The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Harry should Dark Hallow Demonreach.
jonas:
--- Quote from: Shift8 on July 21, 2017, 01:07:32 PM ---So two things.
1) After consuming that much power, keeping the nasty at bay should be childs play.
2) If Harry can push it into something mantle like, then we have no problem. Harry just needs to craft a demon reach mantle that is separate from his original self. That way he isnt consumed by it.
--- End quote ---
!yea, you can keep it at bay the same way he keeps the WK at bay, by not using it.
2 Problematically, He and DR are already combined in a lesser way. So that might not work. I think he might actually have to ingest the power and let it become part of him before he can separate it into a mantle.... the only thing we know has created mantles themselves is the mothers who broke off pieces of their own power, and the Queens whom did the same. So mantles are actually made specifically by the things they represent? good brainstorming session, too tired to shut up inner Jonas and his insightful queries.
wyltok:
Those who have read Day One (the Butters short story) know why this is a phenomenally bad idea.
(click to show/hide)"Some laws are kinda universal. Like "You are what you eat". You eat enough nightmares, sooner or later you turn into one."
Shift8:
--- Quote from: wyltok on July 21, 2017, 01:52:56 PM ---Those who have read Day One (the Butters short story) know why this is a phenomenally bad idea.
(click to show/hide)"Some laws are kinda universal. Like "You are what you eat". You eat enough nightmares, sooner or later you turn into one."
--- End quote ---
Maxims are not physical laws. They are not certainties.
jonas:
--- Quote from: Shift8 on July 21, 2017, 01:56:20 PM ---Maxims are not physical laws. They are not certainties.
--- End quote ---
can you or anyone prove its either a law or a 'maxim'? then for the intentions here I don't think it matters, it's what we have, repeatedly, from multiple angles and sources.
Shift8:
--- Quote from: jonas on July 21, 2017, 01:59:52 PM ---can you or anyone prove its either a law or a 'maxim'? then for the intentions here I don't think it matters, it's what we have, repeatedly, from multiple angles and sources.
--- End quote ---
Im not the one with the onus to prove it is a law. Im not the one making the assertion that it would do something. As the person with the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you. And I am seeing know sources. Are you refering to clear cut absolute statements, or loose inference like the butters reference.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version