I think it was said about him. I'm honestly not sure though. hp-lexicon doesn't mention it.

That is what I meant with you being against polarisation.

Yes, it is semantics. Let's say there are TWO boggarts and you ward them off with Riddikulus. Now the spell has warded off a pair of dark creatures.
To make this a little more silly: How many creatures do you think a spell needs to ward off to be considered light? Three? Thirteen? All?

And, to even more ridiculous: Avada Kedavra is not a dark spell, because it only kills one person. It doesn't harm people.

On another note: What is a dark creature to you? One that uses dark spells? One that feeds on humans? One that is cursed and can't help what it is?

Now this sounds a tad condesceding.

Is this supposed to be an insult?

 

Yeah, people get too involved in the color metaphor. There is no grey magic, there are neutral (grey) people. In my opinion, the only spells that have a chance to be classified as Light and Dark are the ones that *require* an emotion to make them work. This is seperate from labeling them good and evil. Realistically, Dark magic is whatever the ministry defines it as. A person can be a grey wizard, however, as a political statement supposing there also exists the Light and Dark political parties.

The Dark label itself has a couple different meanings. A dark wizard seems to be 1.) someone who uses ministry defined dark magic. 2.) someone who repeatedly uses magic to harm others 3.) a follower of a Dark Lord or, for the kiddies, 4) a right evil or annoying bastard you don't like.

Any person who voluntarily takes up the title of Dark Lord starts off by ceding the moral high ground to his opponents, thus making them the 'Light'. In my opinion the 'Light' side would only end up called that if they were the ones in control of society. The inclusion of a more neutral third party in control of society, ie the Ministry, prevents the declaration of a Light side in Harry Potter. Dumbledore and Harry's side cannot call themselves the Light side without popular acclaim and neither can the Ministry without the backing and visible support of Albus Dumbledore. In most cases the adapting of the term Light would be a political move.

The Light label in fanfic is usually a convenience unless handled either very well or very badly. It's just that few people take the time to decide what it means to be a Light wizard aside from 'a good guy' or 'Albus Dumbledore'.

 

If Moody has never used the Unforgivables then why would Dumbledore ask Moody to show the students them, and actually use one on them? This implies that Moody has experience with the Unforgivables, and one might even go as far to say that he is very good at them.

I agree, I am against polarization.

Frankly, this argument is a waste of time. In canon every time Boggarts have been mentioned or shown, they are singular. From what we can gather from canon, Boggarts are 'lone wolf' creatures, they don't come in packs like Dementors. Therefore, one would never encounter two Boggarts at once, thus Riddikulus does not ward off dark creatures.

When one kills a person, you are automatically harming people. Not in the physical sense, but emotionally. Pretty much everyone has someone to mourn them when they die. If you kill someone, you harm their family, friends, significant other, etc. AK is a dark spell because it's sole purpose is to kill a living being, and it requires a great amount of hate to cast.

Dark creatures may be infected by a dark curse, such as werewolves and possibly vampires. Dementors are dark creatures because they feed on you emotions, cause misery, and can remove your soul from your body if they get close enough. The reason why I classify Boggarts as dark creatures is because they can infiltrate your mind to find your greatest fear to use against you to cause pain and possibly death.

 

Yep. The Dragon Highlord they wack in the first book.

 

Ah, yes. And then there is the Dragon Highlord Ariakan (sp?) who Kitiara gets with. It's been awhile since I've read any Dragonlance books.

 

Barty Crouch showed them the Unforgivables, not the real Moody.
And what I meant was not that Moody never used them (though it is possible (moreso if you count casting it on humans)), but that he would prefer not to use them if he could help it.

The argument you are making is a fucking stupid one.

How about warding off one boggart in DADA lessons, and one at Grimmauld Place? That's two boggarts, and they haven't even appeared in the same spot.

A spell that can ward off one dark creatures can ward of multiple creatures, unless your wand explodes after the first try or the spell is wiped out of the human consciousness so no one can ever cast it again.
Or there is only one of those dark creatures in existence and it is destroyed by the spell.
Or it becomes immune after that one spell.

The AK argument was actually a mutation of your boggard argument saying that if it only effects one being at a time, it doesn't count.

TL;DR: Riddikulus wards off dark creatures. Give it up already..

