Denarian Short Story

[toodeep]

It’s not that they don’t recognize their actions as “bad” it is that those folks believe that their bad actions are justified by existing exigencies.  Therefore they think they are doing something “bad” to achieve a “greater good”.

I think the first half is true, and the second half is not.  I think many a person realizes they are doing something wrong, but they rationalize it as:
A.  Just this once (for the xth time)
B.  I can't help it
C.  I really need it, or I need it more (i.e. the stealing food for your child moralization)
D.  I'm a good enough person, or have had enough bad stuff happen to me that I deserve something enough that it is ok for me to do something bad to get what I want

I mean, the number of people who seem to think they are good people because while they will do evil to get money now, "when they have enough" they will stop and be "good" people boggles my mind (and scares me)

[KurtinStGeorge]

I've never agreed with that. Some people have to know they're the bad guy, at least in a particular situation.

I think the Bard would agree with you.

I am determined to prove a villain  Richard III - from the opening soliloquy

However, that doesn't mean Nicodemus doesn't believe that he is "saving the world," as Deirdre stated.  It's possible that even as evil as he is, Nicodemus believes he is doing the right thing.  What Nicodemus and Deirdre never own up to is their choice to inflict unnecessary harm on others.  There's nothing surgical about the way they operate in the books.  They both enjoyed killing; and sometimes torturing first, whenever they had the opportunity to do so.  Nicodemus was just sometimes more businesslike about it than Deirdre.   

[Avernite]

I do wonder - why do people always assume Nemfection for anyone aligned with the Outsiders?

It seems much more likely to me that some Denarian cut a deal with Outsiders to gain power in exchange for support, and that support was attacking Arctis Tor.

I mean, I think Cowl is also in league with the Outsiders, but all for his own twisted purposes, not because Nemesis broke his mind (or maybe Black Magic broke his mind instead, one crack at a time). Lord Raith aligned with the Outsiders and got near magic-immunity for it (and wouldn't that be a great way for Cowl to have survived the collapsing Darkhallow?)

In fact, I don't think we have evidence of Nemfection for anyone but Faeries/Sidhe... and I also think for a reason; humans fundamentally can align themselves with self-destructive plots against their intended nature because they are morons, and if they are magic-users the subsequent black magic will redecorate their minds just fine. Faeries can only go against their nature when something external helps them.

/rant off

[kbrizzle]

@Snark Knight
It’s a theory I read about a couple of months ago. The line of logic to me goes like this:

• A Denarian threw hellfire at the Black Council backed attack on Arctis Tor - Mab points at Namshiel, who is Tessa’s sorcery teacher. Namshiel could be the vector of Nfection in Tessa’s crew, with whom Deedee spends some time (she is clearly more loyal to her dad, but Tessa’s concern for her in SG shows that Deedee is somewhat close to her mother).
• Nic was unaware that a Denarian was involved in the AT assault & reacts violently when informed. No doubt after the events of SmF he did some digging to see what was going on
• By the time of SG, Nic figures out that Deedee has been Nfected so decides she must die, with her coin remaining in Hades. With Deedee dying in the Greek Underworld, she would also be spared Heaven’s wrath (from the Denarian POV).
• Nic could have sacrificed any of the young squires who consider him a Demi-god. Remember, these people are so brainwashed that they think of lopping their tongues off as a great honor. Did he really need to kill Deedee when he clearly has other options?

It’s admittedly not perfect, but there was definitely something more going on before Nic sacrificed Deedee at the blood gate. Their mysterious conversation included phrases like “the enemy cannot get to you here” & his response to when Deidre tells him that she loves him is “That is the problem”.

@Avernite
I actually had a WAG that only immortals are capable of being Nfected. From what we’ve seen with how it works with the Sidhe, it allows its’ hosts to bend their nature, something that should not be possible - it allows Maeve & Aurora to override the programming & compulsions of their mantles. It basically gives “free will” to beings that no longer have it.

This is why it wouldn’t work on mortals - Nemesis doesn’t give mortals any advantage that free will doesn’t already. Instead, I believe that the Outsiders corrupt mortals like Cowl etc by offering them immortality.

[Mr. Death]

First point: Her coin does not remain in Hades. Nic explicitly picks it up.

Second: I've theorized that the Gate of Blood does not refer solely to needing to kill someone; it's her shade that does the opening, after all, so why not call it the "Gate of Souls"? Rather, "blood" could refer to family relation.

Remember this whole thing was set up deliberately by Mab and Marcone with specific information leaked to Nicodemus, for the express purpose of hitting him where it hurts the most. I can definitely see those two angling it so that Nicodemus believes that he has to kill his own blood to get through it.

Also, if Deirdre was Nemfected, why would Nicodemus trust her with something so important?

[kbrizzle]

@Mr. Death
Ah yes, my mistake about leaving the coin in Hades. To be clear, I’m not 100% that this theory is true (there are problems with it), but I think it would be cool twist if it were.

I do like the theory about Mab lying to Nic that the Blood gate demands a blood relation as sacrifice, although if that were the case I could see Nic bringing along a couple of sibling squires & having one sacrifice the other - I mean having Nic sacrifice the only person in the world he loves would require extreme circumstances because Nic would literally think of every other option before he decides to go with killing his daughter.

I feel like there is more to it, especially given their mysterious conversation before he actually drives a knife into her.

[peregrine]

If Immortals are the only ones capable of being able to be Nfected, then the Denarians wouldn't be part of that.  They're immortal in that they don't die, but they also have Free Will, as shown by the fact that they can give up the coin and seek redemption.  They don't have an inviolable nature the way Maeve and others do.

[g33k]

If Immortals are the only ones capable of being able to be Nfected, then the Denarians wouldn't be part of that.  They're immortal in that they don't die, but they also have Free Will, as shown by the fact that they can give up the coin and seek redemption.  They don't have an inviolable nature the way Maeve and others do.

The (human) hosts may still have free will (though I'm unclear if broken madmen like chained-to-the-cliff Rasmussen even CAN have it); but the Fallen, bound within their Denarii...?  And of course, the Fallen is where the world-shaking power resides...

[kbrizzle]

@g33k
One might even say Arctis Tor shaking power

[nadia.skylark]

@Mr. Death: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post. My computer has been refusing to connect to the internet since July 1st, and I only got it working today.

And the uniqueness is what happens inside the characters' heads. Unless Jim's going to write a bunch of extra short stories, which A. he doesn't really want to do, and B. would make them required reading for the main series, we're just plain not going to see it.

Weren't we explicitly talking about whether we'd like Jim to write a short story (or more)? It's been a while, so I might be wrong, but that's what I thought this thread was about.

Murphy has already flatly refused power from benign and outright good sources, including the one literally powered by the God of her own faith.

And picked up power that she knows she shouldn't to help Harry.

She's seen what the coin did to Harry and recognized -- then and now -- that it was a bad thing for him.

And I think she'd be willing to do something that she knows is a "bad thing" for her if she thought that it was the only way of saving Harry.

Her picking up a coin would not fit with any of that or the character development that came with it.

I think it would fit. But then, I've got a far more negative view of Murphy, especially in later books, than lots of people.

She'd have to be very stupid to ignore everything she has seen with her own eyes.

Or very desperate.

Plus, Jim's said repeatedly she's not getting any supernatural power-ups.

True.

On the other hand, Jim's also said that he lies.

But on the third hand, I also know that that's not a particularly good refutation of any particular thing Jim's said, since statistically he mostly tells the truth, so...

As far as I can recall, the only time Harry has to talk him out of it is in Small Favor, right after they find Hendrix and Gard.

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

Accepting the "monster," which, going by the later books he really has not genuinely done, does not mean he's going to take up a coin.

No, but it indicates that it's not totally OOC for him to do so.

Justine is in trouble because of the one monster already in Thomas, he'd have to be monumentally stupid to think that another monster would help.

The WCV thing and the Fallen are pretty different, as I understand them. Also, when did Lasciel's shadow ever try to do anything to hurt anyone Harry cared about? (Point is, I know Harry makes this argument, I'm just not sure if it's valid or if he just made it to convince Thomas.)

Because, frankly? It's not his plot. It's Harry's, and Harry has basically gone the whole nine yards on it. And he's seen enough of it in Harry and has enough experience fighting his own demon that he'd understand the concept.

He saw Harry fight--and win. Because, frankly, Harry saved a lot of lives because he had access to Lasciel's shadow that he couldn't have saved otherwise, with relatively few negative consequences.

He's half blind and needs a cane to walk, and I think I remember something about him losing a kidney. That seems pretty negative to me.

If there was a better option available to him, I would agree with you. But Jim has said explicitly that that was Michael's happy ending--which, as I understand the term, means that it was the best of all possible (or at least probable) outcomes--which doesn't seem negative to me, in that context.

It's still something that affects him. That there were other, bigger things going on does not negate that.

If it were meaningless, it would not be pointed out so directly in the book.

It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I believe my complaint here was that none of the negative consequences that the Denarians do manage to inflict last beyond the book they happen in.

So while I agree that it was meaningful at the time, it does not address my problem.

Harry's field does not extend that far. In an early book, he's in line of sight of Murphy and she's able to safely turn off her computer while he's in the hall just outside her office.

He's in the subbasement of a boarding house and I think in Changes it's mentioned that his only neighbors are a couple elderly people two floors above him. They're fine.

1) It's explicitly stated that the more exposure Harry has to tech, the worse and the more likely it is to break. Harry is in his home much more often than he is in Murphy's office.

2) Harry's not just present in his home--he is actively working magic. This worsens the problem dramatically, as we've seen in the books.

3) Harry also has wards, which as a constantly running magic, probably also make things worse.

4) Jim has said in one of his interviews that Harry being in the apartment building causes lots of problems--for the landlady, if no one else.

Then it's not a story about Nicodemus. It's a story about whoever's perspective it's from.

I don't care. I just want to see him win for once. Every other recurring villain gets to have victories--why not him?

So the guy who nearly killed Harry several times, crippled Harry's best friend and nearly killed Harry's daughter is less threatening than Mab, whose only action directly against Harry has been to make him stab his hand?

Yes--because every time Nicodemus has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose comprehensively, whereas every time Mab has a plan, I can be confident that she has a good chance of winning.

The Fomor are scared of wizards in general and only came into the city because Harry wasn't there. And they haven't won anything on screen. Their biggest on-screen operations have been thwarted by a short mortal woman and a half-mad, half-trained wizard. The "wins" they've had so far are kidnapping people who -- as you would have it -- don't matter.

The Fomor have caused comprehensive damage to Chicago and its defenders--and I've said that I would be fine with even an off-screen win for Nic.

Nicodemus doesn't win "off screen" because he's the type of baddie that whatever plot he's up to needs to be stopped by the main character. He's not going to go rob a bank. He's going to depopulate a major country by unleashing a plague at an airport.

His twitter feed makes reference (among other things) to him being responsible for a major hurricane. That seems like something which is both Nic's kind of win, and which can happen off-screen and only be referenced in the books.

Mab is less evil than Nicodemus. Jim doesn't have to spell that out because it's frankly obvious.

No it isn't. If it were that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. I think that it's obvious that Mab is either as evil as Nicodemus is, or at least close--but clearly you disagree.

Mab is going to ask Harry to kill people -- but for a reason, and we learn that her reasons have to do with preserving reality.

We don't know what Nicodemus's reason is, and there's some evidence that they might have to do with preserving reality as well.

Nicodemus is going to actively try to make Harry a worse person, someone who kills because it's convenient. Mab prefers that Harry fight back against her nastier side and wants him to do his own thing.

I interpret Mab differently. To me, it seems clear that, while Mab definitely wants Harry to be himself, she also wants him to be a fundamentally darker and less moral version of himself. Or, to put it another way, she wants him to be the Winter version of someone like Rosanna, not someone like Magog's hosts.

And you think that would be the only consequences for Molly? You don't think Miss Crazy In Love With Harry And Already Tempted AF To The Dark Side would look at Harry taking up a coin and think, "Well, if he's doing it, maybe I should to?"

Oh, this would definitely happen. We have WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, then Molly would have ended up with a coin as well.

What I'm saying is that, if Michael were the Summer Knight, Molly would view becoming the Winter Lady as being just as bad as canon!Molly would view becoming a Denarian.

And becoming a Denarian has at least two undisputable advantages that I can see: it doesn't erode your soul (as in, you still have a soul, even if it might end up being condemned to Hell) and there's a known exit strategy.

Such as?

I can't list a whole lot, since, while I feel certain that the books have referenced nasty stuff that Mab has done, I haven't had access to my books for a year at this point (with the sporadic exception of Small Favor, which I don't have right now).

For what I do remember:
-She picks Knights that are serial murderers and rapists, and we have WoJ that she does so because she doesn't want to deal with training them--which says a lot about the kind of jobs she has them doing
-the RPG book Paranet Papers implies that Mab had a hand in Stalinist Russia (implies because the RPG works hard not to say anything outright so people can make up their own answers); and there is an unconfirmed WoJ (as in, I've seen someone say that there's a WoJ, but haven't seen the WoJ itself) that all the story elements in Paranet Papers are true in Dresden canon
-the Dresden Files Accelerated RPG has Ivy say that Mab is the inspiration behind the Beauty and the Beast story, and that what really happened was horribly worse.
-Mab is definitely pushing Harry to be less moral--she deliberately pushed Harry to commit cold-blooded murder as a prerequisite to becoming the Winter Knight, and was annoyed that Harry objected to murdering people in Skin Game
-according to WoJ, Lea became Mab's handmaiden because Mab was impressed that "[Lea] took these guys who were out there just seeking to create something beautiful and yet increased [her] dark and evil power"
-the Winter Knight mantle seems to be pushing Harry to be a far worse person than Lasciel's shadow ever did

At a certain point, it doesn't really matter what his ends are.

Weren't you just saying earlier in your post that Mab's ends were a mitigating factor?

And addressing a different post:

One of several problems I'd have with a Nicodemus perspective is that it might soften his character too much. Learning too much about him may have us start rooting for him in future books.

I'm already rooting for him, at least insofar as I want my favorite villain to have some wins against non-Harry people, so that when Harry wins it's more impressive.

I mean, if you find out that Nicodemus has been doing all of these evil things in order to stop something much worse

Lots of people, including me, already think this.

some might start thinking, "Well, would it really be so bad if Harry lost?"

Well, more like "would it really be so bad if Marcone lost to him?" and "would it really be so bad if Harry worked with him temporarily?"

...You know, unlike Harry, I would probably do awful at resisting a Denarian shadow. I am far too easy to convince

[Bad Alias]

BA,

It’s not that they don’t recognize their actions as “bad” it is that those folks believe that their bad actions are justified by existing exigencies.  Therefore they think they are doing something “bad” to achieve a “greater good”.

A villain either is a sociopath who doesn't understand right and wrong, someone who believes they're making the hard choices, or someone who knows they are wrong and pursuing their own selfish goals. I believe the first and last are more common than the second one who "is the hero of their own story." Now, they may have rationalized everything they do, but they don't truly believe it.

I watched the panel Jim was on about villains last night. Jim said Londo Mollari from Babylon 5 was (one of) the best villains. The thing about Londo is that he knows he is the villain. Sure he thinks his actions are the only option he has left at the time he takes them, but he usually realizes pretty quickly that he only made things worse. He often knows he did them for the wrong reasons. "My shoes are too tight, but it doesn't matter because I have forgotten how to dance."

