Would the Knights have gone after the Denarians in the beginning of SmF if...

[nadia.skylark]

Wouldn't you help a guy who was on your front sidewalk, torturing someone, no matter what the reason?

Yes. I'm just pointing out that "people making free-willed choices" isn't a sufficient reason for Michael not to act.

I wasn't talking about Nic's choices.  I was talking about Marcone's.  He's where he's at in the book because of a choice he made.  Two choices actually.  He chose to save Harry in the alley behind Bock's Books.  And he chose to be a free holding Lord.  The first drew the animus of Titania, the second made him fair game in the supernatural world.

Well, sure. But all the Denarians made choices that led them to where they are, and that doesn't stop the Knights from trying to save them. And if Denarians making choices doesn't stop Knights from trying to save them, I don't see why Marcone making choices would stop the Knights from trying to save him. For that matter, Ivy made choices that got her kidnapped and tortured by Denarians--she had to explicitly go against the Archive's directives to save Harry, which explicitly lead to the Denarians getting her--and it didn't stop the Knights from saving her. So what makes Marcone different?

He reasons for saving Harry did not come not from the goodness of his heart either..  He wanted an in to the supernatural world and a body guard...  The man is a crime lord, lots of people suffer because he is who he is...  Being rescued by Holy Knights hasn't changed that.

Agreed that Marcone is a bad guy. But the Denarians seem generally to be worse, so it seems clear that "being a bad guy" is not a reason for the Knights not to try and save someone.

[morriswalters]

Yes. I'm just pointing out that "people making free-willed choices" isn't a sufficient reason for Michael not to act.

Michael does act. He evidently doesn't act as quickly as you seem to want him to though.  He helps rescue both Marcone and Ivy and damn near dies.

[nadia.skylark]

Michael does act. He evidently doesn't act as quickly as you seem to want him to though.  He helps rescue both Marcone and Ivy and damn near dies.

Based on this comment, I feel the premise of my argument has been lost. Thus, I will restate it.

In Small Favor, when Harry first goes to Michael's house, he explicitly asks Michael's and Sanya's help to rescue Marcone. In the course of the discussion, they all realize that Nicodemus is involved, and Harry asks the Knights to help him hunt down (and implicitly kill) the Denarians. Michael refuses both requests, necessitating that, if Harry wants the Knights to be involved, he has to either lie to Luccio to set up arbitration under the Accords or just go charging into battle himself and force the situation against Michael's will.

What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.

[morriswalters]

Asked and answered.

[Mira]

What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.

However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya..  Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....

[nadia.skylark]

Asked and answered.

I'm not actually sure if the post you linked to is saying that I'm right or wrong. The first bolded section would appear to indicate that I'm right, but the second would appear to indicate that I'm wrong.

However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya..  Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....

Not at the point in the book which I'm discussing.

[morriswalters]

I'm not actually sure if the post you linked to is saying that I'm right or wrong. The first bolded section would appear to indicate that I'm right, but the second would appear to indicate that I'm wrong.

This is your quote.

What I am saying is that, while it makes perfect sense that Michael would refuse Harry's second request, it makes less sense that he would refuse Harry's first request. I believe that the reason that Micheal does so is his concern that Harry might be leading the Knights into a trap.

The first quote tells you that Michael didn't lie when he told Harry why he wouldn't attack without warning.  But that he had thought about the possibility that Harry might lead them into a trap..  The second quote is about who actually  picked up on the problem, Molly not Michael.

[Mira]

Quote

    However Harry knew perfectly well it was a trap, as did Michael and Sanya..  Harry countered with a trap of his own, that is why he was willing to risk a Holy Sword to rescue Ivy....


Not at the point in the book which I'm discussing.

But it helps with context... 

[nadia.skylark]

The first quote tells you that Michael didn't lie when he told Harry why he wouldn't attack without warning.  But that he had thought about the possibility that Harry might lead them into a trap..

Okay, so to be perfectly clear, since I've misunderstood some of your posts before: I take this quote to mean that Michael didn't lie about why he refused to hunt down the Denarians to kill them (against the rules of his job) but the reason he didn't say "but I will help look for them to rescue Marcone" is because he was concerned about Harry leading them into a trap; and I take your posting of the quote in the context in which you did so to mean that you agree with me.

The second quote is about who actually  picked up on the problem, Molly not Michael.

I've always been confused about that, because as I understand the order of events, there was no point at which Molly should have gotten suspicious until after Michael refused to go hunting Denarians.

But it helps with context...

...I'm not seeing it. It's like saying "Well, in Changes when Harry's apartment was set on fire, why didn't he just use ice magic to put it out? He could do that later in Changes," with the answer being "yeah, but not at that point he couldn't." It doesn't feel like context to me--more like confusing the issue. There was no indication at the point I'm talking about that Nicodemus was setting up a trap by kidnapping Marcone--that came later.

[morriswalters]

I presented you with two quotes. And they say precisely what they say.  And pretty clearly at that.  I don't see any point to interpreting them, again.

In the story Harry is a detective.  He finds things.  Michael either trips over them on his front sidewalk or gets a nudge form the big guy.

Finding the Denarians is a prerequisite of attacking them without warning. There is one other possibility.  Find them and talk first. You seem to think there is another course of action.