Bill Skarsgård. He's 6'3 and change. I suppose that'd work.

 

Jeffrey Dean Morgan is Michael. Always.

 

JDM is the Sean Bean of television. I don't want him to be Michael because then Michael will die.

 

I see Liam Neeson as Nicodemus, to be totally honest.

I mean that literally by the way; my mental image of Nicodemus is Liam Neeson in a dark suit and a noose-tie.

 

If only we could de-age him, yeah, that'd be awesome. Unfortunately, Nicodemus is supposed to be what? Late thirties, early forties?

Whereas Neeson is pushing sixty.

Speaking of Sean Bean, if anyone was to be cast as Morgan, it'd be him.

Though I guess we're a tad off topic here. There's already a thread to discuss the casting of the potential movies.

 

Nicodemus is Ralph Fiennes!!! He could fit pretty well.

And Sanya is Idris Elba because he is awesome.

 

About "the adversary". That's one of the titles Lucifer is known by according to the RPG

 

Lucifer and the Adversary are two separate beings in this series, being that Lucifer is explicitly a Fallen Angel (or at least that's what Uriel implies when he talks to Harry at the end of Small Favor) while the Adversary is an Outsider.

 

Yeah... I guess so. I mean, Lucifer would have every interest in keeping humanity alive. How else is he to corrupt them and stick it to God?

 

Not necessarily. Lucifer and his buddies could probably stand to gain if the universe were destroyed, because as far as I'm aware Hell is inside the universe. Destroy that and the Fallen could be freed.

 

To go where? There'd be no world left, even for them. I'm not sure if Heaven or Hell would linger on if the mortal world was destroyed, as it would be in the case of Empty Night.

 

They're Angels, dude. They were around before the universe. They don't need it to exist.

 

Maybe, maybe not. You're probably right. I've been on a John Carpenter spree lately and I'm pretty sure Butcher has seen a lot of the guy's movies. Lots of similarities.

 

So I was rereading Turn Coat while I was traveling this weekend. This quote from Bob about the naagloshii caught my eye.

Turn Coat pg 273 US paperback.

This puts a bit off a different perspective on a certain character!

 

I think that refers to the sort of knowledge Listens to Wind has, rather than Goodman Grey. I doubt any magic you're taught would make you immortal, for example, or allow you to withstand a shotgun shell to the heart.

Besides, he didn't seem capable of magic in the sense of the Skin Walker, or even Dresden. Either that or he was pretending. I think the line where he says that he rarely ever lies, because it's too much of a bother to do it well is more relevant.

Which still makes me guess he's Loki.

 

Last I checked, Loki wasn't really supposed to be a good guy in Norse mythology. I mean, Hades really has been demonized by modern times, but Loki was a bad 'un from the start. And plus, one of his appellations was "The trickster", if I remember properly. This would be very out of character for Loki.

 

Michael concluded he was a bad man, or at least that he'd done many bad things. Perhaps Loki has been misrepresented in the writings, which are mostly storytelling that someone's written down.

Maybe we just saw another side of the character, maybe not. It would explain the "Rent" thing and why Odin could just get a hold of him like that.

 

Eh. Loki wasn't really evil, per se. He was closer to chaotic neutral. He stirred up shit, because he was the god of chaos and trickery, but he was rarely actively malicious (in the context of the culture that spawned the myths) and, for the most part, was on moderately good terms with the Aesir and Vanir. A few of his children were problematic, but a few others were quite well thought of (Sleipnir immediately springs to mind).

There's really two reasons Loki's tied in any way to "evil":
1) Germanic peoples, as a general rule at the time, weren't major fans of trickery and subtlety. The culture was forthright and direct to a fault, and so it was already predisposed toward negative associations with Loki.

2) The Ragnarok prophecy, where Loki, several of his children, and an army or two of every type of giant assault Asgard, kill all but two of the gods, and Surtr burns most of Midgard to ash, killing the vast majority of humanity in the process.

Now granted, Loki's role in Ragnarok is pretty goddamn evil, but outside of that context, he's mostly just a pre-Rennaisance internet troll. Kind of a dick, but alright if you can get him to agree with you on something.

Eh. It's implied pretty heavily that Goodman Grey is the child of a naagloshii (my pet theory is that he's specifically the son of Shagnasty, but that's pretty much entirely based on conservation of detail and wishful thinking). I would expect a demigod to have more than a few preternatural gifts that make them more... robust than a normal person.

I don't see anything pointing at Loki, especially since Loki never needed to drink anyone's blood in anything ever, and certainly not to adopt the victim's form.

 

Well, I mostly said that because of his role in Baldur's death. He was quite directly responsible for it. And that was pre-Ragnarok, I think.

 

If I remember right, he killed Baldur out of jealousy (or possibly for the lulz, depending on the version). Afterwards, he prevented Baldur's resurrection. In retaliation, the gods hunted him down, caught him, and bound him to a rock with a snake dripping venom in his face. There's some other details, but Ragnarok was kicked off by Loki escaping his bonds.

So yeah, (probably) evil, and really fucking hard to figure out, because aside from that he seemed like a pretty okay guy, if you could put up with the dickery.