If the Denarians are trapped in Demonreach...

[Maz]

Accepting someone's claim of repentance or giving someone the chance at repentance is significantly different than ensuring someone perpetual freedom so that they could exercise their will to repent.

I don't see the Knights thinking "The Fallen must be free in case they change their minds!"
Or is it the coinholders, technically... either way...  the Knights would be working to free the Naagloshii and everything else already there... there's probably at least one denizen of Hell in there already.  As to the coins finding a way out...  I presume that's accomplished via a link and something "exercising" power to make it happen... which might draw Alfred's attention.

Conflict between Alfred and the powers below might put the prison at risk and that is the one reason I'd worry - but then again...  there are already things in there that have friends who are probably just as big and bad and its stood the test so far.

[peregrine]

Also, while we can always take what Nic says with a grain of salt, he still said that Murphy may have been able to actually get away with executing him had she not judged.  He was, after all, in the middle of some evil deeds, coin holder or not.

And Michael killed a Dragon, a handful of fae, Susan and Murphy killed both Vampires and non-vampire Jaguar Warriors at Chichen Itza.  The swords are not limited to use against Denarians.  And finally, it was the killing of an innocent that would unmake the Sword in Grave Peril, not just killing of a human.

As for Michael thinking Harry had taken up the coin, he thought that Harry still had the Shadow, not that he'd gone full on Denarian.

[nadia.skylark]

As for Michael thinking Harry had taken up the coin, he thought that Harry still had the Shadow, not that he'd gone full on Denarian.

Nope. When Harry told him about Lasciel, Michael's response was an offer to help him set aside the Coin, and he was surprised when Harry said he'd never taken it up.

[Mira]

Accepting someone's claim of repentance or giving someone the chance at repentance is significantly different than ensuring someone perpetual freedom so that they could exercise their will to repent.

I don't see the Knights thinking "The Fallen must be free in case they change their minds!"
Or is it the coinholders, technically... either way...  the Knights would be working to free the Naagloshii and everything else already there... there's probably at least one denizen of Hell in there already.  As to the coins finding a way out...  I presume that's accomplished via a link and something "exercising" power to make it happen... which might draw Alfred's attention.

Conflict between Alfred and the powers below might put the prison at risk and that is the one reason I'd worry - but then again...  there are already things in there that have friends who are probably just as big and bad and its stood the test so far.

The don't go free if they haven't given up their coin and surrendered...  Now some do get away in fights for various reasons and Knights to get killed from time to time.

Also, while we can always take what Nic says with a grain of salt, he still said that Murphy may have been able to actually get away with executing him had she not judged.  He was, after all, in the middle of some evil deeds, coin holder or not.

Very true, but she did judge...  But the better example is Cassius, Harry argued that he was playing Michael and Sanya, that he would never reform, that he should be snuffed...  Both Michael and Sanya said it wasn't their place to judge him, he gave up the coin thus gave himself a chance at redemption... That what their job is, they both explained, to give Cassius a chance, what he does with it is up to him and none of their business.

[morriswalters]

If the Knights were to chase the Denarian's all the time they couldn't have a life.  At least on the surface it appears that they can act only to counter some act of the Denarian's.  If they aren't doing anything then the Knight's can't, or are not required to, act.  This is Michael's argument, more of less, in Small Favor.  If Jim wasn't thinking along those lines then Skin Game is a joke.

[nadia.skylark]

That what their job is, they both explained, to give Cassius a chance

This is why I think they might be required to not leave Denarian hosts in Demonreach--the Knights' job is to give the Denarians a chance to repent, and I don't think that they can do that if they're in stasis.

If they aren't doing anything then the Knight's can't, or are not required to, act.  This is Michael's argument, more of less, in Small Favor.

The problem is that at the time Michael says this in Small Favor, the Denarians are doing something--they are imprisoning and torturing Marcone! (Granted, Marcone is not an innocent, but in Death Masks Michael makes it very clear that it's not the Knights' place to judge.)

[peregrine]

But the better example is Cassius, Harry argued that he was playing Michael and Sanya, that he would never reform, that he should be snuffed...  Both Michael and Sanya said it wasn't their place to judge him, he gave up the coin thus gave himself a chance at redemption... That what their job is, they both explained, to give Cassius a chance, what he does with it is up to him and none of their business.

