wrong thing. It would prevent Marcone from being tortured into taking up a coin, would prevent the Denarians from torturing Marcone, would give the Knights a chance to attempt to convince the Denarians they encountered to give up their coins, would prevent the stability Marcone imposed on the Chicago criminal underworld from falling apart (it's been pointed out that it is far easier for Hell to collect souls when there's mass chaos and destruction), and would prevent Harry lying to Luccio to get the White Council's help (as has been pointed out to me on another thread, Michael quite sincerely believes lying to be Wrong).
[/quote]
Except Marcone isn't trying to redeem himself in any way, at least not so far.. In my opinion making the trains run on time for the criminal world is hardly doing a service for good...
Yup, Harry lied, which is a sin, he is human.. Michael would also point out that he did it to save a child's life.
"Acting in such a way as to create a climate which encourages/allows people to do the right thing" seems to be a good summary of the Knights' job. Whether they judge people or not seems immaterial to that.
But it isn't... They will let a murder go in the case of Cassius, free to murder again or not, to go unpunished, because it isn't their place to judge him, not their job to try and stop him.. Murphy was unwilling to follow that rule, if she believes someone is guilty, she will judge them so, and either punish them herself or take them somewhere where they can be punished.. Nic knew that that is why he elaborately arranged the fiasco in front of Michael's house in Skin Game then go through the motions of surrender to Murphy, who in turn, judge, tried to punish, and broke a Holy Sword...
But back to Cassius, in his heart he is a bad guy, he had no intention of changing who he is, he gave up his coin only because he didn't want to be executed by either Michael or Sanya... He didn't stop doing bad things, he wanted another coin so he could do them even better, that is why he attacked Harry and tortured him, he thought that Harry had taken up Lasciel's coin and he wanted it for himself.. So how did that work out for him and the world around him?
The original point, the Knight's job is to gather up the coins of the Fallen, to free the souls they enthrall.. Once free, those souls can either go about the business of redeeming themselves, or continue the same corrupt life they lived before minus the aid of the coin, it's pot luck really... Most
of the souls who chose to take up a coin were bad in the first place, that is why they were tempted to do it.. Surrendering a coin to save their own life, doesn't change their hearts... On the other hand Sanya did give up his coin because he became disgusted with what he was doing what the coin was helping him to do, he rejected it... That is so rare that Heaven granted him a Holy Sword..
-
Except Marcone isn't trying to redeem himself in any way, at least not so far..
What's that got to do with anything? Nicodemus wasn't trying to redeem himself either, and that didn't stop Michael from trying to redeem him. And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
In my opinion making the trains run on time for the criminal world is hardly doing a service for good...
And I agree with you, but things would be far worse if he up and died/turned Denarian, and the criminal underworld started fighting over who got to be his successor.
Yup, Harry lied, which is a sin, he is human.. Michael would also point out that he did it to save a child's life.
But wouldn't it have been better if Harry could have saved that child's life without lying?
But it isn't... They will let a murder go in the case of Cassius, free to murder again or not, to go unpunished, because it isn't their place to judge him, not their job to try and stop him.. Murphy was unwilling to follow that rule, if she believes someone is guilty, she will judge them so, and either punish them herself or take them somewhere where they can be punished.. Nic knew that that is why he elaborately arranged the fiasco in front of Michael's house in Skin Game then go through the motions of surrender to Murphy, who in turn, judge, tried to punish, and broke a Holy Sword...
But back to Cassius, in his heart he is a bad guy, he had no intention of changing who he is, he gave up his coin only because he didn't want to be executed by either Michael or Sanya... He didn't stop doing bad things, he wanted another coin so he could do them even better, that is why he attacked Harry and tortured him, he thought that Harry had taken up Lasciel's coin and he wanted it for himself.. So how did that work out for him and the world around him?
One's purpose and the rules one has to follow are different things. Cassius exploited a loophole in the rules. Think of it in terms of a police officer: their purpose is to protect and serve, but they also have rules about reading suspects their rights, and not beating them up to get a confession and stuff--and sometimes those rules let guilty people get away, but that doesn't change their purpose.
The original point, the Knight's job is to gather up the coins of the Fallen, to free the souls they enthrall.. Once free, those souls can either go about the business of redeeming themselves, or continue the same corrupt life they lived before minus the aid of the coin, it's pot luck really... Most
of the souls who chose to take up a coin were bad in the first place, that is why they were tempted to do it.. Surrendering a coin to save their own life, doesn't change their hearts... On the other hand Sanya did give up his coin because he became disgusted with what he was doing what the coin was helping him to do, he rejected it... That is so rare that Heaven granted him a Holy Sword..
I think Michael said in Death Masks that the point of the Knights "is to save those poor souls corrupted by the Fallen." I think I've got the wording right, but I don't have my book at the moment but I'm not sure. However, I am sure that he said something to this effect.
-
And yet they killed Rasputin (Rasmussen? The guy who held Ursiel's Coin) when Shiro and Sanya showed up. They've killed Denarians before, and Michael went all out against Nicodemus in Skin Game once he was certain Nic wouldn't turn away from his path.
The point is that there is a big difference between a preemptive action and a reactive one. Harry, I think, describes it at one point as, "The Denarians do something, the Knights respond." What Harry wanted to do was hunt down the Denarians and assault or kill them. In fact, Harry deliberately sets up the bargain on Demonreach because he knew that Nicodemus would break his word, which would give Michael the reason he needed (kinda the permission, actually) to go weapons-free. Harry created a situation where Michael could act without jeopardizing the Swords.
On the other hand, if Michael and Sanya participated in a sneak attack without warning and tried to cut of Nic's head while he was asleep, for example, I'm pretty sure the Swords would've been vulnerable. So the difference between the two isn't just the stakes, it's the absence of anything remotely like treachery by the Knights. Though I should point out that Michael was crippled for life as a result of going to the Island, so maybe the paper-thin excuse that Dresden manipulated wasn't good enough.
-
And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
-
Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
Exactly, they are there essentially to put a check on the Fallen and restore if they can the free choice of the one who held the coin.. They cannot or are not supposed to go beyond that.. That doesn't mean in a fight they cannot kill a coin holder who won't surrender, or that they cannot fight evil or aid in that fight.. But if the coin holder surrenders his or her coin, their hands are tied, they can neither save nor condemn the the soul of former holder of the coin... As so elegantly put, the only one from that point on who can save his or her soul is the former holder of the coin...
-
The point is that there is a big difference between a preemptive action and a reactive one. Harry, I think, describes it at one point as, "The Denarians do something, the Knights respond." What Harry wanted to do was hunt down the Denarians and assault or kill them. In fact, Harry deliberately sets up the bargain on Demonreach because he knew that Nicodemus would break his word, which would give Michael the reason he needed (kinda the permission, actually) to go weapons-free. Harry created a situation where Michael could act without jeopardizing the Swords.
I agree with you about the preemptive vs reactive action thing. What I'm saying is that, while hunting down the Denarians for the purposes of killing them is definitely a preemptive action, hunting down the Denarians for the purposes of rescuing Marcone is a reactive action--they are reacting to the Denarians' action of kidnapping him. And they did, in fact, hunt down the Denarians for the purpose of rescuing Ivy, so they can definitely do that.
And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
To me, it feels like common sense. Look at it this way: If Nicodemus was torturing some random dude outside Michael's house, telling him that he would only stop torturing him if he would pick up a coin, do you think Michael would interfere? I think he would. Nicodemus may have made the choice to torture the guy, but A) he's a freaking Denarian; and B) torturing people is bad and Michael is not going to just going to ignore some guy getting tortured.
Exactly, they are there essentially to put a check on the Fallen and restore if they can the free choice of the one who held the coin.. They cannot or are not supposed to go beyond that..
Not true. They definitely fight other enemies. And also irrelevant, since "rescuing some guy the Denarians kidnapped" certainly seems like putting a check on the Fallen.
That doesn't mean in a fight they cannot kill a coin holder who won't surrender, or that they cannot fight evil or aid in that fight.. But if the coin holder surrenders his or her coin, their hands are tied, they can neither save nor condemn the the soul of former holder of the coin... As so elegantly put, the only one from that point on who can save his or her soul is the former holder of the coin...
What's that got to do with anything? It's not like any of the Denarians who kidnapped Marcone gave up their coins.
-
To me, it feels like common sense. Look at it this way: If Nicodemus was torturing some random dude outside Michael's house, telling him that he would only stop torturing him if he would pick up a coin, do you think Michael would interfere? I think he would. Nicodemus may have made the choice to torture the guy, but A) he's a freaking Denarian; and B) torturing people is bad and Michael is not going to just going to ignore some guy getting tortured.
Wouldn't you help a guy who was on your front sidewalk, torturing someone, no matter what the reason?
I wasn't talking about Nic's choices. I was talking about Marcone's. He's where he's at in the book because of a choice he made. Two choices actually. He chose to save Harry in the alley behind Bock's Books. And he chose to be a free holding Lord. The first drew the animus of Titania, the second made him fair game in the supernatural world.
-
Wouldn't you help a guy who was on your front sidewalk, torturing someone, no matter what the reason?
I wasn't talking about Nic's choices. I was talking about Marcone's. He's where he's at in the book because of a choice he made. Two choices actually. He chose to save Harry in the alley behind Bock's Books. And he chose to be a free holding Lord. The first drew the animus of Titania, the second made him fair game in the supernatural world.
He reasons for saving Harry did not come not from the goodness of his heart either.. He wanted an in to the supernatural world and a body guard... The man is a crime lord, lots of people suffer because he is who he is... Being rescued by Holy Knights hasn't changed that.
-
... Though I should point out that Michael was crippled for life as a result of going to the Island, so maybe the paper-thin excuse that Dresden manipulated wasn't good enough.
No, I think that was actually the very best thing (for Michael) that could have happened.
His injuries, in the final analysis, free him from being a Knight. They let him be home with his family, let him build houses (for which he evidently has a passion). Yeah... cane. So what?
Occasional twinges of pain? Not like the Knighting lifestyle is exactly pain-free (usually more than "twinges").
He'd pick up the sword again in a heartbeat, if that's what he'd be called to; but he's he's not: he's being given the reward of the life & family he always wanted.
-
No, I think that was actually the very best thing (for Michael) that could have happened.
His injuries, in the final analysis, free him from being a Knight. They let him be home with his family, let him build houses (for which he evidently has a passion). Yeah... cane. So what?
Occasional twinges of pain? Not like the Knighting lifestyle is exactly pain-free (usually more than "twinges").
He'd pick up the sword again in a heartbeat, if that's what he'd be called to; but he's he's not: he's being given the reward of the life & family he always wanted.
I believe Jim said that was Michael's happy ending..
-
I believe Jim said that was Michael's happy ending.
Exactly.
He IS going to Heaven (possibly via Uriel's afterlife-spooksquad), but for now, he's got a slice of Heaven on Earth.
-
Wouldn't you help a guy who was on your front sidewalk, torturing someone, no matter what the reason?
Yes. I'm just pointing out that "people making free-willed choices" isn't a sufficient reason for Michael not to act.
I wasn't talking about Nic's choices. I was talking about Marcone's. He's where he's at in the book because of a choice he made. Two choices actually. He chose to save Harry in the alley behind Bock's Books. And he chose to be a free holding Lord. The first drew the animus of Titania, the second made him fair game in the supernatural world.
Well, sure. But all the Denarians made choices that led them to where they are, and that doesn't stop the Knights from trying to save them. And if Denarians making choices doesn't stop Knights from trying to save them, I don't see why Marcone making choices would stop the Knights from trying to save him. For that matter, Ivy made choices that got her kidnapped and tortured by Denarians--she had to explicitly go against the Archive's directives to save Harry, which explicitly lead to the Denarians getting her--and it didn't stop the Knights from saving her. So what makes Marcone different?
He reasons for saving Harry did not come not from the goodness of his heart either.. He wanted an in to the supernatural world and a body guard... The man is a crime lord, lots of people suffer because he is who he is... Being rescued by Holy Knights hasn't changed that.
Agreed that Marcone is a bad guy. But the Denarians seem generally to be worse, so it seems clear that "being a bad guy" is not a reason for the Knights not to try and save someone.
-
Yes. I'm just pointing out that "people making free-willed choices" isn't a sufficient reason for Michael not to act.
Michael does act. He evidently doesn't act as quickly as you seem to want him to though. He helps rescue both Marcone and Ivy and damn near dies.
-
Michael does act. He evidently doesn't act as quickly as you seem to want him to though. He helps rescue both Marcone and Ivy and damn near dies.
Based on this comment, I feel the premise of my argument has been lost. Thus, I will restate it.
In Small Favor, when Harry first goes to Michael's house, he explicitly asks Michael's and Sanya's help to rescue Marcone. In the course of the discussion, they all realize that Nicodemus is involved, and Harry asks the Knights to help him hunt down (and implicitly kill) the Denarians. Michael refuses both requests, necessitating that, if Harry wants the Knights to be involved, he has to either lie to Luccio to set up arbitration under the Accords or just go charging into battle himself and force the situation against Michael's will.
What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.
-
Asked and answered. (https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,53148.msg2320581.html#msg2320581)
-
What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.
However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya.. Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....
-
Asked and answered.
I'm not actually sure if the post you linked to is saying that I'm right or wrong. The first bolded section would appear to indicate that I'm right, but the second would appear to indicate that I'm wrong.
However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya.. Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....
Not at the point in the book which I'm discussing.
-
I'm not actually sure if the post you linked to is saying that I'm right or wrong. The first bolded section would appear to indicate that I'm right, but the second would appear to indicate that I'm wrong.
This is your quote.What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.
The first quote tells you that Michael didn't lie when he told Harry why he wouldn't attack without warning. But that he had thought about the possibility that Harry might lead them into a trap.. The second quote is about who actually picked up on the problem, Molly not Michael.
-
Quote
However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya.. Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....
Not at the point in the book which I'm discussing.
But it helps with context...
-
The first quote tells you that Michael didn't lie when he told Harry why he wouldn't attack without warning. But that he had thought about the possibility that Harry might lead them into a trap..
Okay, so to be perfectly clear, since I've misunderstood some of your posts before: I take this quote to mean that Michael didn't lie about why he refused to hunt down the Denarians to kill them (against the rules of his job) but the reason he didn't say "but I will help look for them to rescue Marcone" is because he was concerned about Harry leading them into a trap; and I take your posting of the quote in the context in which you did so to mean that you agree with me.
The second quote is about who actually picked up on the problem, Molly not Michael.
I've always been confused about that, because as I understand the order of events, there was no point at which Molly should have gotten suspicious until after Michael refused to go hunting Denarians.
But it helps with context...
...I'm not seeing it. It's like saying "Well, in Changes when Harry's apartment was set on fire, why didn't he just use ice magic to put it out? He could do that later in Changes," with the answer being "yeah, but not at that point he couldn't." It doesn't feel like context to me--more like confusing the issue. There was no indication at the point I'm talking about that Nicodemus was setting up a trap by kidnapping Marcone--that came later.
-
I presented you with two quotes. And they say precisely what they say. And pretty clearly at that. I don't see any point to interpreting them, again.
In the story Harry is a detective. He finds things. Michael either trips over them on his front sidewalk or gets a nudge form the big guy.
Finding the Denarians is a prerequisite of attacking them without warning. There is one other possibility. Find them and talk first. You seem to think there is another course of action.