Order of the blackened Denarius Question.

[shadowlost]

O.k...but Little Harry doesn't have a clue what the coin does.  He was just a baby.  It seemed pretty important that the baby not touch the coin.

I'm not disagreeing with the Free-will thing.  I suppose, the baby picking up the coin is 'willingly' and 'ignorantly' picking up the coin.

Corrupting innocence seems like something Denarian's like to do.

Because I doubt the baby was the target. Nic knew Harry would take the coin to protect that child. Even Michael. Nic doesn't rely on something so chaoctic as trying to possess a baby who's the child of a Knight. The baby would be worthless to him in his goals. Hence why it was the same coin Nic offered Harry in the tunnels.

[PirateJack]

Because I doubt the baby was the target. Nic knew Harry would take the coin to protect that child. Even Michael. Nic doesn't rely on something so chaoctic as trying to possess a baby who's the child of a Knight. The baby would be worthless to him in his goals. Hence why it was the same coin Nic offered Harry in the tunnels.

I seem to recall it being stated later in the series that Nicodemus would have been happy with either outcome, because corrupting a Knight's son and tearing the family apart would be more than enough to offset the short term loss. Remember as well that Nicodemus is immortal and a long term planner; it doesn't matter to him if a plan takes decades to come to fruition because he's confident he'll still be there to see it happen.

[shadowlost]

I seem to recall it being stated later in the series that Nicodemus would have been happy with either outcome, because corrupting a Knight's son and tearing the family apart would be more than enough to offset the short term loss. Remember as well that Nicodemus is immortal and a long term planner; it doesn't matter to him if a plan takes decades to come to fruition because he's confident he'll still be there to see it happen.

It's his long term planning as to why I don't think he'd be so willing to waste a coin on a baby. To much to risk for so little gain. Besides I think Daniel would be easier to corrupt with a coin due to his jealousy over not being a knight.

[Tedronai]

I think the difference being missed, here is that between 'picking up' the coin and 'taking up' the coin.

The physical act of 'picking up the coin' (or catching it mid-air, or otherwise coming into direct skin-to-metal contact) means that the Fallen imprisoned within it has access to you to the extent that it can communicate with you and offer you (limited) help, advice, and power.  In Harry's case (the only one we really have knowledge of), this was facilitated by the 'shadow', Lash.

'Taking up the coin' is often used synonymously with accepting the Fallen, up to and including 'cohabitation' and perhaps even within your body.  In some cases, the human vessel is so psychologically broken from interaction with the Fallen that cohabitation turns into full-on possession.

[g33k]

I gotta go with the "intent counts" side of things here; skin/coin contact isn't enough, or they'd just have laid the coin on Harry's skin when they had him.  Ditto Marcone; ditto Ivy -- the Denarians had each of them, and in all cases *could* have forced skin/coin contact.  For some reason, it wouldn't have sufficed (for Denarian purposes) in these cases.

I presume, "intent" is they key.  I presume that no Shadow-Denarian *can* gain a Host, if said Host is physically forced into contact with the coin, despite their intent to avoid such contact by all means possible.

Thus, a Crown Royal bag is "sufficient" for Harry -- it symbolizes his "intent" not to touch or otherwise "take up" the coin.  For someone Faithful, obviously their "intent" is better shown with Blessed cloth, than a scrap of booze-bag.