In this thread I will attempt to explain to you why there is no such thing as Light magic, thus there are no Light wizards, Light side, or a 'Leader of the Light' (which in fanfiction is almost always Dumbledore). This is a purely fanon creation, there is nothing in canon to suggest the existence of these 'ideas'. This is one of my biggest pet peeves in fanfiction besides improper grammar, americanisms, and the whole 'purebloods using theological expressions' thing that I've mentioned in a few other posts. If you take the whole of Harry Potter fanfiction, about half of all fanfics include these ideas (Light magic, The Light, Dumbledore is the 'Leader of the Light', etc). I'm honestly surprised no one has brought this up before. It just gets on my nerves mainly for two reasons.

1. It is incredibly simplistic. There is Light and Dark, Good and Evil, etc. I'm sorry, but these are 'kid' themes. If you are not in Voldemort's camp (ie Dark), you are automatically 'Light'. Nobody can be categorized into just 'Light' and 'Dark'. People are infinitely more complex than that. To be cliche I could use the "Everybody is a shade of grey" expression. Most of us here in DLP are adults (or close to it), so I'm not sure why this is so prevalent in fanfiction and even on these forums. This is one reason why canon Voldemort is a bad villain; in canon he represents 'pure evil' and lives for torture, control, death, and has the incredibly cliche bad guy desire to be immortal and to take over the world. Voldemort lacks humanity so it's hard to sympathize with him as a villain. Add to that, with all the shit Dumbledore has done, if there were such things as Light wizards, I wouldn't include Dumbledore in that category.

2. It is done to death. Like I said above, roughly half of Harry Potter fanfics include these ideas. It's simple, and it gives the author the boon of being able to avoid delving too deeply into the ethics and nature of magic and it's users, which if done, is often long and drawn out and boring (which tends to turn off readers).

So now that I have that out of the way, I will attempt to explain why I think there is no such thing as Light magic.

So often authors reason that any magic that is not 'Dark' automatically makes it 'Light'. I do not believe this to be the case. If you go by the definition that any non-dark magic is Light magic, then sure, Transfiguration, Charms, and any other non-dark magic is indeed Light magic. However, as I explained above this is overly simplistic and done to death. What exactly is 'Light' about turning something into something else (Transfiguration), or being able to add an effect to an object (incredibly simplified explanation of Charms)? I do not see anything 'Light' about these categories of magic. In fanon, it is incredibly cliche when the author tries to reason that you can kill someone with said 'Light' magic, which inevitably is "You can levitate someone off of a cliff, or levitate someone a hundred feet in the air to kill them. Lulz!" Traditionally in Science fiction and Fantasy, Light magic (or White magic) is usually healing magic, magic involving purity, holy magic, etc. This is not the case in HP canon as the idea of 'Light' magic is never mentioned or alluded to, and I'm almost dead certain you don't have to be 'pure' to use healing magic in canon HP which is what many Fantasy authors do. If you want to categorize to death, most magic in Harry Potter would fall under the banner of 'Neutral'. Stupefy, Expelliarmus, Protego, Reducto, etc (the basic Light wizards repertoire in fanon) is not 'Light' magic. Putting aside the cliche of Reducto being able to explode heads and body parts itself, how could that (such destructive magic) be considered 'Light' magic? It fucking destroys things and makes them explode into tiny bits.

Once again I would like to point out that this is a purely fanon creation. Who created these ideas? Impossible to know as it's so prevalent.

If there is no such thing as 'Light' magic, then there is no such thing as The Light, Leader of the Light, etc. This brings me to my next argument: There are varying degrees of Dark wizards, and the ministry does indeed employ Dark wizards. Inevitably in fanon, all Dark wizards are the same. They are almost always bloodthirsty, torturous sons of bitches who have Voldemort's mark on their arm. I would like to say that not all Dark wizards are like this. There are many degrees of Dark wizardry. There is slightly crossing the line by using or trafficking in restricted magic (I believe there are different 'grades' of restricted magic with Obliviation and Portkeys on the lower end, and with the Unforgivables on the upper end), restricted potions and items, and basically just barely qualifying as a Dark wizard and being a nuisance (Mundungus is a good example). These people break a few laws here and there, but do not commit any major crimes such as torture, murder, and supporting Voldemort. This is the type that Knockturne alley is most likely filled with. Wizards and witches who indulge in borderline magic and items, but do not commit major crimes with Dark magic, or side with Voldemort. And then you go up the ladder of 'Dark wizardry' a few degrees to those that fill Voldemort's inner circle. Violent, corrupt, wizards and witches who will do anything to achieve their goals (or Voldemort's) including torture, muder, or often killing and torturing just for the sake of killing and torturing.

