History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows

13th Dec '17 10:32:58 AM RandomReader
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**I was always under the impression that magic could fall into two categories: willful and non-willful. Willful magic are spells that require the caster to continue to will the effect on some level, such as a Patronus or the Cruciatus curse. They last only as long as the caster focuses on maintaining the spell, so distracting or killing the caster will end the spell. Non-willful is magic more typically used on inanimate objects and does not depend on the continued willpower (or even existence) of the original caster. Non-willful spells are the kinds used to enchant broomsticks or architecture, or other things like the ''Permanent'' Sticking Charm or transfiguration. If this is indeed the case, then the Full Body Bind classifies as a willful spell and the effects disappear along with the caster.
2nd Dec '17 9:03:33 PM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** I don't know, but is the exception, not the rule.
2nd Dec '17 7:51:55 PM sugaricequeen
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Even if he were to come across the legend, there's no definitive proof that it's true or that the Hallows are real. The Peverell brothers are never named throughout the story, and Voldemort went and killed off the last person who could've told him, "Hey, by the way, you're descended from one of the brothers who made the Deathly Hallows." And regardless, Voldemort strikes me as the kind of guy to focus on methods that he's certain will really work before resorting to wasting his time searching for ones that might not even exist. He only started going after the Elder Wand after he'd gotten substantial proof of its existence from someone else, and because he was desperate to solve the issue of his and Harry's wands clashing.
2nd Dec '17 7:44:18 PM sugaricequeen
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Then how to explain Dumbledore's body-binding spell being broken?
2nd Dec '17 12:33:40 PM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** If individual magic disappears after a wizard dies then all the invisibility cloaks that are sold as products would stop working once the wizard that made them dies, same with brooms, magic carpets, portkeys and other objects, not to mention Griffyndorf's magic sword, Slytherin's Chamber of Secrets and other many magical objects that whose creators have hundreds of years of dead. In one book is mentioned that the Egyptian wizards put a lot of charms in the pyramids to protect their treasures, and they have been dead for thousands of years.
2nd Dec '17 11:46:14 AM sugaricequeen
Is there an issue? Send a Message



* Hey, wait a minute...The series has shown that effects of a wizard's magic disappear when that wizard dies, as was the case when Dumbledore died, and the body-binding spell he'd placed on Harry was broken. Wouldn't this prove that the legend of the Deathly Hallows was true, that the three of them really did belong to Death? Because if the three of them were just normal objects that were created and enchanted by the three brothers, wouldn't the enchantments have been broken once the three brothers had died? Harry's invisibility cloak has been passed down through his family for generations, and it's mentioned repeatedly that its powers haven't diminished or faded out in the slightest, which was what set it apart from normal cloaks.



* Hey, wait a minute...The series has shown that effects of a wizard's magic disappear when that wizard dies, as was the case when Dumbledore died, and the body-binding spell he'd placed on Harry was broken. Wouldn't this ''prove'' that the legend of the Deathly Hallows was true, that the three of them really ''did'' belong to Death? Because if the three of them were just normal objects that were created and enchanted by the three brothers, wouldn't the enchantments have been broken once the three brothers had died?
2nd Dec '17 11:43:07 AM sugaricequeen
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Hey, wait a minute...The series has shown that effects of a wizard's magic disappear when that wizard dies, as was the case when Dumbledore died, and the body-binding spell he'd placed on Harry was broken. Wouldn't this ''prove'' that the legend of the Deathly Hallows was true, that the three of them really ''did'' belong to Death? Because if the three of them were just normal objects that were created and enchanted by the three brothers, wouldn't the enchantments have been broken once the three brothers had died?
23rd Nov '17 8:30:30 AM RedDingo
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The resilience of a Horcrux is explained by ''inverting'' the soul's durability the soul's durability with that of the container. When an object is turned into a Horcrux, it's no longer an inanimate object but also the piece of the soul in a material form. Killing the Horcrux returns the object to it's original material state. So what may be powerful enough to ''kill'' the ring did not necessarily destroy the pre-existing properties components that made the ring. As long as the stone was not completely cleaved in two, it's properties remained.
23rd Nov '17 8:18:04 AM RedDingo
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Rita suggested that it's possible Dumbledore [[TalkingTheMonsterToDeath talked Grindelwald down]] instead of straight out overpowering him. Granted that was in and interview for a book that made a ''lot'' of half truths. But there are inklings suggesting that Dumbledore's victory over Grindelwald was as much a mental one as it was physical and Grindelwald's last moments indicate that he had a HeelFaceTurn.
19th Oct '17 9:43:42 PM H.N.Levian
Is there an issue? Send a Message



The tale ''points out'' it doesn't bring the dead back to life, so (presumably) anyone who found it and knew what it was and what it was supposed to do after the Peverell brother used it and word got around wouldn't be getting duped; they'd know they were only going to get to spend a little more time with their family/loved one(s), and even then they'd be little more than ghosts. Naturally this wouldn't stop some people from following said brothers' example, unfortunately, but one can always hope.


to:

\n** The tale ''points out'' it doesn't bring the dead back to life, so (presumably) anyone who found it and knew what it was and what it was supposed to do after the Peverell brother used it and word got around wouldn't be getting duped; they'd know they were only going to get to spend a little more time with their family/loved one(s), and even then they'd be little more than ghosts. Naturally this wouldn't stop some people from following said brothers' example, unfortunately, but one can always hope.






to:

\n** Less a need, more a whimsy. Touching the ring at all was explicitly a lapse in judgment on Dumbledore's part brought on by emotion, not a calculated thing, so I can see how in the moment he'd put the ring on his finger.


Added DiffLines:

** Best I've got is that the venom was potent enough to kill the Horcrux, but not potent enough to destroy the stronger Hallow enchantments. I mean, the Horcrux is just a fragment of soul, and the Hallow is specifically supposed to have dominion over souls, so I can buy that the Hallow magic was strong enough to survive where the Horcrux couldn't. It's not a ''great'' explanation, since the way Horcruxes are described implies that the soul should be just as resilient as its container, but from an in-universe standpoint it works as a handwave.
This list shows the last 10 events of 91. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows