Yeah? Well I'd rather Meciel betrays Harry 'cause she secretly has been shagging God behind Harry's back and Harry kills her.

/facade

Don't mess with Amanda :9

 

Cool chapter. I liked Tessa as a character but wasn't sad to see her go. Harry needs to kill people every now and again; it's part of his... 'charm'.

I reckon now's the time for him to become a 'real' Denarian Lord. He should nab a few of those coins before the Knights get there. The crazy denarians, who he can bend to his will now he has no competition, can become his 'Death Eater' analogues that wouldn't betray him like Verrine because they aren't smart enough to pull it off. It'd be cool to have the 'final' battle become a three-way brawl between Harry's new denarian order, the OotP and Voldemort.

 

1, that'd be awesome....

And 2, fuck Amanda!

 

Fidelacchius(Harry's Sword) Is unmade with an act of treachery or betrayal.
Its Amoracchius that is unmade by killing an innocent.

Unless Shezza decided to change that at some point and i missed it.

Edit: Which means that its quite possible that if Harry had chosen to not kill Tessa he could have unmade the sword. Depending on if not finishing Meciel's revenge at the last second would be considered a betrayal.

 

Incorrect. All of the swords lose their power when used in acts of treachery or betrayal. They are likely to also all be unmade by the killing of innocents, but that's unconfirmed.

 

Perhaps the treachery lies in Meciel finishing her betrayal of the Denarians, or in the fact that it's a Denarian Lord wiping out the Order f Denarius, which would be a convenient way for the sword to have left the ownership of Harry if it indeed wanted to.

 

Or it is just Harry that isn't a Knight anymore that is the reason for the sword not working FOR HIM anymore.

 

As I said, my theory is that Sword chosen Amanda :

DK Chapter 1

DL Chapter 12

May be I am wrong, but you can't deny that something is going on there.

 

The german has it right, imo.

 

Nope, swords lose their power when used for a personal, selfish agenda.

Swords are unmade when they are used in a manner opposite to their concept.

For Amoracchius, which is love, the opposite would be hate - killing an innocent with it.

Fidelacchius is faith (fidelity), so the opposite would be using it in an act of betrayal.

Sanya's sword (forget the name) is hope, so it would be using it in an act of despair (suicide?).

 

I would really like a quote that proves this?

The unmaking thing that is. I don't think it has ever been said anywhere that the swords are unmade by their opposite forces.

We know that Amoracchius would have been unmade by the killing of an innocent but thats pretty much it. Unless I have totally missed something in the books?

 

On the whole issue of Tessa not being foreshadowed, it bears mentioning that Tessa never showed up in DF canon until Small Favor, which didn't come out until Shezza was pretty far along in Denarian Knight IIRC. Kind of hard for him to foreshadow a character that hadn't been created by Butcher yet.

As for the swords, I think I remember something like what Taure said, but I don't recall an exact quote and I might be suffering from Fanon/Canon confusion.

Btw, Sanya's sword is Esperacchius.

 

It's from the Wikipedia page. I'm assuming that it's come from an interview rather than the books, but it's possible that an enterprising fan has just made it up.

 

Yeh, I was pretty sure it was not in the books. Or if it is then its just some throwaway line somewhere that I have accidentally skipped.

I suppose its possible that Butcher said this somewhere, though I have been reading Butchers forums for sometime now and I have not seen this mentioned.

I will say however that it seems hard to believe that of the swords, Amoracchius would be the only one that had a problem with what is essentially cold blooded murder. I would say it makes much more sense for the innocent killing thing to be true for all swords.

Especially if you remember that according to Michael, Amoracchius has never been destroyed and remade. So how does he know that killing an innocent would unmake it? The other two swords have been remade before apparently, so it might make sense that Michael is just going for whats historically true for the other swords and assuming the same is true for his sword.

I wonder how a sword that has been destroyed is remade anyway. I would expect more is required than just reforging it.

 

The Knights interact with angels on a semi-regular basis. I'm pretty sure they might have mentioned such a fact.

 

Weren't the other two swords simply reforged into a new shape, and not remade, since they were never destroyed?

 

I suppose thats possible.

I kinda assumed that in order for Michael to know that the sword would be destroyed by the death of an innocent, it has to have happened one time in history. Given how long the swords have been around, you would expect that atleast ONE knight might have gone crazy and killed an innocent sometime in history.

But I suppose it is possible that it has never happened and an angel or someone did just give warning that this is how the sword can be destroyed. It is never explicitly said one way or the other.

 

Maybe there used to be 4 swords, and one of them has been destroyed, and that's how they know.

I mean, there would have been 4 nails used on the cross (one per limb). It always annoyed me how there were 3 swords. What was the other nail used for? Maybe this is an explanation.

 

Aren't both legs nailed by one nail? That's how he is usually represented on crosses and paintings. Besides, I doubt two legs would fit on a cross horizontally.

 

When the Roman's crucified someone, they used only one nail for the feet, one on top of the other, legs bent so they couldn't support themselves with their legs or with hands, in order to maximize suffering.

Sometimes they'd have crucify someone with legs on both sides of the post, but again with one nail straight through one foot and the post, and out through the other.

Yeah, during easter I had nothing to do, and there was nothing but programs on the crucifixion on cable, ended up watching hours of history channel.