Denarian Short Story

[nadia.skylark]

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.

I...tend to view this as slightly more complicated. TWG is certainly in favor of Free Will and Choice. But not necessarily things like informed choice. We see this with Harry at the end of Ghost Story. To me, Uriel pretty clearly manipulates Harry's understanding such that he thinks that he is choosing to move on to the afterlife, when actually he's choosing to come back to life in Mab's lap.

Also, regarding Uriel not working with denarians but working with Mab, a couple of arguments:
1) We can't actually say that he's never worked with denarians (or, more realistically, manipulated denarians into helping him with something), just that we haven't seen him doing so. Denarians have been around a lot longer than the books
2) Just because it suits Uriel's purpose to work with Mab sometimes, it doesn't make Mab any less of a bad guy. It's similar to Harry and Marcone: it occasionally suits Harry's purpose to work with Marcone, but that doesn't change the fact that Marcone's a criminal scumbag.

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.

It's in a short story, Cold Case. No torturing involved, but she takes children away from their parents to endure what seems likely to be extremely brutal training, and then to be forced to fight until they're killed.

[kbrizzle]

@nadia
Mab is not a free-willed being, & neither are most of the Fae. The reason Mab has her power is to protect reality itself - this is a fundamental & powerful truth in the DV. Therefore Mab literally transcends good & evil - like Harry says when he likens her to Maeve - Mab is like a force of nature. Almost every action Mab takes is to ultimately protect reality, but she is cold & ruthless by nature which causes some humans to view her as a sort of evil (especially if they don’t know/ understand her purpose).
Mab from Changes onwards comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic or evil in general since Harry starts truly working with her.
Additionally she’s known to be good to her word, this cannot be said about Nic, who also seems to have an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Everything about the guy screams evil, except in his own way he thinks he is saving the world - we have no idea what this means to Nic. Where as we kinda know what it means to Mab, so I’m not really getting the comparison...

[nadia.skylark]

Mab is not a free-willed being, & neither are most of the Fae. The reason Mab has her power is to protect reality itself - this is a fundamental & powerful truth in the DV. Therefore Mab literally transcends good & evil - like Harry says when he likens her to Maeve - Mab is like a force of nature. Almost every action Mab takes is to ultimately protect reality, but she is cold & ruthless by nature which causes some humans to view her as a sort of evil (especially if they don’t know/ understand her purpose).

I'm not debating the whole free will thing. I'm saying that, in terms of their actions, Mab and Nicodemus are somewhat equivalent.

Mab from Changes onwards comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic or evil in general since Harry starts truly working with her.

Which demonstrates that Mab has the good sense to know that she can't push Harry too far without losing him. Nicodemus also comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic and evil when Harry is working with him.

Additionally she’s known to be good to her word, this cannot be said about Nic, who also seems to have an incestuous relationship with his daughter.

Three points here:
1) Mab may not lie or break her word, but she's capable of twisting things so much that it doesn't make much difference. In Harry's words (paraphrased) "being unable to lie has in no way inhibited her ability to deceive."
2) I don't think keeping one's word, by itself, is a particularly good marker of whether one is good or evil. To give an obvious example, if someone gives their word to burn down an orphanage full of kids, then breaking their word ends up as the good option and keeping it the evil one.
3) What does Nic's relationship with Dierdre have to do with him keeping or not keeping his word?

Everything about the guy screams evil,

From Harry's perspective. From Fix's perspective, everything about Mab screams evil.

except in his own way he thinks he is saving the world - we have no idea what this means to Nic. Where as we kinda know what it means to Mab, so I’m not really getting the comparison...

We have less evidence for Nic than Mab, but a case can be made that they're both anti-Outsider.

And also, yes, we don't have definitive evidence for what it means to Nic, which means we cannot assume that the ends he is working toward are bad.

[Bad Alias]

[1.] Do they [wards keeping magic out]? I don't remember that. Can you tell me where it says so (not doubting, just curious).

[2.] 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.

[3.] Lightbulbs.

1. I thought it was in the books, but now I'm thinking it was either in the Paranet Papers or a WoJ. As I don't recall where I got it from, I can't point it out.

2. That's just my theory based on the premises that hexing is magic and thresholds stop (some amount of) magic.

3. Harry keeps light bulbs going in his office (with some difficulty), so I imagine they wouldn't notice any effect that does make it through if my other points are correct.

I'd categorize Mab more as Spartan than evil.

Not so sure I wouldn't categorize the Spartan's as evil, but I'm no expert on the Ancient Greeks.

[kbrizzle]

@nadia

I'm not debating the whole free will thing. I'm saying that, in terms of their actions, Mab and Nicodemus are somewhat equivalent.

From whose perspective? Summer by its nature is supposed to oppose Mab, so I’m not sure their opinion counts too much here. Mab’s actions led to the end of the Red Court, a bane to most of the other Signatories to the Accords, what has Nic done that compares?
Mab is a fundamental force of nature - the season of Winter. Her actions literally affect every single person in the DV (mostly positively on the whole). Nic is not a force of nature - he is a rogue agent for the good guys at best, at worst he’s a delusional sociopath. The main action he’s undertaken that has affected a lot of people is the Black Plague....

Which demonstrates that Mab has the good sense to know that she can't push Harry too far without losing him. Nicodemus also comes off as a lot less wantonly cruel, sadistic and evil when Harry is working with him.

Does he? He literally has squire Jordan de-tongued in front of Harry for no other reason than to make a petty point; he forces Harry to try & manipulate Anna Valmont into helping them in SG (that’s not how it plays out, but this was Nic’s intention); he makes out with his daughter a couple of times; he betrays them at the end.
Nic also breaks his word in almost every book he’s in, like in DM when he promises to let Harry go if Shiro turns himself over without a fight. Yet he sends Deedee after Harry not a few minutes after this & tries to use an entropy curse on Harry a little later after.

Three points here:
1) Mab may not lie or break her word, but she's capable of twisting things so much that it doesn't make much difference. In Harry's words (paraphrased) "being unable to lie has in no way inhibited her ability to deceive."
2) I don't think keeping one's word, by itself, is a particularly good marker of whether one is good or evil. To give an obvious example, if someone gives their word to burn down an orphanage full of kids, then breaking their word ends up as the good option and keeping it the evil one.

Agreed on the Mab being deceptive thing, however not flat out lying to someone shows integrity. Whatever you want to say about the Fae’s deceptive abilities, they are ALWAYS good to letter of their word (not always the spirit). Nic breaks promises, truces & agreements as he sees fit. While Mab may do some of the same, she is bound to her word in a way Nic is not, & Nic abuses this ability.
Contrast this with Lara Raith who almost always keeps her word - she is a much more honorable bad guy than Nic & that’s saying something.

3) What does Nic's relationship with Dierdre have to do with him keeping or not keeping his word?

It just generally shows what an amoral scumbag he is. I mean there is a special place in Hell for parents who do this to their children. It supplements my argument that he does not think that rules are binding to him.
I don’t think Harry truly believes that Mab is evil, especially not after CD. See my point about Summer above regarding Fix.

And also, yes, we don't have definitive evidence for what it means to Nic, which means we cannot assume that the ends he is working toward are bad.

It’s like in WW2 - just because Stalin opposed Hitler, it didn’t make him a good guy or that any rational person would want to live in Stalin’s Russia. He was useful in beating the Nazis & that was it. I think this will be similar to Nic’s arc.

[Mira]

It’s like in WW2 - just because Stalin opposed Hitler, it didn’t make him a good guy or that any rational person would want to live in Stalin’s Russia. He was useful in beating the Nazis & that was it. I think this will be similar to Nic’s arc.

Very good point, if you consider the number of people he starved to death in the Ukraine for starters, the number of innocents he murdered ranks up there with Hitler. 

[g33k]

... he forces Harry to try & manipulate Anna Valmont into helping them in SG (that’s not how it plays out, but this was Nic’s intention)...

FWIW ... 
I think it played out EXACTLY the way Nic planned it to.

Harry tried to protect poor Anna by discouraging her.  Predictable; so predictable, Nic could likely hang his whole plan on Harry's gallant-and-protective impulse.

Harry admitted to her he was in it to screw-over Nic.  Predictable again.  Harry usually doesn't lie, and would have no reason to.  Nic knows Mab has a hate-on for him; even if Harry didn't, her orders to the WK would be, "fulfill the letter of the law, but in doing so... screw him so hard that his wife can feel it!"

Anna has a hate-on for Nic, and wants a piece of screwing him over.  She has ALREADY seen Harry beat the Denarians once, during she Shroud caper; saved her life, too.  So if Harry is gonna bulldog Nic, this is her golden opportunity to take a bite, too.  Predictable.

The Fomor show up to get their data back (and to Disapprove With Extreme Prejudice).  Predictable.

Harry escapes with Anna (noting that Hannah and Lasciel are there to make sure everything goes according the plan!), renewing that whole "bonding under fire" vibe, reinforcing that Anna can rely on Harry to keep her safe from the Bad Things.

All in all, I think that was a set-piece produced by Nic, and directed by Hannah/Lasciel, enacted by Harry&Anna & by the Fomor.

[kbrizzle]

@Mira
Absolutely, and since our intro to Nic in DM has him trying to spread another international plague (powered by the fake Shroud), I find it hard to believe that any version of Nic’s paradise would not be horrible to normal people.
It’s also important to note that the Denarians grow in power during times of fear & unrest as Michael notes in DM.

@g33k
Definitely possible - Anna does come & join the heist squad at the end of the day, whatever her reasons - so Nic does get what he wants there.

[Mr. Death]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that not winning makes Nicodemus a bad villain.

Most of your great villains don't win. The vast majority of fiction has the villains not winning. Saying the mass murdering, near-genocidal psychopath deserves a win just strikes me as misguided at best.

Especially since the very last thing we've seen him do on screen is attempt to murder six children and forcing their mother to watch them burn to death. Not to further any plan, just purely out of spite.

Yeah, that's a guy to root for.

I don't think he and Mab are comparable at all, given all we've seen. She's very clearly the lesser of two evils.

She keeps her word; Nicodemus literally gains power from lying and breaking his word, and has done so repeatedly.

Mab has offered Harry the occasional kindness, and has shown empathy. Nicodemus has offered Harry a collar, and tried to kill him out of spite repeatedly.

Mab has to make ruthless choices to preserve reality. Nicodemus attempts to have children murdered because he was outmaneuvered and is angry.

Mab wants weapons to fight Outsiders. Among Nidocemus's stated goals is destroying the Swords of the Cross, which are not only monstrously effective against Outsiders, but exist explicitly for the purpose of helping people and saving lives.

It's like comparing someone who wants a gun for home protection with someone who's regularly firebombing ambulances.

[Kindler]

The Spartans weren't really evil, just brutally utilitarian; some of the stuff they were famous for (such as killing newborn babies with birth defects) are evil by any moral standard from the past several centuries, but not so much for the Iron Age. Same as Mab; if something Serves a Necessary Purpose, regardless of how unpleasant it is, then it should be done.
The point is that Mab has never been shown to be unnecessarily cruel. Even taking those Fae children in Cold Case isn't something I would label cruel. It's the fulfillment of Mab's Purpose, along with the Purpose of that Fae community. For someone in Mab's position, I kind of apply the same litmus test for cruelty as I do for tyranny: if it's the execution or application of arbitrary power, then it's cruel. For example, if Mab was taking those Fae children because she was annoyed at that community, or to make an example, or pretty much any reason other than "the literal Walls of Reality are under attack by eldritch abominations, and we need soldiers to fight against them," then it'd be arbitrary and cruel. It's not pleasant, and we're not supposed to like it, but we can understand it, at least.
Nicodemus has never been shown to do anything except pursue power. Maybe he'd use that power against the Outsiders, but I doubt that's his primary motivation. It's more like "If the Outsiders win, I lose."

[Bad Alias]

The Spartans weren't really evil, just brutally utilitarian; some of the stuff they were famous for (such as killing newborn babies with birth defects) are evil by any moral standard from the past several centuries, but not so much for the Iron Age.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the elite warriors annually hunted slaves that stood out to keep the populous living in terror, and such.

[g33k]

... Agreed on the Mab being deceptive thing, however not flat out lying to someone shows integrity. Whatever you want to say about the Fae’s deceptive abilities, they are ALWAYS good to letter of their word (not always the spirit)...

I don't think it shows "integrity" as such.  It shows ability.  Mab -- like other fae -- cannot break their word.

Does a brick have "integrity" because you can rely upon it to fall when dropped?  Does a piece of deliquescing fruit have integrity (it's equally reliable)?

Mab -- like other sidhe -- will twist every nuance and expectation until they have utterly misled and deceived, with identical consequence (to a mortal foolish enough to rely upon them) to an actual lie.  Again, that's not a lack of "integrity"... it's a simple matter of what they ARE.

They ARE bound by promises, they ARE incapable of lying, they ARE deceptive.

[Kindler]

I was thinking more along the lines of how the elite warriors annually hunted slaves that stood out to keep the populous living in terror, and such.

Oh yeah, they did that too, though, again, there's a brutal utilitarian reason for culling the Helot population: they outnumbered the Spartitates several times over. Rebellion was a constant threat, so helots were routinely mistreated and culled. Wrong, but logical, if ice freaking cold.

[Mira]

Oh yeah, they did that too, though, again, there's a brutal utilitarian reason for culling the Helot population: they outnumbered the Spartitates several times over. Rebellion was a constant threat, so helots were routinely mistreated and culled. Wrong, but logical, if ice freaking cold.

They also put young people who hadn't married yet naked in a dark room with orders to pair off.  All in the name of producing future warriors for the state.   Moral by their standards.

[Bad Alias]

@Kindler: Just because something makes sense doesn't ameliorate its being evil. For example, slavery usually makes sense from the perspective of the slave owner. That's true for most acts of evil.

@Mira: But not moral (Spartan treatment of the Helots, haven't looked into how other Greeks viewed Spartan sexual practices, many of which we would find abhorrent) by the standards of most Greeks at the time.