Odin's plan wag

[groinkick]

Odin plans on removing his patch, and replacing it with the Eye of Balor, and kill Fenrir (Drakul imo)...

[seanham]

Does Odin have enough hate to use the Eye?

[b4utoo]

He doesn't need the eye for that...hes already powerful enough.

[Con]

Does Odin have enough hate to use the Eye?

I suspect you can also use love.

Assuming you have the same view Mab has of the whole love/hate being the same force in opposite directions thing.

[Yuillegan]

Assuming Odin and Balor were not once the same...he's had many names after all. Although I can't see Odin using the Eye. If he wanted to kill Drakul I am not sure he would use a nuke. He seems to be a bit more clinical. Like aiding an enemy's enemy at a critical time (e.g. giving them crucial information and attacking them at their weakest...like helping Dresden with the Red Court).

I suspect you can also use love.

Assuming you have the same view Mab has of the whole love/hate being the same force in opposite directions thing.

I would imagine that would have vastly different outcomes. Can you kill with love?

[The_Sibelis]

I suspect you can also use love.

Assuming you have the same view Mab has of the whole love/hate being the same force in opposite directions thing.

hole lee... Yes. I like this. To quote a not so popular moment...

(click to show/hide)

"we don't win by destroying what we hate, we win by protecting what we love.."

though, I suspect Dresden will accomplish this.

[Con]

.
I would imagine that would have vastly different outcomes. Can you kill with love?

Assuming Ammorrachius/Excalibur the Sword of Love and Michael Carpenters entire philosophy... yeah.

Plus Harry did kill Susan for the love of his daughter, and wiped out the Red Court.

hole lee... Yes. I like this. To quote a not so popular moment...

(click to show/hide)

"we don't win by destroying what we hate, we win by protecting what we love.."

though, I suspect Dresden will accomplish this.

There's also Mab's speech in Changes

"So many terrible things are done for love" Mab's voice said "For love will men mutilate themselves and murder rivals. For love will even a peaceful man go to war. For love man will destroy himself and that right willingly."

[groinkick]

He doesn't need the eye for that...hes already powerful enough.

Na. 

[Arjan]

Assuming Ammorrachius/Excalibur the Sword of Love and Michael Carpenters entire philosophy... yeah.

Plus Harry did kill Susan for the love of his daughter, and wiped out the Red Court.

Which was a good thing and Susan completely agreed.

There's also Mab's speech in Changes

"So many terrible things are done for love" Mab's voice said "For love will men mutilate themselves and murder rivals. For love will even a peaceful man go to war. For love man will destroy himself and that right willingly."

[Ed0517]

He doesn't need the eye for that...hes already powerful enough.

If Fenrir is the Fenris Wolf - he doesn't have the power. The Wolf kills Odin at Ragnarok.

[Ed0517]

Odin plans on removing his patch, and replacing it with the Eye of Balor, and kill Fenrir (Drakul imo)...

Isn't fenrir the Fenris Wolf, and held prisoner by the roots of rocks, the beards of women, the spit of birds, etc? The child of Loki?

[Yuillegan]

Isn't fenrir the Fenris Wolf, and held prisoner by the roots of rocks, the beards of women, the spit of birds, etc? The child of Loki?

Yeah, one and the same being.

It's not clear if Fenrir is around in the Dresden Files (although I am sure he is somewhere). Groinkick believes Drakul might be Fenrir, which is possible.

Assuming Ammorrachius/Excalibur the Sword of Love and Michael Carpenters entire philosophy... yeah.

Plus Harry did kill Susan for the love of his daughter, and wiped out the Red Court.

There's also Mab's speech in Changes

"So many terrible things are done for love" Mab's voice said "For love will men mutilate themselves and murder rivals. For love will even a peaceful man go to war. For love man will destroy himself and that right willingly."

I did consider the Mab's speech thing, I am glad you brought it up. I hadn't considered the Amoracchius angle but it's interesting. Not to mention the Arma Christi, all weapons created from the love of Christ.

However, I think the Eye of Balor is a bit more like the One Ring. You can't really use it to do good. It was created from all that hate and anger, it was created to destroy. The One Ring, despite the best intentions of the bearer, could not be used for doing good. It corrupted almost all who touched it (save Tom Bombadil - although I doubt even he could have used it for good, it simply didn't affect him). I suspect you would have to unmake the Eye and then remake it entirely if you wished to somehow use it as a tool for love. Love and peace would need to be a central part of it's creation.

Yes, people do terrible things for love. But that's because they twist it. Love itself, I believe, would not allow you to do terrible things. I think that was the whole message Jesus was going on about. Also, I would point out that Amoracchius doesn't kill with love. As far as I know, it's never harmed an innocent mortal at all. In point of fact, the Sword doesn't kill at all. It's the choice and will of the wielder, expressed through the Sword. The steel of the sword allows for the death of mortals (and Fae). The power of the Sword does allow for the killing of mighty supernatural beings, although it's hard to say whether it can kill immortals. The power that is within it (whether that's an Angel or the blood of Christ on the Nail or a combination of those) doesn't simply destroy. What the Swords really do is create the possibility of victory, a chance where none was. They create. This would seem at odds with what the Eye of Balor does.

[Mira]

However, I think the Eye of Balor is a bit more like the One Ring. You can't really use it to do good. It was created from all that hate and anger, it was created to destroy. The One Ring, despite the best intentions of the bearer, could not be used for doing good. It corrupted almost all who touched it (save Tom Bombadil - although I doubt even he could have used it for good, it simply didn't affect him). I suspect you would have to unmake the Eye and then remake it entirely if you wished to somehow use it as a tool for love. Love and peace would need to be a central part of it's creation.

