The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Murphy in Peace Talks (WoJ spoilers)
huangjimmy108:
--- Quote from: DonBugen on August 29, 2017, 02:18:47 PM ---How is it that Mab can tell Harry in Cold Days that Harry had basically twisted and turned Molly from an innocent little girl into basically being his devoted servant, exactly what DuMorne almost did, in order to justify her actions and still not be lying? Because there’s many different ways that the truth can be perceived. What Mab does not know, cannot know, is Harry’s true intentions. No one can know that for sure. This means that there’s a level of ambiguity here. Besides, Mab clearly thinks that Harry’s methods are at times incompetent – she makes as much clear in the beginning of SG.
Just to lawyer things out a bit, just to make things a bit of a headache: Nick gave no specific time limit. He told Dresden to end the little doctor and return to headquarters. These words do not imply that one must be taken care of before the other; that would be “end the little doctor and then return to headquarters." The fact that Harry moved Butters out of Nick’s influence does not mean that Harry cannot still end him that night, or the next night, or ninety years from now when Butters already lies dying in a hospital bed. Yes, this is a weak argument, but it is still true. By the letter of the agreement, Harry did not break the contract yet. Legally speaking, this would only happen if Dresden outright refused to kill Butters, if Nick gave a specific time period in which to do it in, or if Butters died before Harry could off him. And it is the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, that Mab cares about.
There is precedent for this. When Harry summons Toot, especially in the first books, he has to be specific about time periods and try not to fall asleep, because Toot could consider their contract fulfilled if he reported back to Harry far in the future, or while Harry was sleeping. These kinds of details matter to the fae.
True, Nicodemus does not know that Mab is hell-bent on seeing him burn. He knows that she has no respect for him (per their meeting in the beginning of SG) and can’t think that she’s particularly fond of him after he basically spat all over her accords. So I think that he would want to make sure that if things did get all murdery, that it would look much more like a cut-and-dry, black-and-white situation. That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that one puts up to chance.
Um, no – actually, the books clearly state that Mab needs a Knight because she herself can’t kill an unaffiliated mortal. That’s why the Winter Knight is cheerfully referred to as Mab’s hitman.
Well…OK. So, not incompetent. Inept. It’s pretty clear that Mab thinks that, though Harry’s actions get results, that he’s got a pretty screwy way of getting the job done. And if her own knight gets killed in the process, I’m pretty sure that she would believe that Harry was inept.
Those are all good points. I could see Murphy intending on returning the swords, but the time just doesn’t seem to present itself. It seems a bit of a stretch, especially after they find out that Sanya’s on the other side of the world and it doesn’t seem likely that another knight will appear that she would ‘forget’ to let Harry know that she decided to relinquish her control of the swords, but yeah, I’ll agree to that. It’s certainly possible, and things are hectic and crazy enough in Skin Game.
As for Harry being totally cool and having no complaints about Murph, and the implication that he didn’t just surrender them to her to hold out of his grasp, but to be the new de-facto distributor of swords and appointer of knights… yeah… not so sure about that. Sure, he complied with her wishes in Cold Days, but Karrin used a lot of passive aggression, pre-emptive control, and subtle shame to get him to see her way. I’m in the camp that believes that she was not acting like a friend to Dresden in this, and her viewpoint of him colored his own personal viewpoint of himself: someone who is no longer worthy to have the sword. Karrin was acting like a cop to a perp, not a friend to a friend.
Mr. Death’s already done an excellent job arguing against my point of view on this subject, and I believe that this is largely a point of opinion; not something that can be proven either way. I’m speaking from my personal experience after seeing many people in real life use these exact same tactics to get control of others and shame them into doing their will. This is an “agree to disagree” point to me, and so unless you have some sort of evidence that hasn’t already been brought up, I’m cool with us having differing opinions on this.
--- End quote ---
Mab does not truly understand humanity on some aspect, that is true, which is why she can say what she said about Molly and be so, well, not wrong exactly, but twisted. She is after all, not human.
But if you tell me that Mab, the queen of winter, mistress of all evil faerie, does not understand scheming, deception, plotting and cheating in the games of power, no one would believed you. Monkey business like Harry did with Butters is her breakfast when she is 3 years old. There is no way she'll fail to understood Harry's intent in this regard, and if she can't truly and honestly misunderstood, she can't lie to herself to do so.
And about the swords again. I won't argue whether or not Murphy use any passive aggressive means to persuade Harry, but when it regards to things like this, refer to the principal of "Free will". In the end, Harry agrees. It means, Harry choose to believe Murphy. No matter how it is done, reluctantly or sullenly, eagerly or happily, it does not matter. Harry make the choice and it is final. He make the choice and his will and judgement should be respected. If you don't respect Harry's judgement at least that much, why would you return the holy swords to him in the firstplace? If Harry is someone so blind. Someone that cannot differenciate who is sincere and who is trying to manipulate him. If he is someone so weak will that a simple passive aggressive stance could make him waver in his judgement. If he is someone like that, then the holy swords should not be given to him for sure.
Mira:
--- Quote ---So, if Mab’s not watching, and the little folk aren’t reliable, and Nicodemus kills Harry AND Karrin AND Butters, and it’s just Nicodemus and the Genoskwa’s word… this somehow makes Nicodemus’ word more reliable?
--- End quote ---
Not only that, no breaking into the vault to get the relics/weapons of mass destruction... Nic sort of wants them, he needs Harry for that.. Not just any Winter Knight will do.. Conclusion it was all a ruse to get a Holy Sword broken, a ruse that Butters unwittingly helped along because he had come not to trust Harry..
--- Quote ---So we agree on this, then? Again, not saying that this is sunshine, daisies, and clear skies ahead, and not saying that there might not be a Knight-level of miracle needed to pull their butts out of the fire. Karrin, holding the sword of faith, had no faith that doing the actions of a knight would save Dresden. If she had put her faith in TWG, she would have called Nick’s bluff and broken this stalemate, and brought them to a different sort of conflict. But if Karrin is actually acting as a knight should, then I think that she should have a knight’s superpower – that regardless of how difficult or dangerous the threat is, she always has the ability to overcome it.
--- End quote ---
But that is the whole point, why Murphy can not take the job as a Knight anymore.. She is having a crisis of faith, or she no longer has any faith, that doesn't make her a bad person, or less of a brave person.. She has no faith in the whole system of Holy Knights and their Swords, that purpose being Knights and Swords is to help the holders of the coins give them up to seek redemption.. She thinks they all deserve to die, she was telling Harry the truth about that... However she was lying when she said she had faith and he didn't, but she doesn't.. If she did, the Sword wouldn't have gotten broken in the first place.
DonBugen:
--- Quote ---Mab does not truly understand humanity on some aspect, that is true, which is why she can say what she said about Molly and be so, well, not wrong exactly, but twisted. She is after all, not human.
But if you tell me that Mab, the queen of winter, mistress of all evil faerie, does not understand scheming, deception, plotting and cheating in the games of power, no one would believed you. Monkey business like Harry did with Butters is her breakfast when she is 3 years old. There is no way she'll fail to understood Harry's intent in this regard, and if she can't truly and honestly misunderstood, she can't lie to herself to do so.
--- End quote ---
Jimmy, I only have a few minutes, so I want to address this one point real quick. I think that you're missing something very important about Faerie law, something that I've said numerous times.
The unseelie accords don't care about intent. They don't care if you're playing fair or not. They care about what is done.
In Grave Peril, pretty much the primer for the Accords, the Red Court screws Harry over in every way possible. They send their hit goon duo to try to take out Dresden multiple times. They poison all the food at their bash. They steal Amoracchius and force Harry into a position where it will be destroyed if he doesn't act. They even give him a gravestone. There is no mistake: they intend to kill Dresden that night.
