Author Topic: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread  (Read 48184 times)

Offline Aminar

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #150 on: November 05, 2012, 09:49:10 PM »
No need to apologize, Neuro, I took no offense. I do think on a different wavelength than most other people seem to, which is probably why the miscommunication happened.

To me, it looks as though Uriel is allowed to commit actions that it would normally not be able to if, and only if, the other side did it first. As we haven't really had a good look at what determines the actions it may take in response, I can't conclude that Uriel hasn't broken a rule of engagement in response to another broken rule. It may be that TWG allows it to "break" or "bend" the rules under very specific circumstances- but to me, doing something it otherwise would not be enabled to do, in response to a stimulus from the other side, is still a bent rule.

It also helps to clarify what Nicodemus meant when he spoke about the Church having excellent propaganda. Consider Sanya, for example- Heaven allowed him to pick up a coin, in order to make him a Knight later on down the line. They let him run around with Magog's brute strength and the knowledge of a Fallen Angel, doing no small amount of harm to the other humans/creatures running around the planet, in exchange for what he would do as a Knight of the Cross.

Heaven not being above using evil to their own ends means that the "White" part of TWG's title has a bit of a scuff on it. Do I think the Denarians are going to use the actions of their counterparts in Heaven as "proof" that they are just as corrupt, or possibly worse in nature, to justify their own actions? Absolutely. Two wrongs very rarely, if at all, equal a right. So in order to "right" the other side's "wrongs", the lies, betrayal, stealing, loss of life, bending or breaking of Will, etc... well, you get the point, I think.

Their "trusting" TWG, or it's agents, to hold to their "word" just doesn't fit with what we've heard from Nicodemus, Lash, or even with what we've seen with regards to a current Knight.
 
I don't follow you're logic.  The rules are that neither side is to interfere unless the other does first to maintain balance.  If TWG went around personally busting that they'd have lost the fight long ago.
The whole Sanja thing is him exercising his free will.  They allowed him to do that ny following the rules.
The propaganda is that demons are all bad and the like when in fact it really seems they just want free will(at least in lasciel's case)

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #151 on: November 05, 2012, 09:51:02 PM »
To me, it looks as though Uriel is allowed to commit actions that it would normally not be able to if, and only if, the other side did it first.

Agreed entirely.

Quote
As we haven't really had a good look at what determines the actions it may take in response, I can't conclude that Uriel hasn't broken a rule of engagement in response to another broken rule. It may be that TWG allows it to "break" or "bend" the rules under very specific circumstances- but to me, doing something it otherwise would not be enabled to do, in response to a stimulus from the other side, is still a bent rule.

Fair enough then; to my mind, a rule that works on a basis of "if any of these other rules are broken you are permitted a precisely defined action in response corresponding exactly to the scale of the infraction" would count as legitimising any such actions, and meaning that no rules are broken or bent in taking them. (I am inclined to see the rules under which non-free-willed, or differently free-willed - as per the best interpretation of combined WoJ and textev on DV angels appearing to be that they have classic Catholic dogma values of angelic free will, viz. one Choice and one only, to fall or not to Fall, so for practical and tactical purposes non-free-willed - beings operated as having a degree of commonality, and therefore, the was in which the non-free-willed Accord signatories operate as being potentially useful information in re how Uriel may deal with the rules under which it operates;  I don't see operating within the letter of the rules to whatever the best available outcome is, while disregarding the spirit, as bending them (hacking them perhaps) because the concept of "spirit of the rules" seems inapplicable in this context.)

Quote
Consider Sanya, for example- Heaven allowed him to pick up a coin, in order to make him a Knight later on down the line. They let him run around with Magog's brute strength and the knowledge of a Fallen Angel, doing no small amount of harm to the other humans/creatures running around the planet, in exchange for what he would do as a Knight of the Cross.

That's an interesting take on it.  Taken at face value, I would posit that Uriel's avowed position on free will would be such that Heaven could neither intervene with Sanya choosing to take up a coin nor choosing to set one down again; I would find the idea of that being a long con rather appealing, save that I think we have WoJs indicating that we are meant to take Heaven at face value in the whole free will thing.

Quote
Do I think the Denarians are going to use the actions of their counterparts in Heaven as "proof" that they are just as corrupt, or possibly worse in nature, to justify their own actions? Absolutely. Two wrongs very rarely, if at all, equal a right. So in order to "right" the other side's "wrongs", the lies, betrayal, stealing, loss of life, bending or breaking of Will, etc... well, you get the point, I think.

That argument is however predicated on the underlying assumption that each side is equally entitled to differing opinions; if one side gets to define what is right and what is wrong at a universal scale, it seems that the other might have a harder time of arguing against it than in a difference of opinion among humans.

I don't get the impression it's possible within the DV for the WG to, tomorrow, announce that murder is henceforward right and no longer evil, for example.  If one were to posit that as possible or even likely, it would certainly throw the consistency of Heaven's following its own rules in other areas into question.
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline Orbweaver

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 4570
  • Let the games begin.
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #152 on: November 05, 2012, 10:23:38 PM »

Fair enough then; to my mind, a rule that works on a basis of "if any of these other rules are broken you are permitted a precisely defined action in response corresponding exactly to the scale of the infraction" would count as legitimising any such actions, and meaning that no rules are broken or bent in taking them. (I am inclined to see the rules under which non-free-willed, or differently free-willed - as per the best interpretation of combined WoJ and textev on DV angels appearing to be that they have classic Catholic dogma values of angelic free will, viz. one Choice and one only, to fall or not to Fall, so for practical and tactical purposes non-free-willed - beings operated as having a degree of commonality, and therefore, the was in which the non-free-willed Accord signatories operate as being potentially useful information in re how Uriel may deal with the rules under which it operates;  I don't see operating within the letter of the rules to whatever the best available outcome is, while disregarding the spirit, as bending them (hacking them perhaps) because the concept of "spirit of the rules" seems inapplicable in this context.)

I can understand how you would see things that way... I'm just not sure that Nicodemus, Tessa, Lasciel, Namshiel, or any of the other Denarians/Fallen are going to view things as either you or I see them. They've certainly shown no shortage of dislike for the agents of Heaven, mortal or otherwise. Shiro's manner of death was a message to more than just Harry, I think, as was Michael's own "fall" from service. Whether they managed to take anyone out on the not fallen, non-mortal side of things isn't something we've been privy to.

Quote
That's an interesting take on it.  Taken at face value, I would posit that Uriel's avowed position on free will would be such that Heaven could neither intervene with Sanya choosing to take up a coin nor choosing to set one down again; I would find the idea of that being a long con rather appealing, save that I think we have WoJs indicating that we are meant to take Heaven at face value in the whole free will thing.

I think they could intervene, provided someone on Nick's side of things had done something first. That's the catch with everything Heaven does.

Quote
That argument is however predicated on the underlying assumption that each side is equally entitled to differing opinions; if one side gets to define what is right and what is wrong at a universal scale, it seems that the other might have a harder time of arguing against it than in a difference of opinion among humans.

Yeah, that's true. I'm not stating that the two sides are necessarily using "right" versus "wrong" as a basis for their actions, but rather using it to convince others that their way of doing things is for the "good" of everyone involved in those actions, whether directly or not. Hence why the Denarians probably aren't taking the flip side of the proverbial coins at face value. They know that their own actions are likely going to cause something very similar in nature to happen, and therefore can't expect Heaven to act in a manner consistent with the initial "rules" given.

Quote
I don't get the impression it's possible within the DV for the WG to, tomorrow, announce that murder is henceforward right and no longer evil, for example.  If one were to posit that as possible or even likely, it would certainly throw the consistency of Heaven's following its own rules in other areas into question.

I can't honestly speak as to the motivations of TWG. Maybe if we're lucky, Jim will put him/her/it into play during the BAT. He'd have to be careful, though, as riling that particular section of readers up is a very easy thing to do.
In a world of black, white, and grey's... I'd be bright freaking purple. Resident Female Forum Denarian.

Offline X

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #153 on: November 05, 2012, 10:25:59 PM »
The only way a coin can be taken up is through Free Will, meaning Sanya made the choice.  Was he influenced?  Absolutely, but he made the choice freely.  At that point in Sanya's timeline, I don't think they (The White God/Knights of the Cross) planned anything regarding him except maybe an eventual death.  When Shiro came along, after Sanya realized what was happening, they saw an opportunity because he had previously freely given up the coin to become a Knight, which he then again, chose freely.  I don't feel that was a long con or a drawn up fate waiting specifically for Sanya, but the combined consequences of all of his freely made choices and actions.
Think of me like you would Homer Simpson with a Black "?" bag on his head, except with an X.  Obviously, instead of Mr. Anonymous, I'm Mr. X.  Except without the Mr.