 

Yes, it was Barty!Moody who showed them and used the Unforgivables, but Dumbledore didn't know that. He thought it was the real Moody who he was asking to show and use the Unforgivables, this implies that the real Moody has a good deal of experience using the Unforgivables. Moody was an auror and part of the OoTP in the first war. Aurors were allowed the use of Unforgivables in the first war. One can assume from this fact and Dumbledore's actions, that Moody has a great deal of experience with the Unforgivables.

No, your argument is the fucking stupid one and you are just too stubborn and prideful to admit your mistake.

Two boggarts, yes. One location (together), no. I'm guessing you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Boggarts, from what we see in canon, do not come in packs or appear together. Thus, when one uses Riddikulus, you are not warding off dark creatures, you are warding off a single dark creature. When you describe Riddikulus, it is more accurate to say that it works on Boggarts and not dark creatures. I get what you are trying to say, but you are wrong. By saying dark creatures you are implying that it works on more than one kind of dark creature and not multiple Boggarts which is what you are trying to argue.

You aren't getting the point. You never see multiple Boggarts at once, so you can't use Riddikulus to ward off multiple dark creatures. They appear singularly. I've said this many times now. Also I would like to point out that 'ward off' isn't the most accurate description of the Riddikulus spell. Specifically, it destroys the Boggart by changing it's form to enduce laughter, which is the bane of Boggarts. That is not what a ward does. The way you are using 'ward off' is this definition: 2. To try to prevent; avert, which Riddikulus does not do. So you can see, that while you are wrong about Riddikulus 'warding off' dark creatures, you are also wrong about it 'warding off' anyting. Nice try.

No, Riddikulus does not ward off dark creatures, nor does it ward off anything. I'm done arguing with you because you are a stubborn idiot who can't admit when he's wrong. And you are derailing my thread. Get back on the fucking topic and stop trying to make useless arguments.

 

The fact that someone is "killed" would qualify as harmful and malicious intent, which would qualify the wizard as "Dark".

 

Ariakus was the Emperor who Kitiara had some sort of hate/hate relationship with. Ariakan was his son by the sea goddess.

And am I big fucking nerd for not only knowing this but correcting someone on an Interweb forum on it.

 

Everyone who seems to argue this matters, whichever side are assuming that there is a dark side.

How about if we assume there isn't? All we do have are a bunch of selfish self centered people with their own goals and wants. No light, no dark. No good, no evil. Just like in real life.

From what I always understood Riddikulus was nothing more than a visual perception changing charm. The charm itself does nothing against boggarts. It's the resulting laughter that drives it off. Who's to say you can't use it on birthday parties for funsies? Besides, laughter only drives it away, the clearly superior way of defeating a boggart is by killing it using proper spells.


And altruism and by extention Buddhism, ha! Whatever you do, it's to increase your own happiness. That lady by the busy intersection; One person derives more joy out of seeing her helpless. The other person derives more joy out of feeling a sense of self-worth by helping her. In both cases she was purely a tool with which the person acquired joy.

 

Thought I'd register and post about this, as it is one the things that annoys somewhat while reading fanfiction.

I believe it was Sirius who said something along the lines of:

"Always brought a man in alive when he could"

when asked about Mad Eye Moody. Implying (to a degree) that he did use the unforgivables like the rest of the Aurors, however refrained from doing so while possible.

The way I read the Authors post, is that he believes dark and evil are not synonymous, that a wizard using reducto to kill several people (if that were possible) would in fact be evil. However, anyone who practices the dark arts would be a Dark Wizard (ie. Aurors during the first war).

The way I view canon, is there is no real 'light' or 'dark' side, people may see it that way (during times of war) but there are just different practices or areas of magic. The Dark Arts is just the same as Transfiguration or Charms, there of course may be some overlap between the areas but essentially using the Dark Arts does not make you 'dark/evil' while not using them does not make you 'light.'

The term Dark Wizard rather confuses everything, if it's being used to describe someone who is evil or someone who practices the Dark Arts. People have probably just lumped the two into the same category, creating the Dark Side and of course the people who oppose them, the Light Side. (Paragraph may or may not be bullshit).

Finally, my perception is that while practicing the Dark Arts does not make you evil (as Snape did turn out the be on the 'good' side), though it does in fact corrupt your soul over time. More obviously with Horcruxes and somewhat less obviously with Bellatrix Lestrange, though she may have always been just completely insane.

Just my opinion.

 

Okay I can't quite remember if in the books they say dark magic or not but I know for a fact they say (Black Magic).So maybe in cannon it is just Magic,and then Black Magic?

and Demons In the Night calm down a little bit,I sense flames about to start.

 

I think I see now what you are trying to convey.

You say it can't ward of dark creatures because it can only defend against one boggart at a time, because it cannot happen that you meet two boggarts at the same time (I would think that the spell would hold true in that moment, but let's disregard that now).

What (I think) you mean is that it does not defend against dark creatures because it only defends against one type of dark creature.

As opposed to, say, a spell called "Divine Might" that smites the undead and demons and other stuff.

Now, if you want to be technical, you could still say it wards off dark creatures because two boggarts still from a pair of dark creatures, but if you mean what I think you mean, I can agree.

Meh, it averts a boggart the same way you say it destroys it.

Ooh, I'm sorry to have tread upon your holy grounds, you illbegotten shithead of a noob.
There, I can insult you too.

 

Yes. This is pretty much what I believe. My first post was probably a bit confusing and rambling, but this is essentially what I was trying to say.

About Bellatrix, she was probably a little off in the head from the start and Azkaban just made her a lot worse. I mean, she was in Azkaban for 12 or 13 years like Sirius only she didn't have an animagus form to change into to lessen the effect of the dementors.

 

Don't know if someone has said this, but I will say it now. There are a bunch of different kinds of spells, and everyone can use them. (even emotion driven spells. I have hated and loved and felt happiness and sadness all in one day folks.) Those who use spells to kill, harm, torture, etc. are considered dark wizards by SOCIETY. Those who oppose these murderers are considered light wizards by SOCIETY. There is no light or dark magic and therefore no light or dark wizards. There are spells, each of which has a certain effect, and society has labeled certain effects light or dark.

 

But that's the theory of the bad guy. You can't trust the bad guy, it goes against all logic. Admittedly good and evil are purely human concepts, and they are basically synonyms for 'Light' and 'Dark' in JKR's world, but still, judging all magic by the idea of a sociopath is not the best idea I've ever heard.

Aekiel

 

Once again,there might not be dark or light spells..but there is spells and then there is black magic. Which JKR clearly says in the books.

 

I dunno...I think that if you can make a generalized statement saying that there's no such thing as light or dark magic/wizards, then the argument can be made for the opposite side. With magic, a spell can be 'light' or 'dark' depending on it's intended use when it was conceived. Yes, obviously you can kill someone by dropping them off a cliff, but I don't think the spell was conceived along the same lines of the Avada Kedavra. Same with using a Summoning charm aimed specifically at a guy's testicles; or using an Aguamenti with the wandpoint in someone's anus. I could go on and on.

At the least, you can still use the labels without necessarily saying something contradictory. You presented the example of levitating someone off a cliff: I would still say that's 'light' magic, but I'd most likely classify the person as a 'Dark Wizard' if the wizard was looking for a vindictive way to end someone's life. Conversely I could classify the person levitating people off a cliff as a 'light wizard' if he was somehow saving someone's life by dropping this person off a cliff. Everyone is a shade of gray, but that doesn't mean that one extremely good or extremely bad action sours their overall 'darkness', or 'lightness', or whatever.

I agree with the statement that not every non-dark spell is 'light', but that doesn't rule out light or dark magic's existence. Taking someone's blood unwillinging to regenerate a body? Dark. Regardless of whether the practitioner is Dark or not.

Phoenix songs and Cheering Charms? Light. (If you could possibly come up with a way for those two to kill somebody, I'd like to know. And don't say some dumb shit like "laughing to death", because I've never seen it happen outside of Roger Rabbit. And victims of Joker gas, I guess. Both of which were retarded.)

Avada Kedavra? Depends, I guess. It's implied that you need hate to fuel it, but that's like stating that you need Latin to do spells IMO. One can hate someone else and use it as inspiration to kill another person, in an "end suffering, mercy killing" kinda way.

 

I agree with basically every point you make, but some food for thought that I've added from personal wonderment.

The "Light" and "Dark" sides of the world are simply politically inclined. Those of the 'light', are synonomous with Order and negligent peace. The 'dark' are revolutionaries to their own cause; in the Potterverse, pure blood supremacy. The simple disparaties between sides have advocated a greater pull in political stratification. The Light are protecting the government which they have collectively formed -- that is, the Ministry, the Wizengamot, and the other lower levels of political foundations within the Ministry. The Ministry is a conservative group that believes in a strict separation between the Muggle world and the Wizarding World. They advocate the whim of the people, and collectively, order.

The 'Dark' side however, is far more liberal. They favor drastic changes through whatever means necessary -- rather Machiavellan. They believe that a Wizarding World is a superior force than a muggle one, and directly seek to exert their birthright as wizards. In short, they are revolutionaries that have disregarded the laws of Order to achieve their own means through their own methods.

The public labels them as 'dark' because they are pro-change, or Pro-Violence in the case of Muggle-Wizard Relations. The 'Dark' and 'Light' stratifications exist because there simply must be a change within sides. For every struggle there has to be a 'right' side -- one that favors the upstanding government -- and the wrong side -- revolutionary change. Does darkness actually exist? No. Does light actually exist? Similarly, no. However, Current Order exists and similarly Revolutionary Thought does.

In short, the magical disparaties are largely due to the political ideals of parties. As an author, JKR tends to generalize in alotting 'dark' with 'revolutionary', but that is purely a canon disparagance. Surely there must be dark magic practitioners that stray away from a political mindset. In that case however, they would be allowing 'Order' to remain and be effectively categorized as 'Light' by my theory when they practice dark magic.

That paradox can further be labeled as the intention of a wizard himself. Why do you practice magic? To what ends? To achieve what means? Is there actually a light or dark side?

In reverse order: No. Magic does not exist in preferences, it is simply the whim of the government as a tool of regulation. Surely there must have been a time when Dark Arts were legalized, perhaps in the era of the Founders. It is only in late governments, where static idealism has removed the use of Dark Magic for its particularly violent nature (as dictated in Canon/Fanon). Dark Magic is so classified because political leaders wish for Order to be maintained but in actuality, it doesn't exist. If the Reductor Curse was abused to levels where it became an equivalent of a fatal curse when launched at the skull, would it be labeled Dark? In the current Ministry's mind, it probably would. Thus, in an effort to achieve Order, the Ministry (or any political body) has outlawed those spells that are easily used to create disruptions in orders. A power vaccuam, as it were.

The ends of practicing magic. There are two extremes shown in Canon; Voldemort and Dumbledore. Both are gifted wizards in their own right, masters of magic respectively. Yet in their duels, dark magic is rarely used. Dumbledore opens with a powerful unnamed spell, Voldemort counters with a modified shield. Does this appear to be foul play of any dark magic? Hardly so. the duel is consequently followed by the conjuration of a flame whip (arguably, Dark. However, the spell binds, it is not fatal or seemingly damaging) which is countered by transfiguration. Voldemort however, is labeled as a dark practitioner because he utilizes the spells for a fatal purpose. Every movement of his is an attempt to kill; the (most likely) deadly snake and the variety of Killing Curses. He is labeled Dark because of his purpose and intent -- his will to kill as a means of success.

Conversely, Dumbledore shows no directly violent nature. He simply 'traps' Bellatrix Lestrange under a statue when he is fully capable of killing her. Even in the Dep. of Mysteries, he leaves the stunned death eaters under Anti-Disapparition hexes. His purposes and ideals are pro-government. He fights to maintain the created order of the world and his spells are used without any fatal dictation or supposed malice (Though some distaste is obviously evident. 'Killing you would not satisfy me'). While he is obviously not light (A flame whip?), there are no spells to actually dictate that he is acting of ill intent. Because the government has already labeled someone as 'Dark' to motivate public support against such radicals, a light must exist so people know the ideal image to follow. An ideal image of maintaining order, and only resisting government through peaceful,diplomatic channels.

What is Dark and Light Magic? Nothing. Neither exists. It is simply a government's viewpoint in a (successful) attempt to stratify society into conservatists and liberals.

If you stayed with me the whole way through my digressions, points for you. That's just some of my own thoughts on the subject and may seem horridly biased in an attempt to legitimize dark magic.

 

Sooo...Demons in the Night, i feel it needs to be clarified...

In fanon, specifically, what would need to be created or used for you to consider:

1. Forms of magic and spells as 'light'
2. Groups or positions as 'light'
3. Individual wizards as 'light'