Thomas isn't the hero of his own story.

Another example of how the whole "everyone is the hero of his own story" cliche is wrong is Harry. Harry, the actual hero of the story, often blames himself for the bad that happens. He's got a lot of unearned (and plenty of earned) guilt. I think Harry and Londo's view of themselves is more common. Someone trying to do what's right, failing to one degree or another, and realizing it. There is also the weak individual who just pursues selfish ends with or without some pretext that they don't really believe.

have something about him in book 20 (which would make sense given that it’s part of the BAT

The first book of the BAT would be book 21 because it's "a 20 book series with a big apocalyptic trilogy." Note: At his recent convention appearance, he said he may have to add a book to the casefiles because things have expanded.

@nadia.skylark: Harry's wards not only keep magic out, they keep magic in. Their thresholds are almost certainly stronger than Harry's and keep a good deal out (married couple, owner). They're old, so probably have older, hardier, less complicated technology. So all the magic he is doing in his apartment shouldn't have that much impact on his neighbors.

[Snark Knight]

I mean, I think Cowl is also in league with the Outsiders, but all for his own twisted purposes, not because Nemesis broke his mind (or maybe Black Magic broke his mind instead, one crack at a time).

We don't have evidence for N-fected humans, but we don't have anything to concretely rule out the possibility, either. Cowl's reaction to Harry questioning his sanity in Dead Beat could be either black magic madness or N-fection. Jim is probably playing whether Murphy or Thomas are vulnerable really close to his chest for now.

The only thing we have WOJ on being immune is archangels (and possibly regular angels too?) because their nature is immutable. That might not even include the Fallen since they embraced enough free will to choose disobedience.

[Mr. Death]

@Mr. Death: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post. My computer has been refusing to connect to the internet since July 1st, and I only got it working today.

No worries, I know that kind of thing happens.

Weren't we explicitly talking about whether we'd like Jim to write a short story (or more)? It's been a while, so I might be wrong, but that's what I thought this thread was about.

This was in reference to the idea that Murphy or Thomas would have it. If either of them had such a huge character change like taking up a coin, it would have to come up in the main stories. To date, the shorts have been largely self-contained, and while they might be referenced in the main books, you don't have to read them to understand the main story.

Someone grabbing a Denarian coin is way too big of a plot to put into a short.

And picked up power that she knows she shouldn't to help Harry.

What she picked up was one of the most benevolent powers in the 'verse. It's literally powered by faith and goodness and love and all the qualities that Murphy stands behind and values. And it didn't work out so well for her. The idea that she's then going to turn to power that is explicitly, actively evil and exists primarily to harm innocent people assumes a level of stupidity that she just does not show.

And I think she'd be willing to do something that she knows is a "bad thing" for her if she thought that it was the only way of saving Harry.

I think it would fit. But then, I've got a far more negative view of Murphy, especially in later books, than lots of people.

It's probably better if I don't elaborate my thoughts on this point.

True.

On the other hand, Jim's also said that he lies.

He said he "lies" in the sense that he writes fiction and, as an author, he reserves the right to reverse course eventually. I see no reason for him to upturn a character whose entire point is to not have supernatural power.

But on the third hand, I also know that that's not a particularly good refutation of any particular thing Jim's said, since statistically he mostly tells the truth, so...

Exactly.

No, but it indicates that it's not totally OOC for him to do so.

It kind of is. It takes mind-breaking torture to have Thomas "accept" the demon already inside him and ... by the very next book he appears to have made a complete recovery and is acting no different whatsoever than he had before the Skinwalker ever touched him.

That does not indicate that he's going to be willing to take up a coin. Especially because, as previously established, he is not a complete moron.

The WCV thing and the Fallen are pretty different, as I understand them. Also, when did Lasciel's shadow ever try to do anything to hurt anyone Harry cared about? (Point is, I know Harry makes this argument, I'm just not sure if it's valid or if he just made it to convince Thomas.)

Lasciel was still in the 'seduction' phase. Harry never contended with the actual Lasciel. He just contended with her advertising.

What she did do was offer him power that has its uses primarily in destruction (Hellfire) and made him an angrier person in general (i.e., more likely to kill someone with his emotionally-charged magic). That he didn't go full black-hat doesn't change what she was clearly steering him toward.

He saw Harry fight--and win. Because, frankly, Harry saved a lot of lives because he had access to Lasciel's shadow that he couldn't have saved otherwise, with relatively few negative consequences.

And I see no value in a plotline about one of his friends (whose head we don't see inside) fighting and losing. It would do nothing but a cheap, retconny "shock" and Jim is a better author than to overturn a character's entire plot and personality just for that.

It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I believe my complaint here was that none of the negative consequences that the Denarians do manage to inflict last beyond the book they happen in.

So while I agree that it was meaningful at the time, it does not address my problem.

Frankly, they're bad guys. Among the worst bad guys. Lasting negative consequences for their plots are "city is wiped out" level things.

1) It's explicitly stated that the more exposure Harry has to tech, the worse and the more likely it is to break. Harry is in his home much more often than he is in Murphy's office.

2) Harry's not just present in his home--he is actively working magic. This worsens the problem dramatically, as we've seen in the books.

3) Harry also has wards, which as a constantly running magic, probably also make things worse.

4) Jim has said in one of his interviews that Harry being in the apartment building causes lots of problems--for the landlady, if no one else.

Fair enough, I hadn't seen those interviews.

I don't care. I just want to see him win for once. Every other recurring villain gets to have victories--why not him?

Because when Nicodemus wins, thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths.

Him winning is an objectively horrible thing. He literally has the three most powerful weapons on the planet dedicated to stopping him and his plans specifically because his plans are so bad for the world and for free will.

Nicodemus is an utterly horrible person who thrives on murder, torture and every other sin you can name. He literally gains power by taking innocent people and destroying them.

I don't know how else I can get this idea across, but Nicodemus winning is utterly abhorrent to peace, life and freedom. Him winning is a terrible thing.

Yes--because every time Nicodemus has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose comprehensively, whereas every time Mab has a plan, I can be confident that she has a good chance of winning.

Because Mab isn't really a villain in this series?

I mean, you might as well say, "Every time the Red Skull has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose." Villains lose. That's kind of a major cornerstone of fiction as a whole. That's how the plot works. The hero wins and the villains lose. Especially if the villains' goal in the first place is, "Murder millions of people across the U.S., after torturing a good man to death."

The Fomor have caused comprehensive damage to Chicago and its defenders--and I've said that I would be fine with even an off-screen win for Nic.

What damage is that? They failed to get away with Georgia and the other people Murphy rescued. The people they have gotten away with are, by your own argument, "meaningless," so I don't see how you can call that a win.

Please address that point -- how can you say that the girl Harry failed to save is meaningless despite happening on-screen, while also touting the people that the Fomor got away with offscreen as a major victory? I thought things that happened to anyone besides the named characters didn't count.

His twitter feed makes reference (among other things) to him being responsible for a major hurricane. That seems like something which is both Nic's kind of win, and which can happen off-screen and only be referenced in the books.

There you go, then. There's your win. I don't see any need to have him gleefully causing the slaughter and destruction of thousands of lives and getting away with it onscreen, and I do not understand how it would benefit the series.

No it isn't. If it were that obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. I think that it's obvious that Mab is either as evil as Nicodemus is, or at least close--but clearly you disagree.

Let's take their active plans and actions so far:

In one corner, we have Mab:
In Summer Knight, she's trying to clear her name for a murder she didn't commit, and avert an apocalyptic war. In the end, she aids the White Council by allowing them to use the Ways. In Dead Beat, she directly aids Harry by giving him information about the Erlking. In Proven Guilty, it's murkier, but she seems to have tacitly approved Harry saving Molly if that wink is any indication. In Small Favor, she's working to stop Nicodemus from subverting the Archive. In Changes, she helps Harry rescue his daughter. Then she keeps Harry alive through Ghost Story. Then in Cold Days, her actions are to stop Nemesis. Finally, in Skin Game, she is trying to keep holy artifacts out of Nicodemus's hands and punish him for his transgressions.

Now, let's look at Nicodemus:
In Death Masks, he mercilessly slaughters the Churchmice, tortures Harry, tries to murder Harry, and does murder Shiro, one of the nicest, goodest people in the series, for the purpose of perverting a holy artifact and causing a plague that will kill thousands. In his next appearance, he kidnaps a 12-year-old girl and has his people imprison and torture -- and possibly rape -- her in order to break her will and force her into servitude to a Fallen Angel. In his last appearance so far, he fully intends to murder Harry, breaks the Sword of Faith, cripples Murphy, then tries to murder half a dozen innocent children while forcing their mother to watch.

So, going purely by what we see them do on screen, you really think Mab is as bad as Nicodemus?

We don't know what Nicodemus's reason is, and there's some evidence that they might have to do with preserving reality as well.

"Some evidence" here meaning what, besides his own word, which is about as untrustworthy as you can get?

I interpret Mab differently. To me, it seems clear that, while Mab definitely wants Harry to be himself, she also wants him to be a fundamentally darker and less moral version of himself. Or, to put it another way, she wants him to be the Winter version of someone like Rosanna, not someone like Magog's hosts.

More pragmatic and less squeamish, I think is a better descriptor. She values Harry for who Harry is -- she even praises him for pushing back against her. Point is, Nicodemus is not that nice.

Oh, this would definitely happen. We have WoJ that if Harry had picked up Lasciel's coin in Changes, then Molly would have ended up with a coin as well.

What I'm saying is that, if Michael were the Summer Knight, Molly would view becoming the Winter Lady as being just as bad as canon!Molly would view becoming a Denarian.

And becoming a Denarian has at least two undisputable advantages that I can see: it doesn't erode your soul (as in, you still have a soul, even if it might end up being condemned to Hell) and there's a known exit strategy.

We've seen it implied several times that one can get out of the Fae mantles, so there is an exit strategy there, too. As for the state of the soul, I hardly see that as an "advantage" considering what it does to your soul. Just having it doesn't matter much when it's a blackened, condemned thing that makes you enjoy slaughtering innocent people.

Because, again, that's the thing that the Denarians do. Slaughter innocent people.

For what I do remember:
-She picks Knights that are serial murderers and rapists, and we have WoJ that she does so because she doesn't want to deal with training them--which says a lot about the kind of jobs she has them doing

Given what Sarissa said, there's some ambiguity on whether the mantle does that or not. She said Lloyd Slate didn't start bad.

-the RPG book Paranet Papers implies that Mab had a hand in Stalinist Russia (implies because the RPG works hard not to say anything outright so people can make up their own answers); and there is an unconfirmed WoJ (as in, I've seen someone say that there's a WoJ, but haven't seen the WoJ itself) that all the story elements in Paranet Papers are true in Dresden canon

"Had a had" in what respect?

-the Dresden Files Accelerated RPG has Ivy say that Mab is the inspiration behind the Beauty and the Beast story, and that what really happened was horribly worse.

She's a faerie and doesn't take well to people ignoring hospitality rules. Nicodemus would have just killed everyone just to take the castle or something in it, probably.

-Mab is definitely pushing Harry to be less moral--she deliberately pushed Harry to commit cold-blooded murder as a prerequisite to becoming the Winter Knight, and was annoyed that Harry objected to murdering people in Skin Game

Because she needs him as a weapon, not because she gains power through those deaths. Also, the people she's had Harry kill are one of the aforementioned serial-rapists and an enemy agent.

-according to WoJ, Lea became Mab's handmaiden because Mab was impressed that "[Lea] took these guys who were out there just seeking to create something beautiful and yet increased [her] dark and evil power"

I'm not clear on how that makes Mab worse than Nicodemus? That she's impressed a faerie was able to increase her power? I'm going to need more details on this one to understand it.

-the Winter Knight mantle seems to be pushing Harry to be a far worse person than Lasciel's shadow ever did

Fair, though A. Mab may have no control over the mantle's effects and B. we don't know what Lasciel would have done with Harry. Remember, the Shadow's whole job is to trick Harry into thinking the coin is Not That Bad. Lasciel herself is a different story.

Weren't you just saying earlier in your post that Mab's ends were a mitigating factor?

Yes. And from what I've seen, her means have not reached the point where her ends do not matter.

Certainly, Mab is not nice. She is ruthless and wants her agents not to be squeamish about little things like killing.

But she is also capable of kindness and understanding, and has done more to help Harry and protect the world than the opposite.

Nicodemus, however, is an evil monster whose idea of a good time is wiping out a third of Europe, then kidnapping a 12-year-old girl and torturing her until she breaks. And then tries to murder six more children and force their mother to watch purely out of spite that he lost.

[nadia.skylark]

Harry's wards not only keep magic out, they keep magic in.

Do they? I don't remember that. Can you tell me where it says so (not doubting, just curious).

Their thresholds are almost certainly stronger than Harry's and keep a good deal out (married couple, owner).

Do thresholds stop the effects of hexing? (For that matter, do they stop the effects of spells a wizard throws while standing outside them?) It would make sense if they did, I suppose, but it never occurred to me before that they would do so.

They're old, so probably have older, hardier, less complicated technology.

Lightbulbs.

This was in reference to the idea that Murphy or Thomas would have it. If either of them had such a huge character change like taking up a coin, it would have to come up in the main stories. To date, the shorts have been largely self-contained, and while they might be referenced in the main books, you don't have to read them to understand the main story.

Someone grabbing a Denarian coin is way too big of a plot to put into a short.

Good point. It could be in a book, and then we could get a novella/longer short story from their perspective, then it could be resolved in another book.

What she picked up was one of the most benevolent powers in the 'verse. It's literally powered by faith and goodness and love and all the qualities that Murphy stands behind and values. And it didn't work out so well for her.

Yes. And she picked it up knowing that she was likely to break it, and proceeded to do so in short order (not saying it was her fault, just saying that she knew and accepted the risks).

At least with a denarian coin, she would be the only one getting hurt (at least in the short term).

The idea that she's then going to turn to power that is explicitly, actively evil and exists primarily to harm innocent people assumes a level of stupidity that she just does not show.

I think the main issue here is that we have a fundamental disagreement on how bad an idea it is to pick up a denarian coin.

You think that it's a stupid, awful idea, full stop.

I think that it's a relatively good idea in the short term, with the problem being that it doesn't stay short term. The denarian coins offer both power and knowledge very quickly, offer a simple exit strategy, and you get to keep the knowledge that you've gained if you use that exit strategy. If you take it up for an hour, it's probably one of the best power sources out there; for a day, it's probably one of the best power sources out there; for a week, it's still all right; for a year, it's very problematical; for a century, it's one of the worst power sources out there. And I can very easily see someone saying "because I know how awful the denarians are, I'll definitely only use the coin for an hour," even though that's not actually going to work.

It's like advertising. Talk to a surprising majority of people, and they think that they are immune, even though they acknowledge its effects on others, and even though they have the information to know better.

It's probably better if I don't elaborate my thoughts on this point.

Fair enough.

I'm well aware that my interpretation of Murphy is founded on an interpretation of the text that I know is not what Jim intended.

by the very next book he appears to have made a complete recovery and is acting no different whatsoever than he had before the Skinwalker ever touched him.

Which is odd. Maybe what we should see is a short story from Thomas's perspective, set between Turn Coat and Changes.

That does not indicate that he's going to be willing to take up a coin.

It indicates that he can be pushed to it. I believe my original suggestion regarding Thomas was that he would take up a coin because he believed it was the only way to save Justine or their child.

Lasciel was still in the 'seduction' phase. Harry never contended with the actual Lasciel. He just contended with her advertising.

What she did do was offer him power that has its uses primarily in destruction (Hellfire) and made him an angrier person in general (i.e., more likely to kill someone with his emotionally-charged magic). That he didn't go full black-hat doesn't change what she was clearly steering him toward.

Good point. That said, I still don't think she'd try to push him toward hurting those he loves for at least a few years, if not for a few decades or a century. She has to be aware that it's relatively easy for Harry to be rid of her if he objects to what she's doing.

And I see no value in a plotline about one of his friends (whose head we don't see inside) fighting and losing. It would do nothing but a cheap, retconny "shock" and Jim is a better author than to overturn a character's entire plot and personality just for that.

It would play into the whole "who can I trust" theme that's been running through the last few books, and would be way better than the thing with Butters (at least in my opinion).

Frankly, they're bad guys. Among the worst bad guys. Lasting negative consequences for their plots are "city is wiped out" level things.

They don't have to be. They could be "Harry's friend takes up a coin for a couple books" or "St Mary's gets blown up" or something.

Because when Nicodemus wins, thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths.

Him winning is an objectively horrible thing. He literally has the three most powerful weapons on the planet dedicated to stopping him and his plans specifically because his plans are so bad for the world and for free will.

Nicodemus is an utterly horrible person who thrives on murder, torture and every other sin you can name. He literally gains power by taking innocent people and destroying them.

I don't know how else I can get this idea across, but Nicodemus winning is utterly abhorrent to peace, life and freedom. Him winning is a terrible thing.

And him not winning ever makes him a bad villain.

I don't mind if he wins off-screen.

I don't mind if he only wins in a small thing.

I don't mind if his win is reversed in a couple of books.

I don't mind if his win is in a short story set before the series.

But let him win something or he's just not threatening.

Compare him to the Red Court. The Red Court are clearly evil. However, they still get:
1) to inflict permanent damage on one of Harry's allies that causes lasting consequences
2) to have several off-screen victories
3) including at least one victory that is supposed to be devastating.

Because Mab isn't really a villain in this series?

She's not set up to be a villain. But see below regarding what I think of her.

I mean, you might as well say, "Every time the Red Skull has a plan, I can be sure he'll lose." Villains lose. That's kind of a major cornerstone of fiction as a whole. That's how the plot works. The hero wins and the villains lose. Especially if the villains' goal in the first place is, "Murder millions of people across the U.S., after torturing a good man to death."

I prefer fiction where the bad guys win occasionally. Not often, but occasionally.

What damage is that? They failed to get away with Georgia and the other people Murphy rescued. The people they have gotten away with are, by your own argument, "meaningless," so I don't see how you can call that a win.

Please address that point -- how can you say that the girl Harry failed to save is meaningless despite happening on-screen, while also touting the people that the Fomor got away with offscreen as a major victory? I thought things that happened to anyone besides the named characters didn't count.

Gladly. I consider the deaths of minor characters to be meaningful for the span of time in which they impact either recurring characters or the world.

The girl who died in Proven Guilty impacted Harry for the length of a scene, and the world not at all.

The people who the Fomor have been murdering/kidnapping have impacted lots of recurring characters through the course of at least three books: Ghost Story through Skin Game, and the world for just as long.

There you go, then. There's your win. I don't see any need to have him gleefully causing the slaughter and destruction of thousands of lives and getting away with it onscreen, and I do not understand how it would benefit the series.

I'm reasonably certain that the twitter feeds aren't canon, and I've said that I would be happy with seeing something like this referenced in the books.

Let's take their active plans and actions so far:

In one corner, we have Mab:
In Summer Knight, she's trying to clear her name for a murder she didn't commit, and avert an apocalyptic war. In the end, she aids the White Council by allowing them to use the Ways. In Dead Beat, she directly aids Harry by giving him information about the Erlking. In Proven Guilty, it's murkier, but she seems to have tacitly approved Harry saving Molly if that wink is any indication. In Small Favor, she's working to stop Nicodemus from subverting the Archive. In Changes, she helps Harry rescue his daughter. Then she keeps Harry alive through Ghost Story. Then in Cold Days, her actions are to stop Nemesis. Finally, in Skin Game, she is trying to keep holy artifacts out of Nicodemus's hands and punish him for his transgressions.

Now, let's look at Nicodemus:
In Death Masks, he mercilessly slaughters the Churchmice, tortures Harry, tries to murder Harry, and does murder Shiro, one of the nicest, goodest people in the series, for the purpose of perverting a holy artifact and causing a plague that will kill thousands. In his next appearance, he kidnaps a 12-year-old girl and has his people imprison and torture -- and possibly rape -- her in order to break her will and force her into servitude to a Fallen Angel. In his last appearance so far, he fully intends to murder Harry, breaks the Sword of Faith, cripples Murphy, then tries to murder half a dozen innocent children while forcing their mother to watch.

So, going purely by what we see them do on screen, you really think Mab is as bad as Nicodemus?

Yes, I do. Mab:
1) enjoys torturing people, even people who haven't done anything to her
2) is completely fine with murdering everyone if it furthers her goals
3) thinks it is completely acceptable to take millions of children and use them as child soldiers
4) corrupts those who work for her into being worse people

That seems pretty much the same "evil" level as Nicodemus to me. The fact that we see less of it on screen than we do from Nicodemus doesn't change that.

"Some evidence" here meaning what, besides his own word, which is about as untrustworthy as you can get?

His reactions, which have several times betrayed information that is detrimental to him.

More pragmatic and less squeamish, I think is a better descriptor.

Mab would certainly agree. But then, I think Nicodemus would describe his attempts to corrupt people the same way.

We've seen it implied several times that one can get out of the Fae mantles, so there is an exit strategy there, too.

Yes, but we haven't seen it, so we don't know what it is.

As for the state of the soul, I hardly see that as an "advantage" considering what it does to your soul. Just having it doesn't matter much when it's a blackened, condemned thing that makes you enjoy slaughtering innocent people.

Because your soul can be redeemed so long as you actually still have it.

"Had a had" in what respect?

Doesn't give specifics. The RPG is really into saying the minimum possible so that people can make up their own ideas. All the RPG states outright is that the Winter Knight is actively a member of the revolution, and that the White Council thinks that Mab is involved somehow.

She's a faerie and doesn't take well to people ignoring hospitality rules. Nicodemus would have just killed everyone just to take the castle or something in it, probably.

So it's fine when Mab does awful stuff, but not when Nicodemus does so?

Because she needs him as a weapon, not because she gains power through those deaths.

And she doesn't gain power by having Harry as a weapon?

Also, the people she's had Harry kill are one of the aforementioned serial-rapists and an enemy agent.

Also known as "a helpless, broken man" and "a brainwashed victim." And I believe my point was that she was corrupting Harry, and Harry certainly reads as being corrupted by choosing to kill Slate, and as resisting corruption ("for now") by refusing to kill that goon.

I'm not clear on how that makes Mab worse than Nicodemus? That she's impressed a faerie was able to increase her power? I'm going to need more details on this one to understand it.

My point was the "dark and evil" bit, and that Mab was impressed that she was corrupting others' good intentions to get it.

Yes. And from what I've seen, her means have not reached the point where her ends do not matter.

So your belief is that the ends justify the means up until a certain cutoff point, and then they stop? Where is this cutoff point, exactly?

Certainly, Mab is not nice. She is ruthless and wants her agents not to be squeamish about little things like killing.

Well, that's certainly true.

But she is also capable of kindness and understanding,

I'm reasonably certain that Nicodemus is capable of kindness and understanding as well--he just doesn't choose to direct those traits in the direction of the protagonist. (Actually, when do we ever see Mab being kind and understanding? I feel like we have, but I can't remember a single incident outside of Cold Case, where I feel that it can be lumped under the same kind of manipulation that Lasciel's shadow directs towards Harry.)

and has done more to help Harry

What's that got to do with anything? She uses Harry as a tool, and helps Harry when it suits that purpose. Nicodemus would be happy to have the same relationship with Harry--Harry just chose a different path.

and protect the world than the opposite.

Nicodemus, however, is an evil monster whose idea of a good time is wiping out a third of Europe, then kidnapping a 12-year-old girl and torturing her until she breaks.

We don't actually know that Nicodemus kills people just for fun. We know that he enjoys it, but we also know that Mab enjoys such things as well.

We know that Nicodemus tortures and kills people for power, but we don't know what he wants that power for.

We know that Nicodemus kidnapped and tortured a child for the purpose of recruiting her. We know that Mab takes and hurts millions of children for the purposes of recruiting them.

We know that Harry could have been frenemies with Nicodemus in place of Mab--meaning there's some things that he could agree to work with Nicodemus on, since otherwise he and Lasciel could just go do their own thing.

We know that Nicodemus has indicated, through both words and involuntary reactions, that he is anti-Outsider.

There is a case to be made that Nicodemus is trying to stop the world from being destroyed by Outsiders, just as Mab is.

And then tries to murder six more children and force their mother to watch purely out of spite that he lost.

I'm reasonably certain that Nicodemus was actually having a mental breakdown here. Otherwise he would at least have been more sensible.

[Kindler]

Well, we also know that Uriel, an agent for TWG, is willing to work with Mab. He's not willing to work with Nicodemus, and, in fact, does his best to thwart him whenever he has the opportunity.

I don't know how you feel about TWG in the Dresden Files, but I do know that TWG works to ensure that Free Will remains a possibility for certain. It's the Big Limiting Factor on TWG's agents, as a matter of fact. Opposing TWG means, to me, opposing Free Will or Choice. Just because Nicodemus may be opposed to the Outsiders doesn't mean he's doing it for good reasons. I've said it before: if Nicodemus wants to stop the Outsiders, I think it's motivated by "Nobody's allowed to break my toys except for me."

And I don't recall Mab torturing any children, nor do I recall any child soldiers. All of those Sidhe and everyone fighting at the Gates seemed to be adults. Pretty sure that would've been significant if Dresden saw otherwise.

I'd categorize Mab more as Spartan than evil.