I refuse to believe that any mortal, even the host, would have the power to manipulate the soul/spirit/essence/whatever of a fallen angel in any way.

 

Damn its been a while, but still great work as usual. My only issue was that the whole Sirius conversation felt very rushed, if you fleshed out the details more and maybe added didnt make Sirius's mood swings wuite so abrupt it might flow a bit better but other than that excellent.

 

Does Harry seriously know how to destroy the sword or is he just bluffing?

 

You have to kill an innocent with it to destroy the sword, I believe. I'm sure Meciel would know.

 

You're correct. From wikipedia:

"Also known as the Knights of the Sword, the Knights are men (and, presumably, women, though no female Knights are mentioned in the books) chosen to wield one of three holy swords that God sent to Earth. Much like the legendary Excalibur, the swords serve the righteous for a just cause. Each is reputed to bear a nail from Christ's crucifixion inside the hilt. They cannot be touched by "unclean" beings, although this protection can be disabled if the bearer attempts to use them in a dishonorable or evil way; the only known way to destroy a Sword is to use it to kill a truly innocent being."

 

So what qualifies as a "truly innocent being"? Does he have to kill a kitten? Or Amanda?

 

A baby, perhaps?

 

A priest? Or maybe a unicorn? In the HP books they are said to be innocent creatures I think anyway.

 

That should be an Omake.

Harry embarks on a murderous rampage, slaughtering everything he thinks of as innocent.

Of course, the sword has high standards, so the body count soon exceeds all previously set precedents...

 

"Oh c'mon! I just slaughtered a baby-riding-a-unicorn-while-trailing-behind-a-priest ! How does that not count as innocent enough!" (Yeti-riding-ox-while-carrying-eel-and-crane, anybody?)
"Maybe the priest was planning on molesting the baby, and the baby selfishly wanted more candy, or something?"
"...What about the unicorn then?"
*shrugs* "Maybe it was one of those rare, carnivorous, unicorns?"

-_-;... right...

 

Abortion. Third trimester abortions. Just before they're ready to pop... Swift Sword Surgical Strike!

Kill those little blighters before they take their first gasping lungful of air and the corruption takes hold.

That's what I'd do.

No one from that 'vese could ever be considered truly innocent. They're all fucked up. Even Kasumi.

The mere association of the baby-unicorn-priest construct with a similar Happousai-baptised monstrosity would be enough to pervert even those three allegedly innocent souls.

Babies aren't innocent. Babies are evil.

Yak.
for the common good

 

Crap, double post.

 

And the new year has brought about a new chapter. Well, the new year has already passed, but I always associate it with the return to school, so...

I liked the Harry-Sirius interaction, with just enough of the insanity showing, without turning him into a male Bella.

As for the sword, killing a unicorn should do it. Amanda has already touched dark magic, so she is sadly not a viable target.

Also killing a pregnant woman by stabbing her through the womb should cover it too. The baby has not formulated any evil thoughts yet, probably, and the mother is there as a back-up.

 

A long awaited update. Good to see you back at it. Cant wait for the rest of the chapter.

 

A lot is based on faith or belief I think in the Dresdenverse, so If the bearer of the sword truly think he has killed an innocent being on purpose, just for the lulz, I think it would be enough to destroy it.

Of course it don't mean anybody, you can't think of a whore you see in the street as innocent, but I think it can work.

 

It would be interesting to see if the story does lead to a confrontation between Harry and the other goody-goodies in the Potterverse. I would actually like to see a bit more of Luna.

Nice to see an update though I am eagerly awaiting more.

 

Hmm.

Not sure, but I think the whole "truly innocent" thing is actually a wiki invention. Atleast in the actual Dresden book where this whole weakness in the swords is mentioned, it is enough if the target is innocent. No need for anything specially pure.

Infact in the book, it is implied that even killing a woman possessed by this nasty ghost/evil-thingie would have destroyed the blade, even though the said woman was trying to kill everyone at the time.

I think killing someone of normally decent nature such as Amanda or even any other student(well maybe not Malfoy) would unmake the blade. No unicorns required.

Atleast thats how it works in the official Dresden canon.

 

Well, if we are going by the Bible for 'purity', the standards are incredibly exacting.

No Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, Avarice, Wrath, Envy, or Pride, and as your mother always told you, it's the thought that counts, which rules out pretty much everyone.

Then the baby couldn't be a bastard, and I'm sure there's more.

I think Dresden canon is the only real way, otherwise you'd never find anyone.

 

You guys are going WAY overboard on this. It doesn't take a 100% pure innocent, just someone that is helpless. The swords are actually really picky about what actions their wielders can take. In the series, Dresden broke Amoracchius' (Michael's sword) protections while defending himself against demon dogs. The demons belonged to Lea, his Faerie Godmother, and at the time Dresden was trying to break a bargain he made with her. That act of bad faith with someone he made a deal was enough for the sword to shock Dresden, forcing him to drop it. Lea was then able to pick it up and later give the sword to some vampires. Their plan was to execute a girl (blood of the innocent) to destroy the sword. In this case the girl was just an innocent bystander. She had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and was targeted partly because she had some magical talent. She was not pure or anything like that, just some helpless girl they manipulated as part of the vampire Bianca's scheme to get revenge on Dresden.

 

It's good, very good, and not preachy at all, so don't be worried. It's not even ranty. It feels just right - the right amount of anger for the situation.

I saw two errors, besides the "tot his conversation" bit already spotted.

Barely aware instead of away?

This doesn't really work with two "is"s. I'd take away the first “is”, so it reads like this: