That depends, I think, on the charm loadout. Solars get options that infernals do not, and dealing with, as in smiting, creatures of darkness is something they are good at. If nothing else, a baby solar has a mote pool of 10, and representI don't believe "swording good" is more valuable than Molly's, the elder exalted, capabilities with the essence we'd be expending on a gamble if Sandra is planning to do something right now or in a few hours.
I don't think there's an actual argument to be had. You say "People aren't all good or bad", but what I am reading is you actually saying "people are bad". Sorry, but that's what I am hearing. Your argument, as I understand it, is that if specific humans are empowered above others, it will be bad for other humans, bad for humanity as a whole, even in the dire situation it is in Dresdenverse cosmologically. I don't agreeThere's a lot of things to say to that, but the one I'd like to start with is that this isn't an argument. All you're doing is conceding that the projections like the ones I and many others have posted in this thread are plausible but that you hope it won't happen so much that we can't actively counter it.
Then you cap it off with straight authoritarian apologia. I mean really, as long as they man the walls it's fine if they're a raging asshole? What happened to all that outrage over humanity being abused by immortals with too much power and not enough empathy?
This line of reasoning has played out a thousand times and almost always ends in Caesar instead of Cincinnatus.
Here's a thought exercise; open a news app and read for 15 minutes. Mark down every politician who's done something persuasive and astounding without regard to whether what they said or did was as ethical, or even as anchored to reality, as it was impressive at some point in their career.
That's your Zenith and Eclipse pool*.
People aren't all good or bad, but no one thinks they're the villain even when they're actively doing something most would call evil. If you give people power they will use it to push their vision on the world regardless of what you might think of it.
You talk a lot about your faith in humanity, but you seem awfully willing to make the choice to sell the entire world's future away for them without allowing them a chance to fight for it.
If you want Molly to fulfill that faith herself you should vote for her to return it.
Actually return it, not infantilize them into virtuous and powerless cattle. It's not a forgone conclusion that human civilization is a helpless thing to be ruled by immortal masters of one stripe or another, which is why they're so afraid of waking the mortals up.
* Yeah the timing probably doesn't work out for all of them to be candidates at the same time, but the point is to show what this translates to in practice. Those people are the profile we're talking about. Fundamentally you're banking on all of humanity agreeing with your definition of morality and then sticking to it when given immense personal power.
What do the people on your list think of that?
We already had these long discussions about the issue. Over and over and over. I disagree on the core premises with you. I disagree on what the possible and plausible outcomes are. I disagree on valuation of those outcomes with you. I present my arguments to you, you present yours to me. We don't agree with each other. So, what's the point?
I could spend pages and pages in arguments about the fundamental nature of man, of society, of heroism. Try and lay out why scenarios you posit are either implausible, or the outcomes they lead to are still positives compared to current situation. I don't have energy to do that, and I believe it would be pointless anyway - neither you nor I will change our position. So, I won't make those arguments. Because this is pointless.
And before you say "aha, so even two dudes on the internet cannot agree, this is why I am right and bringing in shining golden kings will be bad, and will create an inescapable yoke on humanity forever, or lead to a war between them!" - I disagree. People can agree and compromise and in the extremes, when it gets bad, they will on average try and help each other - that's just statistics and evolution in play. So, it's good to empower humanity.
To summarize my position for those just joining who haven't read previous rounds of arguments:
1) I maintain that exaltations, especially solar exaltations, select for heroism among other things. I disagree with the argument "oh, but it's classical heroism, not the modern ones" at least in cases of solars, lunars and sidereals, because actual canon example of characters and story bits in ExvsWoD indicate that people likely to try saving the world are more likely to be selected than serial killers who like to make balloon animals out of infant entrails and gift those to the mothers of said infants.
2) I maintain that Molly, as an already established exalt with a lot of experience, and someone who is a good person, can act as a check and balance on a new exalt emerging. I further maintain that, as a social exalt, Molly can influence a new exalt enough that they would ultimately also be what is broadly be a good person
3) I maintain that even at worst, emergence of a new powerful force that is ultimately human is a net positive for humanity as a whole, given current cosmological situation in Dresdenverse
4) I maintain that it's ok if exalts can't agree with each other on certain topics, as long as unity is maintained in defense of reality and humanity overall (on average, with caveats, etc).
5) I maintain that the idea "humans cannot be trusted to be empowered" is defeatist enough that it shouldn't be entertained. If it's true, there's no point. If it's wrong, humans should be empowered.
Last edited: