The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Queen Succession Rules
groinkick:
--- Quote from: raidem on January 17, 2018, 07:29:35 PM ---To me, "becoming a mother" is the case which is MOST incompatible with the Lady mantle. So, there seems like circumstances could get stretched to an extreme point before the nuclear point is reached. It's that stretch which is what I'm exploring.
--- End quote ---
Ok, cool.
You know I wonder if Mab will want to have another child because it will be her Mantle's instinct to create another to become Lady.
Cozarkian:
--- Quote from: Arjan on January 17, 2018, 07:16:21 PM ---That is based on a Christian definition of human starting at conception but the mantle is not christian. It probably does not see the foetus as a mortal human that can not be killed.
--- End quote ---
Let's back up here, I'm not advocating any particular viewpoint.
I'm just pointing at that you can't have it both ways. If raidem wants to argue that the Lady can get pregnant but can't give birth, it is inconsistent to argue the mantle couldn't force a miscarriage to prevent birth.
I don't know the specifics of the timing for what is a mother in the DV, that is a question for JB. I'm just arguing that it raidem's argument is internally inconsistent because it is twisting a definition to suit a particular purpose, rather than picking a definition and then applying it logically in all situations.
raidem:
--- Quote ---I don't know the specifics of the timing for what is a mother in the DV, that is a question for JB. I'm just arguing that it raidem's argument is internally inconsistent because it is twisting a definition to suit a particular purpose, rather than picking a definition and then applying it logically in all situations.
--- End quote ---
And, I'm arguing it is internally consistent as I just outlined previously based on the words definitions.
mother is defined as having given birth
mortal is subject to death.
human being applies both to the unborn fetus and born fetus.
If the Queen can't kill human being, then she can't kill the unborn fetus. This isn't yet a condition of 'mother' which I'm arguing from.
Toward your point there are two rules in play not just one to which you allude to which is why my argument remains consistent. The 'mother' rule is distinct from the Queen can't kill 'mortal' rule. They have different definitions but have some overlap but not in the case in which is being argued: that of the unborn fetus.
--- Quote ---I'm just pointing at that you can't have it both ways. If raidem wants to argue that the Lady can get pregnant but can't give birth, it is inconsistent to argue the mantle couldn't force a miscarriage to prevent birth.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I see where you may be arguing from.
Let me be clear on one point that may explain my approach. I do argue "that the Lady can get pregnant but can't give birth." I also realize the Lady has a defense mechanism to prevent sex, which then prevents conception, which prevents birth. I view the defense mechanism against sex as the wall of a castle, once you are able somehow to get past it you're potentially inside the mantles defenses whereby conception is possible. Should conception occur, you are now pregnant. By virtue of rules regarding the Queens killing mortal humans, the Lady mantle may make no attempt at this point to kill the fetus. Its primary defense mechanism, the wall, is irrelevant and now the mantle is in overdrive to push the Lady to become the Queen. This drive then becomes the second line of defense, the Lady will succeed in becoming Queen prior to giving birth therefore it is a nonissue for the Lady mantle or the Lady dies in the attempt, the Lady mantle passes, therefore it again is a nonissue for the lady mantle. Only when the Lady mantle is trapped when the Lady gives birth is the Lady mantle destroyed in the process.
So, given my argument above, I have shown a internally consistent way in which the mantle lives with the condition of pregnancy and the drive to protect itself. I believe you assumed that I asserted no further self-defense mechanism past the no-sex mechanism. I didn't. Again, the self-defense mechanism then becomes unseat the Queen at all costs prior to birth. This could then allow an additional pressure taking place within faerie back in the time when both Queens died 1000+ years ago. The ladies were also on a timetable.
Murphy was on a timetable. (It's a fiction I'm creating in my head, and I like it.)
Arjan:
--- Quote from: raidem on January 17, 2018, 09:15:10 PM ---And, I'm arguing it is internally consistent as I just outlined previously based on the words definitions.
mother is defined as having given birth
mortal is subject to death.
human being applies both to the unborn fetus and born fetus.
--- End quote ---
That is your definition of human. The problem is that the definition of human is flexible as shown by the different definitions used by different groups in the books. The white councils definition differs from the knights of the cross definition. Mab thought Thomas was human enough for her purpose etc.
The question is not whether the foetus is human or you and I consider it human, the question is whether the mantle considers it human and so not killable and and from what we know about pre christian pagan culture we have to guess but probably no.
--- Quote ---If the Queen can't kill human being, then she can't kill the unborn fetus. This isn't yet a condition of 'mother' which I'm arguing from.
--- End quote ---
And even if it is, the foetus is clearly attached to the court so different rules apply.
--- Quote ---Toward your point there are two rules in play not just one to which you allude to which is why my argument remains consistent. The 'mother' rule is distinct from the Queen can't kill 'mortal' rule. They have different definitions but have some overlap but not in the case in which is being argued: that of the unborn fetus.Oh, I see where you may be arguing from.
Let me be clear on one point that may explain my approach. I do argue "that the Lady can get pregnant but can't give birth." I also realize the Lady has a defense mechanism to prevent sex, which then prevents conception, which prevents birth. I view the defense mechanism against sex as the wall of a castle, once you are able somehow to get past it you're potentially inside the mantles defenses whereby conception is possible. Should conception occur, you are now pregnant. By virtue of rules regarding the Queens killing mortal humans, the Lady mantle may make no attempt at this point to kill the fetus. Its primary defense mechanism, the wall, is irrelevant and now the mantle is in overdrive to push the Lady to become the Queen. This drive then becomes the second line of defense, the Lady will succeed in becoming Queen prior to giving birth therefore it is a nonissue for the Lady mantle or the Lady dies in the attempt, the Lady mantle passes, therefore it again is a nonissue for the lady mantle. Only when the Lady mantle is trapped when the Lady gives birth is the Lady mantle destroyed in the process.
So, given my argument above, I have shown a internally consistent way in which the mantle lives with the condition of pregnancy and the drive to protect itself. I believe you assumed that I asserted no further self-defense mechanism past the no-sex mechanism. I didn't. Again, the self-defense mechanism then becomes unseat the Queen at all costs prior to birth. This could then allow an additional pressure taking place within faerie back in the time when both Queens died 1000+ years ago. The ladies were also on a timetable.
--- End quote ---
This is too mechanistic. The mantle is life and has a certain awareness. It is not a castle wall it will keep pressure on to change the situation and killing the foetus is the most logical way to do it. It would probably do so immediately after taking the host when the host is still unconscious.
It takes the host if it finds the host suetable (which a pregnant whoman is anyway) and if it is not suetable it will make it suetable.
raidem:
Nicely laid out. It paints a different picture than mine though I disagree with the conclusions.
I agree it depends on what the mantle considers not killable. I simply stated my opinion on the matter based on some definitions.
--- Quote ---And even if it is, the foetus is clearly attached to the court so different rules apply.
--- End quote ---
The previously stated "what the mantle considers not killlable" still applies.
--- Quote ---It takes the host if it finds the host suetable (which a pregnant whoman is anyway) and if it is not suetable it will make it suetable.
--- End quote ---
If it is as you argue, coupled with an idea someone else suggested that the Knight could impregnate the Lady, then a impregnated Lady may be allowed by the defense system.
This could be a case in which Murphy impregnated by the Knight, in a TT event, attracts the Lady mantle under right circumstance. The defense mechanism allows the fetus through. This combined with my idea regarding Lady mantle being preserved up until such time she gives birth then would allow for a Murphy to be pregnant with Harry's child, TT into the past, acquire the Lady mantle, keep it until she can acquire the Queen mantle, then give birth. I guess that would be how I'd have to fit this piece into the story for Murphy/Mab/Harry/Marcone to work. It would be much easier if she wasn't pregnant but I like the idea that she is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version