So now that I have pointed out that it is highly likely that not all Dark wizards follow Voldemort's ideals, we come to the fact that the Ministry of Magic employs Dark wizards. I would like to point out that in GoF I think it is, it is mentioned that Crouch Sr. passed legislation that allowed Aurors and Hit-wizards the use of the Unforgivables during the first war. Mad Eye Moody could probably be included in this category (he couldn't have survived that long and that many duels with Death Eaters just using stunners and such). The top guys in the ministry (in the first war) realized that the Death Eaters have the advantage in being able to have the "one spell, one kill" capability seeing as they operate outside the law, and gave the Aurors and Hit-wizards use of the Unforgivables to even out the playing field. You can bet your ass there were a lot of Aurors slinging around AK's and Crucios and using 'creative information retrieval techniques'. This makes them Dark wizards. You can't sling around AK's and Crucio's and not be considered a Dark wizard. Now that I've pointed out that not all Dark wizards are Death Eaters, and that the Ministry employs Dark wizards, what then separates the two (Ministry wizards who use Dark magic and Death Eaters)?

Simple, the Voldemort supporters and Death Eaters are unsatisfied with the current government (eg body, laws, etc) and engage in rebellion to bring about change by force, while the Ministry wizards who use Dark magic do so because they believe in the current government and laws, and do not want the changes that would come with a government ruled largely by Voldemort. It's that simple. There is no Light side or Dark side, there are merely wizards and witches who believe in the current government and fight change, and wizards and witches who fight to bring about change. Dark magic is merely a tool that is often used by both sides to achieve their goals. Being a Dark wizard does not automatically make you a Voldemort supporter or a bloodthirsty, murderous bastard. This belief goes against all those fics where Dark magic is described like a drug, and once you start using it, you cannot stop. And once you start using Dark magic, you acquire a taste for pain and human flesh that cannot be sated unless you engage in torture and/or murder. This isn't so. Dark magic is just a tool to achieve an end.


Ok, It took me about an hour to type this all up. In conclusion, I believe that there is no such thing as Light magic, Light wizards, The Light, Dumbledore being the 'Leader of The Light' and so on. Please stop using these simplistic 'black and white' ideals fanfic authors. It is over used to the extent of where I stop reading a fic with this stuff in it (which is just about half of all HP fics).

 

For TL;DR - The 'light' side and 'light' magic are not canon concepts. Dark = evil is also not a canon concept.

Nice essay. I don't agree with everything, as a lot of it is open to the authors interpretation of JKR's stuff, however I agree that the concept of a light side is ridiculous.

 

Oh cmon, it wasn't that long. I had to leave some stuff out actually or else it would have been a few paragraphs longer. Kids and their low attention spans these days .

But yes, you summarized my first post wonderfully. I was just so sick and tired of seeing the same thing in hundreds of fics and I wanted to create a discussion about it.

 

I do agree, for the most part. However, this does not mean that I agree completely. For example, you bring up light magic as spells that heal, etc. I think that it does go a bit beyond that.

Let me start this by mentioning the shield spell, protego. Why would you consider this spell neutral, and not light? For all intents and purposes, the word "light" implies that it is either defensive or supportive in nature. Assuming the spell cast is not the killing curse, you could very likely - and very easily - save someone's life with this spell, because its sole purpose is defense.

For that matter, there are canon examples of healers. While I certainly haven't got any canon evidence to back this up - as this is purely a fanon argument from your end, I'm keeping it fanon from mine - I can say that it would be exceptionally odd for a world with such variety in spellwork to not have a single spell used to mend wounds.

Alongside that, there is the Patronus charm, which was built to serve but a single purpose: to drive away dark creatures (for example, dementors). Yes, it is used as a messenger in the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows books, but looking back at the Prisoner of Azkaban, the Goblet of Fire and the Order of the Phoenix, can you safely say that it was intended to be used like that? No.

In fact, if not for the simple fact that it doesn't actively heal, the Patronus charm would quite possibly be the single most "light" spell in the entirety of the books. It requires pleasant emotions to cast, and its original purpose is to drive away dark, often soul-sucking creatures; to save lives.

Yes, I do believe that there are light spells. Most of the spells you listed are certainly neutral, but there's more to magic than Transfiguration and Wingardium Leviosa.

 

I really wouldn't consider a shield spell as part of 'Light' magic. Sure it's designed to protect, but anybody can use Protego, even Dark wizards. Lets not forget that canon sort of implies that you don't need to use a shield to block some spells (recall Snape blocking every spell Harry sent at him? It didn't seem like Snape was using shield after shield spell).

Now I do agree that if there is 'Light' magic then the Patronus Charm would be the single best example because it requires happiness to perform. However, even Dark wizards feel happiness and I would think a majority of them can cast the patronus.

I just disagree with the people who call all magic that isn't Dark, Light magic. Even if there is specific Light magic (patronus included) it seems to me that there are very little actual Light magic spells. It's just that there is no Light magic in canon, it isn't even implied or alluded to in any way, so I get kind of pissed when authors make so that all non-dark magic is Light magic (which tons of authors do).

 

I can agree with a few of your points, but the idea that there are no light spells isn't exactly correct. As well as the famous Patronus example, what about spells which can only be used to help, like Anapneo, which unblocks airways, or something like Riddikulous, used only to ward off dark creatures.

And as for no 'Light Side' or 'Leader of the Light', possibly there wasn't a formal thing, but I could well see them adopting the handle for convenience's sake. Dark Lord vs. Order of The Phoenix, or Dark vs. Light.

Moreover, I found the basic tone of your essay to be dry and condescending. Good thoughts, but a struggle to wade through at times, got a bit TL;DRish.

 

Was it said that Riddikulus only works on dark creatures? From what I remember, it only turned the Boggart into something funny, thus making laughter and hurting it.

If you can use that spell on another person... well, there's some simple transfiguration, huh?

 

Anapneo is a healing spell. I believe I stated in my first post that I don't consider healing magic in HP canon as 'Light' magic. Maybe I should have made that a little more clear. And since when does Riddikulous ward off dark creatures? I know it is a kind of Kryptonite to Bogarts, but I really don't recall it being able to ward off dark creatures.

My point, as stated above, is that that view is incredibly simplistic and false. Voldemort might be the face of Dark wizards, but he doesn't represent all Dark wizards. I stated in my first post that I don't believe all Dark wizards believe in Voldemort's ideals or flock to his banner. And since when does the Order of The Phoenix represent 'Light'? They are a vigilante group that operates outside of Ministry jurisdiction, and employs such questionable people like Dung and Snape. Calling the OoTP a vigilante group may actually be hyperbole because they never actually get around to capturing or killing Death Eaters, or doing anything useful, just sitting around with their collective dicks in their hands and protecting Harry instead of training him. I also said that I wouldn't consider Dumbledore a 'Light' wizard. He made many morally ambiguous decisions in canon and stuck his hand where it didn't belong to the detriment of Harry and many others. Dumbledore really fucked some shit up.

Really? I didn't write it to be condescending, just to create a discussion about something that has been bothering me for a long time. I really didn't know it came off like that. I guess it has to do with me not being able to write good persuasive essays.

 

Jus to note, they might be kid themes, but they are kid books.

 

Yes, but fanfics aren't, which is the crux of my whole post. Most fanfic authors' audiences are either young adults or adults. I was talking about and criticizing fanon if you bothered to read my first post the whole way through.

 

I agree that it has, at least in parts, a condescending tone to it.

If I remember correctly it was said in book 4 that Moody wasn't one to use the Unforgivables.

You make your point about how there is no 'Light side', yet at the same time you talk about 'Dark Wizards'.

You say the ends are irrelevant and only the means count, in ways of making you a 'Dark Wizard'. Yet you say Protego cannot be a good spell because it can be used by people who pursue 'dark' ends. You should make up your mind if the means are what counts or the ends.

If you have a Dark side, you must automatically have a diametrically opposed Light side. Even if you are talking in shades of gray (since polarisation seems to be what you are originally opposed to (though I don't think you delivered it well)), you need a light grey in opposition to your dark grey.

Which, basically, makes it a spell to ward of dark creatures.
Or do you want to tell us Boggarts are neutral as well?

 

I must have missed this. Did Barty!Moody say this or did someone else?

Canon does this as well. Dark wizards are talked about ad infinitum in canon, but there is no mention of Light wizards and a possible 'Light' side. Being pro Ministry and anti Voldemort doesn't automatically make you part of a 'Light' side. As I said in my first post, there are those who engage in rebellion (and in DH, succeed), which just so happens to mostly consist of Dark wizards, and those who fight the rebellion, which has what I would consider Dark wizards on their side albeit a lot less of them simply due to the fact that it's hard to be a Dark wizard without breaking a law regarding restricted magic.

I agree that I could have worded it better, or explained my points more thoroughly, but my first post was long enough as it is. I had to cut out 2 extra paragraphs because I thought nobody would read it if it was that long. I'm just saying that while there is ample evidence of Dark magic in canon (Unforgivables, Horcruxes, Inferi, Dark curses like the one that killed DD's hand), there is simply no evidence or allusion to 'Light' magic or 'Good' magic beyond the Patronus Charm. Now if you want to consider Protego 'Good' magic because it's a shield spell, which if cast correctly with good timing, protects yourself, then go ahead. My point being, it seems that in canon there is just 'Neutral' magic and 'Dark' magic, and no evidence pointing towards 'Light' magic. I get irritated when fanfic authors make magic as polar opposites (ie either Dark or Light), and that all non-Dark magic is 'Light' magic. And since there is 'Light' magic (in said fanfics) we get the whole 'Light' side, DD being 'Leader of the Light' nonsense.

I never said that. I discussed Dark wizards at length, but I never said there was a quintessential 'Dark' side. Voldemort's side is not the 'Dark' side. It's the side that has a large majority of Dark wizards which support a regime change (by force) with Voldemort at the helm. I guess the point of my first post is that there is no 'Light' (magic) side and there is no 'Dark' side.

Nice try putting words in my mouth. This might be arguing semantics (or it might just be out of your comprehension), but Riddikulus doesn't ward off dark creatures. It wards off A dark creature (Boggart). Yes, I agree that Boggarts are dark creatures. But the Riddikulus spell ONLY works on Boggarts, not any other dark creatures (Dementors, Lethifolds, Vampires, Werewolves, etc), therefore you cannot say that Riddikulus is a spell that wards off dark creatures.

Now, does that clear things up a little?

 

I have only this to say:

ARRGH! I fucking hate this shit. "I SERV TEH LIGHT SIDE! DUN JOIN TEH DARK SIDE!" Does no one else see how retarded you sound saying this shit?

 

uh....what?

edit: Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. It's so fucking retarded and I always want to kill the author that uses this shit.

I was confused for a minute and thought you were talking to me for a second, but now that I go over your post again it reads like you agree with me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I believe the fanfic habit of referring to people or families as 'Light' or 'Dark' is clumsy like most of you say.

There are dark wizards, and there is everyone else. Normal people are not Light. Star Wars makes it work.


Guy #1: Good heavens, did Guy #3 just kill that Death Eater? You don't sup;pose he's... gone Dark do you?
Guy #2: No no, he only kills people who deserve it, so while he certainly isn't Light he is really just Grey.
Guy #3: Well that's a relief.

 

heh

Is your name from Dragonlance? I think I remember Verminard as one of the main 'bad' guys from the Dragonlance Chronicles by Weiss and Hickman.

 

Ugh. I hate trying to write about theoretic stuff because my thoughts never seems to materialize correctly. But I'll give it my best shot.

To address the first post of the thread:

Much of your argument revolves around the nature of Dark wizards. According to you, Dark wizards are defined as dark by the nature of the spells they use. For instance, you gave the examples of both Aurors and Death Eaters as being dark because they are okay with using dark spells (i.e. crucio).

But is the corollary also true? Are wizards that do NOT use dark spells automatically NOT Dark wizards? If a wizards repeated uses reducto to obliterate an innocent's skull (but never uses dark spells), is he NOT a Dark wizard?


Which brings me to the weakness in your argument. You are operationally defining "Dark" as "using dark spells" (as evident in your Auror/Deatheater example).

But I disagree. I've always defined "Dark" as more of mental intention than physical spell repertoire. If a wizard intends to cause harm, and has malicious motives, then he is catagorized as Dark. But this definition, then, my aforementioned example of the reducto-happy muderer would be classified as a Dark wizard. Thus, an auror using, say, Imperio in order to save the life of an innocent is not necessarily a Dark wizard, but an auror using Imperio with malicious intent (i.e. revenge, entertainment, etc.) would be considered Dark.



Since I've established the criteria for a "Dark wizard", it then follows that there must be some criteria for a "Not-Dark wizard" (pardon the lack of eloquence in that phrase). I believe that while the "Not-Dark wizard" category encompasses all wizards that are not in the "Dark wizard" category, it itself can be further divided. I'm using intention to define "Darkness".

Here are the different types of "intention" that I can think of:

Malicious: defined by a desire to cause unnecessary harm; qualifies a wizard as Dark

Selfish: defined by a desire to further one's own agenda; ex: Harry uses magic to unlock his bedroom door so he can go to the bathroom. This does not fall under the "Malicious" category because there was no intention to harm anyone: the driving motive is the a personal need to go to the bathroom.

Altruistic: defined by a desire to positively impact others, either with or without selfish gain; ex: Harry kills the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets for selfish (self-preservation) and altruistic (to save Ginny) reasons. This can be considered the opposite of Malicious intent.


Since "Malicious" motives are what qualify a wizard as "Dark", then it would logically follow that "Altruistic" motives would qualify a wizard as "Light", by the very argument that:

Malicious is the direct opposite of Altruistic.
Dark is the direct opposite of Light.
A wizard who is Malicious is a wizard who is Dark.
Therefore, a wizard who is Altruistic is a wizard who is Light.


Which means that the term "Light wizard" isn't null, as you argue. The very existence of Dark wizards mandates the existence of Light wizards. The difference between them is not a matter of spell repertoire, but one of intent.






Oh, and slightly off topic, but to address the claim that Light vs. Dark and Good vs. Evil are kid themes, I would suggest an examination of the history of literature. Good vs. Evil is the best-selling plotline of all time. It isn't a kid theme. It's more like the most pervasive and common human conception in the history of mankind.

 

I don't really agree with this. Altruistic motives aren't necessarily 'Good' ones. Using a hypothetical example, your theory would label a fanatical Death Eater, who lives only for Voldemort and will do anything for him, as a 'Light' wizard. The Death Eater kills in the name of Voldemort, because it pleases the Dark Lord, not himself...

Personally I would not describe anyone as 'Dark' or 'Light', but categorise them by motives and mentality, as well as the spells they use. If they use the Imperious curse for a reason that would be considered malicious (say in the use of torture) and consciously takes pleasure from that, then they would belong in a different category to the likes of Peter Pettigrew and other such people.

The reason they are given labels as Light and Dark are mainly for ease of reference. The system just got convoluted enough to see anyone who uses 'Dark' spells as being Dark wizards. And that's where it all falls down. Rather than being subjective for each case, there is a steadfast law that governs every case in the same way.

I'm not really getting this down well, but there's my attempt.

Aekiel

 

What bothers me more isn't the categorization of people and spells being either "Light" or "Dark". What really piss me off is when the (retarded in most cases) author qualify someone as "Grey".

They may be Light or Dark magic, but there's not Grey magic.

Because Magic isn't like colors. Because when I helped a grandma cross the street, I didn't think "Oh, this action ranked 7/10 on the Light Actions scale." and when I pushed someone in the stairs I didn't think "And this probably ranked 2/10 on the Light Actions scale".

Whether something is good (light) or bad (dark; evil) is as subjective as it can be. You can't rank this, find what is in between, and especially not decide that you won't be either good or bad, but "Grey" because that's fucking nonsense.

 

Would you all please wake up, and remember you simple cannon? With this one line, I bring about the end of this discussion, you can't debate it, you can't refute it. End of story!

Quirrell's lesson from Voldemort, as told to Harry: "There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it." (PS17)