Exactly, and I think Gandalf put it best, though I paraphrase, and I am not sure if it was just in the movie, but I think it is in the book as well.  "Understand Frodo, I'd use the Ring only for good..." At the same time he wouldn't touch it was a ten foot pole, knowing that the Ring twists the best of intentions towards evil.  The Ring didn't effect Tom Bombadil, for a number of reasons, first, he has no desire to have power or sway for good or evil over anyone or anything,  Second he is one of the first born of Middle Earth I believe, and that also protects him, thirdly, in the end because he hasn't any of these desires, he just doesn't care... Which is why Elrod I believe said he is the last person who could keep it safe...

Yes, people do terrible things for love. But that's because they twist it. Love itself, I believe, would not allow you to do terrible things. I think that was the whole message Jesus was going on about. Also, I would point out that Amoracchius doesn't kill with love. As far as I know, it's never harmed an innocent mortal at all. In point of fact, the Sword doesn't kill at all. It's the choice and will of the wielder, expressed through the Sword. The steel of the sword allows for the death of mortals (and Fae). The power of the Sword does allow for the killing of mighty supernatural beings, although it's hard to say whether it can kill immortals (The power that is within it (whether that's an Angel or the blood of Christ on the Nail or a combination of those) doesn't simply destroy. What the Swords really do is create the possibility of victory, a chance where none was. They create. This would seem at odds with what the Eye of Balor does.

Hate and love are the two sides of the same coin.  The Swords and the Eye are instruments.. The Swords have a fail safe built in, they won't allow themselves to be misused.  In the name of both love and hate, Murphy misused the Sword in judgement of Nic, and it broke.  The Eye has only been used in the name of hate, powered by hate, who is to say it wouldn't work with love?  It hasn't been tried yet, has it?

[Yuillegan]

Exactly, and I think Gandalf put it best, though I paraphrase, and I am not sure if it was just in the movie, but I think it is in the book as well.  "Understand Frodo, I'd use the Ring only for good..." At the same time he wouldn't touch it was a ten foot pole, knowing that the Ring twists the best of intentions towards evil.  The Ring didn't effect Tom Bombadil, for a number of reasons, first, he has no desire to have power or sway for good or evil over anyone or anything,  Second he is one of the first born of Middle Earth I believe, and that also protects him, thirdly, in the end because he hasn't any of these desires, he just doesn't care... Which is why Elrod I believe said he is the last person who could keep it safe...

Yes that's close enough, Gandalf was aware of the danger it represented even to him. Tom Bombadil was something else entirely, perhaps the spirit of Arda itself. I think it's said he would only have fallen when everything else had. He's a bit like a Genius Loci, to my mind.

Hate and love are the two sides of the same coin.  The Swords and the Eye are instruments.. The Swords have a fail safe built in, they won't allow themselves to be misused.  In the name of both love and hate, Murphy misused the Sword in judgement of Nic, and it broke.  The Eye has only been used in the name of hate, powered by hate, who is to say it wouldn't work with love?  It hasn't been tried yet, has it?

That's true, but the effects of them are entirely different. One could say the same about heat and cold.  Yes, at low enough or high enough temperatures you can kill just about anything. But we use heat to disorder a structure, and cold to order it again. You have to melt down the metal before cooling it in it's final shape, if you're making a sword etc. You can't do it the other way around.

To me, I haven't yet seen how love could be used in the same way in the series. There is a passage in Skin Game that I think helps address it.

Lash. When she sacrificed herself for you, it was an act of selfless love—and love is fundamentally a force of creation. It stands to reason, then, that an act of love is fundamentally an act of creation.

Skin Game, 2014, pg 58

I don't really see any room there for using love to destroy things.

[Mira]

To me, I haven't yet seen how love could be used in the same way in the series. There is a passage in Skin Game that I think helps address it.

Quote

    Lash. When she sacrificed herself for you, it was an act of selfless love—and love is fundamentally a force of creation. It stands to reason, then, that an act of love is fundamentally an act of creation.

Skin Game, 2014, pg 58

I don't really see any room there for using love to destroy things.

However while love is common, selfless love is rare in my opinion.  Jealousy is one of the most destructive forces there is and can rise from love that isn't returned and given to another.  Lash felt selfless love for Harry, but in Lasceil's case, Harry's rejection of her, swiftly turned her love into murderous hate.

You have to melt down the metal before cooling it in it's final shape, if you're making a sword etc. You can't do it the other way around.

I am a huge fan of the show"Forged in Fire."It is a very interesting contest show about bladesmithing,  it is kind of like the show "Chopped,"there are three rounds,the smiths are given materials to forge a blade with in a time limit.  After each round the blades are judged, then tested and someone is eliminated after each round.  Anyway, the biggest thing I've learned from watching the show is a lot of cliches about making strong steel blades are totally false.  First of all, you don't exactly "melt" the metal, or not completely, you heat it to the point where you can shape it, if you screw up this step, the blade will be brittle, or come apart as you try to work it.. You have to heat it before you temper it, get that wrong, again, brittle, cracked, or warped blade.  One cliche I heard a lot is the more a sword is heated and re-quenched, the stronger it becomes... No, you want to avoid re-quenching if you can, because it can make the steel weaker, not stronger. Also not all types of steel can be made hard to be a serviceable blade.  Finally a knife can look perfect, but it snaps when they start to test it.. Yeah, they do things you shouldn't do to a knife, but if it is forged correctly it will hold up.  Back to your point, if love is forged correctly it will hold up under any test... But if it isn't, it will be brittle and break, or worse, turn to hate.