And yet, when he does finally act, he is the one who is breaking the Accords. Because it doesn't matter the intent, it matters the act.
Consider this situation: Mab is sending Harry to work with Nicodemus with the expressed intent for him to destroy his plans and make him burn. She says that if he is to live, he is to skin them alive.
So, under your argument, Mab is also breaking her accords. She's entering into this not under good faith, but with the intent to destroy him. She does everything she can to make it happen.
Wouldn't Mab also be breaking her own accords?
NO. Because what matters is the action she takes.
Harry stuck to the letter of the agreement. He had not betrayed Nick yet. And any whiny argument from Nick about, "well, he didn't kill the mortal I wanted dead immediately, and was totally going to kill me anyways" would be met by the scorn it deserves.
huangjimmy108:
--- Quote from: DonBugen on August 30, 2017, 04:35:33 AM ---Jimmy, I only have a few minutes, so I want to address this one point real quick. I think that you're missing something very important about Faerie law, something that I've said numerous times.
The unseelie accords don't care about intent. They don't care if you're playing fair or not. They care about what is done.
In Grave Peril, pretty much the primer for the Accords, the Red Court screws Harry over in every way possible. They send their hit goon duo to try to take out Dresden multiple times. They poison all the food at their bash. They steal Amoracchius and force Harry into a position where it will be destroyed if he doesn't act. They even give him a gravestone. There is no mistake: they intend to kill Dresden that night.
And yet, when he does finally act, he is the one who is breaking the Accords. Because it doesn't matter the intent, it matters the act.
Consider this situation: Mab is sending Harry to work with Nicodemus with the expressed intent for him to destroy his plans and make him burn. She says that if he is to live, he is to skin them alive.
So, under your argument, Mab is also breaking her accords. She's entering into this not under good faith, but with the intent to destroy him. She does everything she can to make it happen.
Wouldn't Mab also be breaking her own accords?
NO. Because what matters is the action she takes.
Harry stuck to the letter of the agreement. He had not betrayed Nick yet. And any whiny argument from Nick about, "well, he didn't kill the mortal I wanted dead immediately, and was totally going to kill me anyways" would be met by the scorn it deserves.
--- End quote ---
Actually no. What matters is not the intent nor the act. What matters is the result.
I mention "Intent" because you argue that Mab could lawyer herself out of her word by using a mere excuse like "Harry forzaring Butters is an honest attempt to kill him". In this context of argument, intent matters, because in order to be able to do this Mab need to misperceive Harry's intent and do it intentionally.
By the way, GP and the unceli accords are bad examples. Vampires are only slightly better than denarians when it come to honor and fulfilling their word, and GP's vampires are the ones who colluded with outsiders. They are bad guys through and through, so using them as a comparison to Mab is almost an insult. The unceli accords may be under Mab's sponsorship, but the unceli accords is only a general guideline and it is use to regulate 2 parties who may or may not be the fae. Most things handled under the unceli accords are between the party in dispute. In GP for example, it is the problem between the rampires and the white council. If the rampires cheated, it is the white council who must respond. It has nothing to do with Mab. It will only become Mab's problem if you disrespect the accord itself, like attacking the appointed arbiter. Therefore I am going to use Harry's birthday party in CD as an example.
so, In the case of Harry's birthday party, The rule is simple: As long as there is no blood spilled on the floor, Mab is cool with it. In this case, result matters. Is there blood spilled on the floor? That is all that matters. Mab did not care about the rest. Maeve can have all the intent to kill Harry, and she can take all action to achieve her intent, but so long as no blood is actually spilled, Mab won't care. Heck, Maeve could kill Harry by freezing Harry's brain and as long as Harry's blood does not spilled into the floor, Mab can't do anything using the "no spilling blood" rule. if blood is spilled however, a price must be paid.