Yeah, but at that time, Cassius was defanged.  He was no longer a threat, he was effectively harmless.  Nic was in the middle of a little bit of attempted murder.

All of which is I think getting away from the original argument that the Knights just hang around and wait for a bit of Denarian evil to fall in their laps.  They can be proactive.

[morriswalters]

In Small Favor Michael's objection is to attacking the Denarian's without warning. Which is what Michael and Harry quarrel about.

In terms of the coins and their hosts be sequestered in Demonreach, until Jim says otherwise I'm assuming that's a non starter due to the nature of Demonreach.

[Mira]

Yeah, but at that time, Cassius was defanged.  He was no longer a threat, he was effectively harmless.  Nic was in the middle of a little bit of attempted murder.

All of which is I think getting away from the original argument that the Knights just hang around and wait for a bit of Denarian evil to fall in their laps.  They can be proactive.

  The reason he was defanged was once he lost his coin, Cassius lost whatever advantage the particular Fallen of the coin had given him,  he then rapidly reverted to whatever age he should be.  If it is true about Nic, if he really did give up his coin and noose I doubt he'd last very long since he is around 2,000 years old.  At best he'd only last for a short while and die... Yeah, they can go after Denarians, that is what they do, but if the Denarian surrenders and gives up his or her coin, they have to let them go... Their job is bringing about redemption not judgement...

Death Masks page 296 paperback

"No, I'm not, Harry,"  Michael said.  "The purpose of the Knights is not to destroy those who serve evil."

Then on page 297  he says

"No," Michael said.  "But that doesn't change my purpose.  He has surrendered his coin, and the influence of it.  The rest is not for Sanya or me to decide.  It is Cassius's choice."

All the while Harry was arguing that they shouldn't let him go because his is a murderous bastard, and would do it again..  And Cassius was gleefully agreeing with him.. It is because of that as much as anything Harry took a baseball bat to his ankles.

[nadia.skylark]

In Small Favor Michael's objection is to attacking the Denarian's without warning. Which is what Michael and Harry quarrel about.

That can't possibly be the issue. In the same book, Harry notes that Michael has no problem killing enemies from behind when needed.

I don't have my copy of the book right now, but I'll have access to it later tonight and will post a quote of the section under discussion (if someone wants to post it earlier, that would be awesome).

All of which is I think getting away from the original argument that the Knights just hang around and wait for a bit of Denarian evil to fall in their laps.  They can be proactive.

When do we ever see them be proactive?

[peregrine]

That can't possibly be the issue. In the same book, Harry notes that Michael has no problem killing enemies from behind when needed.

I don't have my copy of the book right now, but I'll have access to it later tonight and will post a quote of the section under discussion (if someone wants to post it earlier, that would be awesome).

When do we ever see them be proactive?

They travel around the world to do their job.  They may not have a hit list they're working through, but it's not like it's a coincidence Shiro and Sanya show up to do Knightly things despite not living in Chicago.  Or hell, Susan and Murphy went out explicitly to fight some bad guys in Mexico, and the Swords didn't sulk about it.  The point is, they don't just have to wait for the Denarians to come to them.

As for letting them go, I'd say there's a fundamental difference between an ex-Denarian who gave up his coin, and an ex-Denarian who gave up his coin, but is also holding a gun to the head of a civilian and about to pull the trigger.  You think the Knights are going to just stand by and let them take the shot?  I'd argue that there's still a "protect the innocent" thing that applies, even if the redeeming Denarians aspect is off.  Like every other thing we see the Knights doing that doesn't involve the Denarians.

[nadia.skylark]

They travel around the world to do their job.  They may not have a hit list they're working through, but it's not like it's a coincidence Shiro and Sanya show up to do Knightly things despite not living in Chicago.  Or hell, Susan and Murphy went out explicitly to fight some bad guys in Mexico, and the Swords didn't sulk about it.  The point is, they don't just have to wait for the Denarians to come to them.

Good point. Let me rephrase: when do we ever see the Knights do anything proactive, not counting times when their traveling results in them "coincidentally" walking right into the middle of a situation, that Harry does not prod them into doing?

And if they do go after Denarians proactively, why was Michael so willing to let a guy get tortured rather than try to track the Denarians torturing him down?

