The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
White Court, Venatori and Kemmler
Zaphodess:
--- Quote from: jonas on August 24, 2017, 02:22:21 PM ---I already said that in the little bit you quoted, then pointed out why that's significant and why your early assertation that Stoker had informants or researched himself was off track... you can't say it one way before and claim you meant something else now... that's not what you were referring to earlier It's not linearly connected to the idea Stoker researched or 'had informants' vs what I already pointed out, Lara did it. Who is also a venator who knows all about how the oblivion war works. It's not a big leap when Mab had Disney make fairy land to cement the Sidhe back in that someone else can do the same. Someone else who knows the value of mortal information.
--- End quote ---
Look, I don't wanna go into one of those discussions about a stupid point where people dissect each other's posts sentence per sentence for ages. They usually aren't very interesting for anybody else. I wrote informants because Stoker had been provided the information. It is commonly known that those "informants" were the WC, especially Lara. I wasn't trying to argue anything else, I just used a word that I thought would be understood in the meaning that's commonly accepted afaik. Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words, so sue me.
btw: English is not my first language, so I am simply going to claim some leniency for stupid foreigners here. ;)
Shecky:
Gentle reminder: what happens on these forums is intended to be friendly discussion, so let's keep it that way.
Zaphodess:
--- Quote from: Shecky on August 24, 2017, 03:08:03 PM ---Gentle reminder: what happens on these forums is intended to be friendly discussion, so let's keep it that way.
--- End quote ---
You're right, sorry.
Jonas, I apologise if I've hurt your feelings. It wasn't my intention and I never intended to get sarcastic. Please let me rephrase my personal, subjective opinion on this statement of yours:
--- Quote ---Stoker changed that not by publicizing their secret weakness's, but by causing belief about them to create said weakness's.
--- End quote ---
It is my opinion that for this to be true, too many factors other than belief have to be cut out of the equation. Their relevance isn't reflected in your theory. Physics, the power of the opposition, other beliefs maybe ... The most important one imo is that belief doesn't just happen, it has to have a strong basis to grow from, and it probably doesn't do diddly if it is just one guy believing something, no matter how strongly he does so. The reason I called your theory an over-simplification is this: I think it would just be way too easy to finish a strong enemy if I just made people believe they had certain weaknesses if those weaknesses were not really there. That'd be dangerous misinformation, not a weapon to be shaped. In my interpretation, the logical consequence of your proposed theory is that something very akin to wishful thinking could be effective. Imo, the power of faith is not that easy to be tapped into because true faith just isn't that easy and it might not be able to account for everything.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: Zaphodess on August 24, 2017, 05:15:16 PM ---You're right, sorry.
Jonas, I apologise if I've hurt your feelings. It wasn't my intention and I never intended to get sarcastic. Please let me rephrase my personal, subjective opinion on this statement of yours:It is my opinion that for this to be true, too many factors other than belief have to be cut out of the equation. Their relevance isn't reflected in your theory. Physics, the power of the opposition, other beliefs maybe ... The most important one imo is that belief doesn't just happen, it has to have a strong basis to grow from, and it probably doesn't do diddly if it is just one guy believing something, no matter how strongly he does so. The reason I called your theory an over-simplification is this: I think it would just be way too easy to finish a strong enemy if I just made people believe they had certain weaknesses if those weaknesses were not really there. That'd be dangerous misinformation, not a weapon to be shaped. In my interpretation, the logical consequence of your proposed theory is that something very akin to wishful thinking could be effective. Imo, the power of faith is not that easy to be tapped into because true faith just isn't that easy and it might not be able to account for everything.
--- End quote ---
I would add to this that while it's been stated (by harry in Day One) that Belief can indeed create new creatures or provide exisitng creatures an identity enough to manifest, I think it would be a whole other order of magnitude to be able to /override/ an existing creature with new Powers or Rules, especially against their will. It shoud be easier to grant a willing creature a new Strength than to impose a Weakness on an enemy.
There is also a measure of innertia at work that I think would prevent such changes from happening quickly. Look at Santa Clause as an example: Outside of your major global religions, he probably has more sincere belief Aimed at him than any other figure I could name, a wide swath of the modern human population hurls their hopes and dreams at him for the first handful of years of their life, and the belief of Children is potent stuff. Yet despite the shear mass of all that focused belief, he is still at least 100 year behind his popular image. So if that sort of Belief mechanism can be weaponized against it's own subject, I suspect it is the sort of thing that would need to work on much longer timescales, more like the Oblivion War. Stoker was a gambit that played out in a handful of years.
jonas:
--- Quote from: Zaphodess on August 24, 2017, 05:15:16 PM ---You're right, sorry.
Jonas, I apologise if I've hurt your feelings. It wasn't my intention and I never intended to get sarcastic.[
--- End quote ---
Why thank you, and I myself apologize for any abruptness.
--- Quote --- Please let me rephrase my personal, subjective opinion on this statement of yours:It is my opinion that for this to be true, too many factors other than belief have to be cut out of the equation. Their relevance isn't reflected in your theory. Physics, the power of the opposition, other beliefs maybe ... The most important one imo is that belief doesn't just happen, it has to have a strong basis to grow from, and it probably doesn't do diddly if it is just one guy believing something, no matter how strongly he does so. The reason I called your theory an over-simplification is this: I think it would just be way too easy to finish a strong enemy if I just made people believe they had certain weaknesses if those weaknesses were not really there. That'd be dangerous misinformation, not a weapon to be shaped. In my interpretation, the logical consequence of your proposed theory is that something very akin to wishful thinking could be effective. Imo, the power of faith is not that easy to be tapped into because true faith just isn't that easy and it might not be able to account for everything.
--- End quote ---
Stating your opinion is fine, but when you don't reply to my circumstantial evidence, quote someone else as pointing out something I pointed out directly. An then precede to disagree by opinion, which you've already stated, I tend to feel offended a bit... if you don't wanna dissect everything that's fine. I don't want to get into opinion versus opinion rage matches, so I try to stick with where I'm at on my hill and dissect things, not wonder if I can oust you from yours. Elvis is the only king I'll ever recognize ;)
--- Quote --- The reason I called your theory an over-simplification is this: I think it would just be way too easy to finish a strong enemy if I just made people believe they had certain weaknesses if those weaknesses were not really there. That'd be dangerous misinformation, not a weapon to be shaped.
--- End quote ---
Going back to this and the point I thought i'd made, the BC was relatively new, a mere 500 yrs or so old. and since their was no information on them it becomes impossible to disseminate disinformation. Now on the other hand if I know BVC came recently from outside, understand the consequences and nuances of the oblivion war at mortal knowledge and then proceed to cement something more so in reality by spreading a book about it then I must have a better reason then revealing weakness's to mortals. Mortals already had faith and fire and garlic, already used them for other things even as you pointed out. But somehow the scourge continued to spread.
Now I already mentioned the brother Grimm/Disney addition from Mab to cement her court. (and would now point out those original stories she used are very precise) both of these context don't actually spread pure knowledge, but the belief actually attached to it as the original idea. Let me also point out Mab and her court might be syphoning off power from a dozen remakes that change everything about them, but it's the original idea/story that continues to hold sway. Why is that important? Because before stoker the thing that was Drakul, that birthed the BCV's was never connected to being a vampire or producing vampire heirs. So the very belief that we were dealing with a new vampire caught hold itself in Stoker's book's. again, he defined them. With my premise being Lara did so intentionally. If you wanna discuss that or refute it, cool.
*that might help with your 'inertia' Quantus. Stoker was the originator of said momentum.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version