It is the result that matters. For Mab, fulfilling the result, the letter of the deal, is in fact "Good faith". So she is not breaking any accords.
In the case of Butters, Mab told Harry to assist Nick. Nick orders to "end Butters". Harry need to fulfill this condition, or else. There is no escape. Failure to satisfy this condition will result in consequences. A price must be paid. Again, Harry can do anything here. He can even actually help Butters to escape and he'll be find, so long as Butters is caught or killed in the end, Harry will be fulfilling the deal. The moment Butters cross over Michael's fence line, once it is determine beyond a doubt that he won't die, Harry already broken the deal. And no, you can't argue that there is no time limit to end Butters, because there is a limit, though it may not be a time limit. Remember book 10, Eldest gruf told Harry that the moment Harry leave the island and into Chicago, eldest gruf won't go after him anymore. The matter is ended there and eldest gruf would be considered failing the task. The same in Butters's case. Butters must die before a certain limit or Harry will be considered as fail. The carriage will return back into a pumpkin at midnight, for example. There is always a limit.
The price to be paid however, is negotiable.
In the birthday party case. If it is Harry who spill blood on the floor and not some sidhe, do you think Mab would just kill Harry? Of course not. Killing Harry won't be to her advantage. She'll will punish him and possible increase her leverage and control over Harry in the process, but he won't die. But since it is Maeve's underling who done it, Mab can just order their execution.
in Butters's case however, things are a bit more dire. Mab is not personally present to mmitigate the consequences, and with Anduriel there, a being that even Mab need to show some respect, it won't be easy for her to do so even if she is present. With Harry failing to fulfilled the condition, all bets are off. Nick could kill Harry and be free of all blame, because with Harry failing the condition Mab's deal can't protect him anymore. He is no longer covered by the truce. Worse, by failing to fulfill the condition, by failing to assist Nicodemous, Harry does not just broken the truce, he also broken Mab's agreement to return Nicodemous's favor. Remember that there 2 separate deals involve:
1. Mab returning a favor by promising Harry's assistance .
2. The additional truce made when Harry requested a + 1 to accompany him.
Breaking the simple truce is bad enough, breaking Mab's promise is absolutely deadly for Harry, and Harry has broken both at once. A price must be paid to cover this breach. By breaking fid, Murphy with Michael's help cover this gap.
Mira:
--- Quote ---In the case of Butters, Mab told Harry to assist Nick. Nick orders to "end Butters". Harry need to fulfill this condition, or else. There is no escape. Failure to satisfy this condition will result in consequences. A price must be paid. Again, Harry can do anything here. He can even actually help Butters to escape and he'll be find, so long as Butters is caught or killed in the end, Harry will be fulfilling the deal. The moment Butters cross over Michael's fence line, once it is determine beyond a doubt that he won't die, Harry already broken the deal. And no, you can't argue that there is no time limit to end Butters, because there is a limit, though it may not be a time limit. Remember book 10, Eldest gruf told Harry that the moment Harry leave the island and into Chicago, eldest gruf won't go after him anymore. The matter is ended there and eldest gruf would be considered failing the task. The same in Butters's case. Butters must die before a certain limit or Harry will be considered as fail. The carriage will return back into a pumpkin at midnight, for example. There is always a limit.
--- End quote ---
It depends on the fine print of the agreement or bargain.. Anyone knows that is Fae Bargaining 101.. The Fae cannot lie, but they know how to bargain to their advantage.. Mab told Harry to "assist" Nic, but that doesn't mean he is under Nic's command... That give Harry some wiggle room, he didn't have to kill Butters, only take him out of the action.. By bodily throwing him into Michael's yard, he was removed from the action as effectively as if he had killed him... Harry also said clearly how it could be explained, he is incompetent, or just unlucky.. And since it was all part of a ploy on Nic's part, his intent was never to kill Harry, nobody really violated anything..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version