Offline Orbweaver

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 4570
  • Let the games begin.
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #154 on: November 06, 2012, 12:03:18 AM »
The only way a coin can be taken up is through Free Will,

Not according to Michael in Small Favor, I think. He states that a heavily compromised individual can be coerced into taking a coin- people on drugs, people with serious mental instabilities, people who are locked in a coma (I think, I don't have the exact quote to hand)- but the Denarians are capable of inhabiting someone with Free Will without their given consent.

Quote
meaning Sanya made the choice.  Was he influenced?  Absolutely, but he made the choice freely.  At that point in Sanya's timeline, I don't think they (The White God/Knights of the Cross) planned anything regarding him except maybe an eventual death.  When Shiro came along, after Sanya realized what was happening, they saw an opportunity because he had previously freely given up the coin to become a Knight, which he then again, chose freely.  I don't feel that was a long con or a drawn up fate waiting specifically for Sanya, but the combined consequences of all of his freely made choices and actions.

Are you sure they were freely made, though? That's kind of Tessa's gig. She preys on the suffering of others to get them to pick up the coin, and she (when paired with Nicodemus) excels in causing suffering. I absolutely would not put it past her to get someone unwillingly addicted to a substance, and then touch a coin to their hand while they were so out of it they couldn't possibly accept an offer. Sanya didn't exactly elaborate much on what process Tessa used to get him to take a coin.
In a world of black, white, and grey's... I'd be bright freaking purple. Resident Female Forum Denarian.

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #155 on: November 06, 2012, 02:37:21 AM »
Was he influenced?  Absolutely, but he made the choice freely.

That strikes me as containing a contradiction in terms.
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline Aminar

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #156 on: November 06, 2012, 02:54:07 AM »
That strikes me as containing a contradiction in terms.
Only if you don't believe in free will.  If I teach someone a specific moral code and they follow it it's still their choice.  Where do you see the contradiction?  Because influence is impossible to avoid.

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #157 on: November 06, 2012, 02:18:50 PM »
Only if you don't believe in free will.  If I teach someone a specific moral code and they follow it it's still their choice.

If, when faced with a decision, they follow a pre-existing code rather than making an active choice, that seems to me not to be an exercise of free will.

(ETA: as it happens, from direct personal experience of OCD, I do not believe in free will in RL being anything like as free as it is posited to be in the DV.  I am trying not to let this shade my arguments too much, but, well, that may be beyond my control.)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 09:26:23 PM by the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh »
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #158 on: November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM »
There is a logical fallacy here. Part of your argument depends on the future being fixed and part of it depends on the future being changeable. If the future can be changed such that Gatekeeper can prevent Harry from using LC at the wrong time, then Gatekeeper can't look in the future and see exactly how much damage occurred from the accident, because that future could also be changed.

Not if what the Gatekeeper is seeing is a finite set of possible futures, from which he can select one by an exercise of his free will, but which, once selected, are then deterministic absent other acts of free will.  Which is a model that I think fits as well with what we know about time travel, and from Uriel about most humans using free will rather rarely, as any other.

Quote
The point is, if Harry's benefactor was depending on the accident to cause the perfect amount of delay, that plan leaves a lot of wiggle room for something to go wrong. Given there are multiple very powerful entities that might use that time to ruin the plan, it is far too risky for someone to use the accident as a delay mechanism, and if the benefactor could be certain the plan couldn't be ruined even by his peers, then there is no competition at all, because the outcome is inevitable.

How many of those very powerful entities have free will, though ? In the precise significant sense that humans have it, rather than the "I do what I am supposed to or I become Lucifer the Second" sense that Uriel does

Quote
Unlike a math proof, solitaire has multiple different outcomes depending on how the game is played. It's possible none of them will result in victory or for there to be different paths to victory.

And all of those outcomes are deducible from a full knowledge of the state of all the cards at the beginning of the game plus sufficient intelligence.

Quote
It isn't possible for Gatekeeper to look into the future and know with zero possibility of error what will happen. Such knowledge would require either that the future is unchangeable (which would mean he couldn't change the future to save Harry in the first place)

If information from the future were changeable to that extent, why all the careful working around the possibility of paradox ?

Quote
The mere possibility that another player might act to ruin his plan would prevent him from using a plan that leaves so much time for someone else to step in and interfere.

Your logic there feels to be skipping over some steps in the assessment.

Quote
If that was the goal she could have not revealed how dangerous she was by threatening him with illusions. She would have been better served just to let him use it with nothing more than a quick plea and offer to help protect him if he picks up the coin.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, alternatively, Lash is thinking the same way I read Mab as thinking at the end of GS; that the best way to lull Harry into a false sense of security, and to successfully manipulate him longer term, is to give the impression of trying to manipulate him in some less subtle way and failing.

Quote
So she tries a strategy, gives up on it when an even better opportunity arises, then returns to the same strategy (in WN) she previously abandoned? I doubt it.

I am sorry, i am totally failing to parse how you derive that from my suggestion.  Could you expand on your logic here.

Quote
Lasciel plays long-term. She'll apply the pressure every time an opportunity arises until eventually a situation arises where Harry will take the bait.

Will she ?  Or will applying pressure every time only incline him to balk whenever she suggests anything at all ?
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline Cozarkian

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1981
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #159 on: November 06, 2012, 10:07:42 PM »
Not if what the Gatekeeper is seeing is a finite set of possible futures, from which he can select one by an exercise of his free will, but which, once selected, are then deterministic absent other acts of free will.  Which is a model that I think fits as well with what we know about time travel, and from Uriel about most humans using free will rather rarely, as any other.

That's not time travel then. He's not going against the flow of time and he's not changing the past, he's just guiding the future. The problem of course is then the Gatekeeper practically becomes the master of time and the single most powerful individual in the entire universe. Unless there is some strange reason his perfect knowledge of all possible futures is limited to specific events. Even then, given the importance of those apparent events, he would be way more powerful than JB has ever hinted.

How many of those very powerful entities have free will, though ? In the precise significant sense that humans have it, rather than the "I do what I am supposed to or I become Lucifer the Second" sense that Uriel does

See, that's exactly what I mean. Now the Gatekeeper has absolutely no peers because not only does he have the same knowledge of all the other powerful entities, he's the only one with the free will to actually control outcomes as he sees fit. It's not even a competition, now, Gatekeeper can wipe the floor with Uriel, Mab, Ferrovax, Drakul.

And all of those outcomes are deducible from a full knowledge of the state of all the cards at the beginning of the game plus sufficient intelligence.

Yes, but you don't know which result you will get. x - 2 - 2 = 0 always results in x = 4, no matter what order you perform the steps, the outcome of solitaire however, is not predetermined, only the possible outcomes are.

If information from the future were changeable to that extent, why all the careful working around the possibility of paradox ?

Precisely because the future is changeable. If it wasn't changeable paradox would be impossible and it would never be a concern.

Your logic there feels to be skipping over some steps in the assessment.

Sorry, I think I touched on the missing information in some of my earlier posts, but didn't flesh it out here. Basically, let's call the accident as a means of delay as plan A. There was a lot of intervening time between the accident and the use of LC, which leaves a lot of time for someone else to screw up the plan. I think any entity savy enough to design plan A would also be able to design plans B - Z (one of which is manipulating the time of Molly's phone call). Plans B - Z would all have less intervening time, increasing the odds of the plan being successful because other entities would have less of an opportunity to interfere. Thus, because Plan A is comparatively easier for someone else to defeat, Harry's benefactor would have used a different plan. Thus, I believe the car accident was unrelated and someone actually did use a different plan (specifically, someone influenced when Molly would call).

Perhaps.

Perhaps, alternatively, Lash is thinking the same way I read Mab as thinking at the end of GS; that the best way to lull Harry into a false sense of security, and to successfully manipulate him longer term, is to give the impression of trying to manipulate him in some less subtle way and failing.

I would accept that if PG had just been written. However, hindsight and WoJ clearly indicate that Lash actually changed, which in turn suggests the key moments where we saw Lash being perplexed by Harry (such as in PG) were actually key moments where Lash was being changed by Harry's perspective.

I am sorry, i am totally failing to parse how you derive that from my suggestion.  Could you expand on your logic here.

Will she ?  Or will applying pressure every time only incline him to balk whenever she suggests anything at all ?

Basically, I think Lash's behavior in WN and Dead Beat are generally consistent and that her behavior in PG by secretly fixing LC would be an outlier. I don't think her actions are consistent with a strategy of not applying pressure whenever she has sufficient leverage. Honestly, I could be wrong, because I can't clearly recall every conversation/negotiation that Harry and Lash have.

Interestingly, I notice that I am arguing against both Gatekeeper and Lash as the entity that fixed LC. It would seem likely either you don't think Gatekeeper arranged the accident or that you don't think Lash knew about the flaw in LC. Of course, the two arguments aren't necessarily inconsistent (Lash could have known about the flaw but Gatekeeper fixed it), but it does make me wonder if you actually believe everything you are arguing.

Also, one other thought. WoJ tells us it would take the whole White Council to defeat Mab outside of Winter. Rashid is a member of the White Council. We've also seen some of the other members of the Wouncil are very powerful. Thus, we can infer Rashid isn't nearly as powerful as Mab and by extension isn't nearly as powerful as her peer, Uriel. Since it would take a creature with the knowledge level of Uriel to enact plan A, and since Rashid is not as powerful as Uriel, I believe it is unlikely that he could have so perfectly set up the crash.

Offline He who walks in front

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #160 on: November 07, 2012, 05:05:23 PM »
I know I'm very late to the thread but here's my take on the little Chicago situation. As for being a Chekhov's Gun loaded with ammo I think it's still yet to see it's biggest firing. I firmly suspect the climax of little Chicago will be Harry going needing to use LC and going back in time maybe not only to use it but maybe for another reason, and fixing it and using it. This would cover the issue people have with so much buildup and not bang.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion I gain strength.
Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory.
Through victory my chains are broken

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #161 on: November 07, 2012, 07:15:30 PM »
That's not time travel then. He's not going against the flow of time and he's not changing the past, he's just guiding the future.

Based on information that travels back from the future.  I would certainly think of that as time travel.

Quote
The problem of course is then the Gatekeeper practically becomes the master of time and the single most powerful individual in the entire universe.

I'm not seeing this is of necessity a problem - given the underlying premise, which appears to be fairly solid, that human free will is important and in some significant way unique among all the thinking beings in the DV.

Quote
It's not even a competition, now, Gatekeeper can wipe the floor with Uriel, Mab, Ferrovax, Drakul.

I'm not seeing that that necessarily follows; they can still be smarter or stronger than him.  The ability to select between possible futures does not good against an enemy so superior in other ways that all possible futures end in defeat, no ?

Quote
Yes, but you don't know which result you will get. x - 2 - 2 = 0 always results in x = 4, no matter what order you perform the steps, the outcome of solitaire however, is not predetermined, only the possible outcomes are.

I'm not disagreeing with you here at all, I think, I am asserting that full advance knowledge of all the cards in a given round of solitaire, plus, in this case, a high degree of arithmetical intelligence, would allow one to a) determine a priori whether it can be worked out and b) choose a set of steps that work it out if that is possible.

Quote
Precisely because the future is changeable. If it wasn't changeable paradox would be impossible and it would never be a concern.

I think I may be misreading you.

I am saying if you see future A, and can then change it to future B based on information from future A, I am not seeing why paradox would be a concern; doesn't matter whether future B is consistent with future A or not if the future is mutable.  it's only if some elements of future B and future A are (for whatever reason) required to match up, that the prospect of them not matching up becomes a problem.  Am I making sense here ?

Quote
Basically, let's call the accident as a means of delay as plan A. There was a lot of intervening time between the accident and the use of LC, which leaves a lot of time for someone else to screw up the plan. I think any entity savy enough to design plan A would also be able to design plans B - Z (one of which is manipulating the time of Molly's phone call). Plans B - Z would all have less intervening time, increasing the odds of the plan being successful because other entities would have less of an opportunity to interfere.

What sort of interfering entity are you positing ?

I mean, if you are proposing another entity with the ability to see the future tangling with Rashid's plans, I do not see that the size of the window makes that much of a difference; because the difference between a plan that takes two hours to work and one that takes five minutes to work becomes less so if either of them can be seen from, say, three days in advance, and the preparation to intercept it gets three days.

Quote
I would accept that if PG had just been written. However, hindsight and WoJ clearly indicate that Lash actually changed,

I believe I have argued at some length before why I do not believe the information we have from text and WoJ is enough to confirm that the way in which Lash changed counts as redeeming her or making her one of the good guys now.

Quote
Interestingly, I notice that I am arguing against both Gatekeeper and Lash as the entity that fixed LC. It would seem likely either you don't think Gatekeeper arranged the accident or that you don't think Lash knew about the flaw in LC. Of course, the two arguments aren't necessarily inconsistent (Lash could have known about the flaw but Gatekeeper fixed it), but it does make me wonder if you actually believe everything you are arguing.

I thought I'd already made my general position here clear with regard to considering possible explanations.  I think Rashid is one of the most plausible options we currently have for having fixed LC; I think Lash may well have been aware of the issues with it and be playing Harry in a more subtle way than is immediately visible; I'm interested in figuring out the logic of the possible solutions and which if any solutions are impossible, but I'm seeing nothing in any of this debate to rule out "someone had a word with Thomas, convinced him Harry was in danger, and used Thomas' key to get past Harry's wards" for values of "someone" we might not even have met yet.

If you want to use words like "believe", that imply I have a strong conviction I know what's actually true in the DV beyond what Jim has said in the text, I'll have to deny the accusation.  I see very little point in placing faith in anything beyond that whatever answer Jim eventually gives us is likely to be awesome in ways none of us have yet figured out, and similarly little point in arguing about matters of that sort of faith.

In summary, I'm debating interpretations here as a way of refining them, not, in general, because I have a specific horse in the race; having a specific horse in the race seems a) less fun by a long shot and b) kind of presumptuous for fiction written by someone who isn't me.

Quote
Also, one other thought. WoJ tells us it would take the whole White Council to defeat Mab outside of Winter. Rashid is a member of the White Council. We've also seen some of the other members of the Wouncil are very powerful. Thus, we can infer Rashid isn't nearly as powerful as Mab and by extension isn't nearly as powerful as her peer, Uriel. Since it would take a creature with the knowledge level of Uriel to enact plan A, and since Rashid is not as powerful as Uriel, I believe it is unlikely that he could have so perfectly set up the crash.

That argument does contain what seems to me the unwarranted assumption that power and knowledge have to work on the same scale; I can easily see rashid, given foresight, having more knowledge in some directions than a peer of mab's who is much more powerful than he is.
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh

  • O. M. G.
  • ***
  • Posts: 39098
  • Riding eternal, shiny and Firefox
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #162 on: November 07, 2012, 07:17:10 PM »
As for being a Chekhov's Gun loaded with ammo I think it's still yet to see it's biggest firing. I firmly suspect the climax of little Chicago will be Harry going needing to use LC and going back in time maybe not only to use it but maybe for another reason, and fixing it and using it. This would cover the issue people have with so much buildup and not bang.

it kind of depends on whether Jim is implementing that trope or subverting it, and he's done enough both ways in the series so far that I'm reluctant to bet either way on this one.
Mildly OCD. Please do not troll.

"What do you mean, Lawful Silly isn't a valid alignment?"

kittensgame, Sandcastle Builder, Homestuck, Welcome to Night Vale, Civ III, lots of print genre SF, and old-school SATT gaming if I had the time.  Also Pandemic Legacy is the best game ever.

Offline Mass

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #163 on: December 04, 2012, 03:14:09 AM »
Since CD's happened we discovered a very important thing about thresholds and Fae.
(click to show/hide)
In this case Mab becomes all that much more likely as the fixer.

Offline knnn

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 4946
    • View Profile
Re: The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
« Reply #164 on: December 04, 2012, 03:47:37 AM »
In this case Mab becomes all that much more likely as the fixer.

FWIW, it also increases the chance that Odin/Santa was the fixer.
DV Geek code:

DV knnn v1.2 YR4 FR3 BK++ RP+ JB+ TH WG+ CL(+) SW++++ BC- MC---(+) SH[Murphy+, Molly+]

Find out your Dresden Files "Purity" score: http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity.html