The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Would the Knights have gone after the Denarians in the beginning of SmF if...
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---Except Marcone isn't trying to redeem himself in any way, at least not so far..
--- End quote ---
What's that got to do with anything? Nicodemus wasn't trying to redeem himself either, and that didn't stop Michael from trying to redeem him. And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
--- Quote ---In my opinion making the trains run on time for the criminal world is hardly doing a service for good...
--- End quote ---
And I agree with you, but things would be far worse if he up and died/turned Denarian, and the criminal underworld started fighting over who got to be his successor.
--- Quote ---Yup, Harry lied, which is a sin, he is human.. Michael would also point out that he did it to save a child's life.
--- End quote ---
But wouldn't it have been better if Harry could have saved that child's life without lying?
--- Quote ---But it isn't... They will let a murder go in the case of Cassius, free to murder again or not, to go unpunished, because it isn't their place to judge him, not their job to try and stop him.. Murphy was unwilling to follow that rule, if she believes someone is guilty, she will judge them so, and either punish them herself or take them somewhere where they can be punished.. Nic knew that that is why he elaborately arranged the fiasco in front of Michael's house in Skin Game then go through the motions of surrender to Murphy, who in turn, judge, tried to punish, and broke a Holy Sword...
But back to Cassius, in his heart he is a bad guy, he had no intention of changing who he is, he gave up his coin only because he didn't want to be executed by either Michael or Sanya... He didn't stop doing bad things, he wanted another coin so he could do them even better, that is why he attacked Harry and tortured him, he thought that Harry had taken up Lasciel's coin and he wanted it for himself.. So how did that work out for him and the world around him?
--- End quote ---
One's purpose and the rules one has to follow are different things. Cassius exploited a loophole in the rules. Think of it in terms of a police officer: their purpose is to protect and serve, but they also have rules about reading suspects their rights, and not beating them up to get a confession and stuff--and sometimes those rules let guilty people get away, but that doesn't change their purpose.
--- Quote ---The original point, the Knight's job is to gather up the coins of the Fallen, to free the souls they enthrall.. Once free, those souls can either go about the business of redeeming themselves, or continue the same corrupt life they lived before minus the aid of the coin, it's pot luck really... Most
of the souls who chose to take up a coin were bad in the first place, that is why they were tempted to do it.. Surrendering a coin to save their own life, doesn't change their hearts... On the other hand Sanya did give up his coin because he became disgusted with what he was doing what the coin was helping him to do, he rejected it... That is so rare that Heaven granted him a Holy Sword..
--- End quote ---
I think Michael said in Death Masks that the point of the Knights "is to save those poor souls corrupted by the Fallen." I think I've got the wording right, but I don't have my book at the moment but I'm not sure. However, I am sure that he said something to this effect.
Kindler:
And yet they killed Rasputin (Rasmussen? The guy who held Ursiel's Coin) when Shiro and Sanya showed up. They've killed Denarians before, and Michael went all out against Nicodemus in Skin Game once he was certain Nic wouldn't turn away from his path.
The point is that there is a big difference between a preemptive action and a reactive one. Harry, I think, describes it at one point as, "The Denarians do something, the Knights respond." What Harry wanted to do was hunt down the Denarians and assault or kill them. In fact, Harry deliberately sets up the bargain on Demonreach because he knew that Nicodemus would break his word, which would give Michael the reason he needed (kinda the permission, actually) to go weapons-free. Harry created a situation where Michael could act without jeopardizing the Swords.
On the other hand, if Michael and Sanya participated in a sneak attack without warning and tried to cut of Nic's head while he was asleep, for example, I'm pretty sure the Swords would've been vulnerable. So the difference between the two isn't just the stakes, it's the absence of anything remotely like treachery by the Knights. Though I should point out that Michael was crippled for life as a result of going to the Island, so maybe the paper-thin excuse that Dresden manipulated wasn't good enough.
morriswalters:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on June 27, 2019, 12:40:37 PM ---And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
--- End quote ---
Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
Mira:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 27, 2019, 03:02:36 PM ---Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, they are there essentially to put a check on the Fallen and restore if they can the free choice of the one who held the coin.. They cannot or are not supposed to go beyond that.. That doesn't mean in a fight they cannot kill a coin holder who won't surrender, or that they cannot fight evil or aid in that fight.. But if the coin holder surrenders his or her coin, their hands are tied, they can neither save nor condemn the the soul of former holder of the coin... As so elegantly put, the only one from that point on who can save his or her soul is the former holder of the coin...
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---The point is that there is a big difference between a preemptive action and a reactive one. Harry, I think, describes it at one point as, "The Denarians do something, the Knights respond." What Harry wanted to do was hunt down the Denarians and assault or kill them. In fact, Harry deliberately sets up the bargain on Demonreach because he knew that Nicodemus would break his word, which would give Michael the reason he needed (kinda the permission, actually) to go weapons-free. Harry created a situation where Michael could act without jeopardizing the Swords.
--- End quote ---
I agree with you about the preemptive vs reactive action thing. What I'm saying is that, while hunting down the Denarians for the purposes of killing them is definitely a preemptive action, hunting down the Denarians for the purposes of rescuing Marcone is a reactive action--they are reacting to the Denarians' action of kidnapping him. And they did, in fact, hunt down the Denarians for the purpose of rescuing Ivy, so they can definitely do that.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---And also, you know, the Knights are fairly focussed on Denarians as their main priority, so I figure stopping Marcone from picking up a coin would be considered kind of important to that.
--- End quote ---
Why would you think that? The Knight's aren't responsible for anyone's choices. This is repeated over and over again. Harry himself is the obvious example.
--- End quote ---
To me, it feels like common sense. Look at it this way: If Nicodemus was torturing some random dude outside Michael's house, telling him that he would only stop torturing him if he would pick up a coin, do you think Michael would interfere? I think he would. Nicodemus may have made the choice to torture the guy, but A) he's a freaking Denarian; and B) torturing people is bad and Michael is not going to just going to ignore some guy getting tortured.
--- Quote ---Exactly, they are there essentially to put a check on the Fallen and restore if they can the free choice of the one who held the coin.. They cannot or are not supposed to go beyond that..
--- End quote ---
Not true. They definitely fight other enemies. And also irrelevant, since "rescuing some guy the Denarians kidnapped" certainly seems like putting a check on the Fallen.
--- Quote ---That doesn't mean in a fight they cannot kill a coin holder who won't surrender, or that they cannot fight evil or aid in that fight.. But if the coin holder surrenders his or her coin, their hands are tied, they can neither save nor condemn the the soul of former holder of the coin... As so elegantly put, the only one from that point on who can save his or her soul is the former holder of the coin...
--- End quote ---
What's that got to do with anything? It's not like any of the Denarians who kidnapped Marcone gave up their coins.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version