I swear, every time I resolve one issue I have with Michael, another one comes up. For an uncomplicatedly good guy, I seem to notice a lot of stuff about him that is problematic.

[morriswalters]

That can't possibly be the issue. In the same book, Harry notes that Michael has no problem killing enemies from behind when needed.

This is Michael's objection to Harry's plan.  In terms of how and when the Knight's act it is often communicated to them in some fashion.  This is discussed over and over again in the books.  Michael and the other Knight's are where they need to be when they are needed.  They work for a god. 

“This isn’t a democracy, Harry. We serve a King.”
Sanya frowned for a moment, glancing at me. But then he settled back in his chair, a silent statement of support for Michael.
“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.”

You need to make a distinction between killing by surprise in combat and killing without warning.  In the initial introduction to Shiro, Michael attacks by surprise from a fire escape.

"So it ends, Knight," purred the smooth, demon-voice of Ursiel.
"Hai," the old man agreed quietly. He looked up above him, at a fire escape platform ten feet off the ground.
A shadowed figure dropped over the rail of the platform, steel rasping as it did. There was a low thrum of power, a flash of silver, and the hiss of a blade cutting the air. The shadowy figure landed in a crouch beside the creature.
The demon Ursiel jerked once, body stiffening. There was a thump.
Then its body toppled slowly over to one side, leaving its monstrous head lying on the alley floor. The light died from its four eyes.
The third Knight rose away from the demon's corpse. Tall and broad-shouldered, his close-cut hair dark and feathered with silver, Michael Carpenter snapped the blade of his broad sword, Amoracchius, to one side, clearing droplets of blood from it. He put it back into its sheath, staring down at the fallen demon, and shook his head.

[nadia.skylark]

This is Michael's objection to Harry's plan.  In terms of how and when the Knight's act it is often communicated to them in some fashion.  This is discussed over and over again in the books.  Michael and the other Knight's are where they need to be when they are needed.  They work for a god.

...and Sanya's plane being "coincidentally" delayed wasn't enough of a sign for them? (Thanks for the quote, by the way.) The more I think about this scene, the more issues I have with it. Possibilities for why it played out the way it did that I can see are:

1) Michael distrusts Harry (which he admitted) ... and yet goes along with Harry's second plan rather than waiting for him to leave before planning a rescue mission with Sanya.

2) Michael objects to Harry's plan, but still trusts him enough to let him lie to the White Council (which it has been pointed out to me is out of character, and furthermore Michael admits later in the book to thinking Harry has been subverted by Lasciel).

3) Michael doesn't think they should interfere, despite "coincidence" indicating that TWG wants them to, but can't let Harry face the Denarians alone (the former part seems highly problematic; the latter part has canon support).

4) TWG has indicated to Michael that he should not go after the Denarians directly despite the fact that it would be a rescue mission, but has not expressed an objection to Harry's second plan (which...did He want Ivy to be tortured? Was it some twisted way to see to it that Ivy would get more free will than she would otherwise have with the Archive? Is getting Harry access to soulfire that important? What?)

5) No one cares about Marcone. The Knights are only responsible for rescuing innocents (possible. In Skin Game, Michael says he can't help Hannah at the Gate of Fire because she's not an innocent, that she chose to put herself in danger. On the other hand, the Knights' explicit job is to save the Denarian hosts from the Fallen, so they can't only be interested in innocents).

6) Everyone spontaneously, inexplicably forgot about Marcone (which seems poor writing--there ought to be a reason).

All of these, to my mind, are problematic. (Another possibility is that Harry never told the Knights about Marcone--I don't remember whether he did or not--which is still problematic, but is not a problem for Michael, it's just Harry being inexplicably more idiotic than usual.)

[Snark Knight]

Another way to think about it is Alfred might have rules about who can be locked up on the island and who can't, and under what circumstances the island is allowed to lock up a supernatural entity.  For a variety of reasons the Denarians, or just the Fallen trapped in the coin, might not apply.  We know the island has a lot of dangerous supernatural prisoners, but we don't know how they earned their prison sentence.

I'm not talking about encasing them in one of the actual green crystal cells. Just using the underground chambers as a place to put some of the blessed boxes that block the others from summoning a downed coin.

It's not qualitatively different than the monasteries where the church hides them. There are just quantitatively a lot fewer people around to be tempted to open the boxes.