Real Danger vs. Perceived Danger In HP-land

***Tessar*** · 12-29-2008, 07:07 PM

Since I'm trying to come up with a Harry Potter adventure (my sisters and a friend expressed some interest in trying a pen and paper RPG, and they thought HP would be really fun) I've been puzzling over the idea of the real dangers of magic and what seems to actually happen most of the time in the books.

Except for a few rare occasions, the magic used in the books only resulted in comical things happening. Backfiring spells usually only had amusing results. It was only when there was an actual intention to harm that the spells seemed to have more serious results, and then it was usually different spells which were used.

Just to blow an example slightly out of proportion, using a stun spell could actually be quite serious if you think about it. Use it on someone when they're near the edge of a drop, near something sharp, or on a very hard surface and their fall could cause a considerable amount of damage. Or even having five or more stun spells hit her right in the chest didn't finish off McG., although we're to understand she was a tough old bird

. I'd think something of that magnitude (and the 'intent' of the wizards was definitely hostile) would be much more serious.

If you're trying to call something to yourself, using the accio charm, and it backfires... you could accidentally send something sharp, heavy, or just generally dangerous whizzing towards yourself faster than you can dodge.

What if you use the teleporting spell incorrectly and end up with your body in one place, but your head underwater. From what I recall it was rather difficult to fix your own teleporting mistakes, although of course once you know the spells the chance of them backfiring under normal circumstances is supposed to be fairly rare.

So how do you feel the 'dangerous' side of the magic they were using was represented in Harry Potter?

inked · 12-30-2008, 10:54 AM

Driving a mass of two tons down the street is dangerous and requires practice skill and a license! So apparating is a learned but dangerous mode of transportation. A very exacting parallel in the Potterverse to automobile transportation and getting licensed.

The really important note to strike is that in the Potterverse magic is the parallel of technology. Light switches are very dangerous, too. Think about it. Electrical outlets kill children and adults every day, practically. No one has abandoned electricity for that reason. Thus, magic is not abandoned because it has inherent dangers.

The truly dangerous magic is that of the Dark Arts which deliberately harnesses it for ulterior and personal motives of self-aggrandizement against a world of need. Think along these lines and see what you come up with. Dumbledore's "conversion" from Grindewald's position on the matter, for instance, is most telling.

***Tessar*** · 12-30-2008, 11:18 PM

VERY excellent point, and it actually gives me some ideas for the storyline I'm working on

.

Now one thing that I've been considering about the magic is that the books state that intent is very important when casting a spell. Like how Harry couldn't hurt Bellatrix for long when he couldn't muster the 'intent' to cause her real harm (if I'm remembering correctly, that is).

So I wonder how that intent effects the danger level of the common spells. For instance if you were casting a stunning spell and you really hated the person you were casting it against and your emotion was for it to cause them more "harm" than the spell is capable of (i.e. "I wish this spell could blast his head off")... how does that effect the spell?

We saw Harry get really angry, and he accidentally cast the spell that caused his aunt to float away... it turned out to be a harmless effect of his anger, since the spell did not cause her any immediate harm (i.e. it didn't make her puff up till she popped and died). So I guess that must mean the spells have a sort of 'limit' to their effectiveness, no matter what your real intention is.

And I wonder how much more dangerous a defective wand could be? Would it be like handing someone a half-chewed power cord and then plugging it in, where they might either get a bit of a zap if they're unlucky, or maybe a really powerful jolt if they happen to be messing around with the cord too much.

12-29-2008, 07:07 PM	#1
*Tessar* Master and Wielder of the Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ Posts: 6,433	Real Danger vs. Perceived Danger In HP-land Since I'm trying to come up with a Harry Potter adventure (my sisters and a friend expressed some interest in trying a pen and paper RPG, and they thought HP would be really fun) I've been puzzling over the idea of the real dangers of magic and what seems to actually happen most of the time in the books. Except for a few rare occasions, the magic used in the books only resulted in comical things happening. Backfiring spells usually only had amusing results. It was only when there was an actual intention to harm that the spells seemed to have more serious results, and then it was usually different spells which were used. Just to blow an example slightly out of proportion, using a stun spell could actually be quite serious if you think about it. Use it on someone when they're near the edge of a drop, near something sharp, or on a very hard surface and their fall could cause a considerable amount of damage. Or even having five or more stun spells hit her right in the chest didn't finish off McG., although we're to understand she was a tough old bird . I'd think something of that magnitude (and the 'intent' of the wizards was definitely hostile) would be much more serious. If you're trying to call something to yourself, using the accio charm, and it backfires... you could accidentally send something sharp, heavy, or just generally dangerous whizzing towards yourself faster than you can dodge. What if you use the teleporting spell incorrectly and end up with your body in one place, but your head underwater. From what I recall it was rather difficult to fix your own teleporting mistakes, although of course once you know the spells the chance of them backfiring under normal circumstances is supposed to be fairly rare. So how do you feel the 'dangerous' side of the magic they were using was represented in Harry Potter?

12-30-2008, 10:54 AM	#2
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	Driving a mass of two tons down the street is dangerous and requires practice skill and a license! So apparating is a learned but dangerous mode of transportation. A very exacting parallel in the Potterverse to automobile transportation and getting licensed. The really important note to strike is that in the Potterverse magic is the parallel of technology. Light switches are very dangerous, too. Think about it. Electrical outlets kill children and adults every day, practically. No one has abandoned electricity for that reason. Thus, magic is not abandoned because it has inherent dangers. The truly dangerous magic is that of the Dark Arts which deliberately harnesses it for ulterior and personal motives of self-aggrandizement against a world of need. Think along these lines and see what you come up with. Dumbledore's "conversion" from Grindewald's position on the matter, for instance, is most telling. __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Real Land Surveying	hectorberlioz	General Messages	6	05-31-2006 05:49 PM

12-30-2008, 11:18 PM	#3
*Tessar* Master and Wielder of the Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ Posts: 6,433	VERY excellent point, and it actually gives me some ideas for the storyline I'm working on . Now one thing that I've been considering about the magic is that the books state that intent is very important when casting a spell. Like how Harry couldn't hurt Bellatrix for long when he couldn't muster the 'intent' to cause her real harm (if I'm remembering correctly, that is). So I wonder how that intent effects the danger level of the common spells. For instance if you were casting a stunning spell and you really hated the person you were casting it against and your emotion was for it to cause them more "harm" than the spell is capable of (i.e. "I wish this spell could blast his head off")... how does that effect the spell? We saw Harry get really angry, and he accidentally cast the spell that caused his aunt to float away... it turned out to be a harmless effect of his anger, since the spell did not cause her any immediate harm (i.e. it didn't make her puff up till she popped and died). So I guess that must mean the spells have a sort of 'limit' to their effectiveness, no matter what your real intention is. And I wonder how much more dangerous a defective wand could be? Would it be like handing someone a half-chewed power cord and then plugging it in, where they might either get a bit of a zap if they're unlucky, or maybe a really powerful jolt if they happen to be messing around with the cord too much.