​

I believe it is HoS time. Kthxbai.

 

Nah. Nameless is a faggot, but it's still an interesting conversation topic IMO.

On topic: I think the Cloak is truly a Hallow, yet also the weakest Hallow. The other two are much better, especially for (as Dumbledore might say) the organized mind. Look at how long he had the wand, and look at how he pretty much dominated for decades. Keeping the wand means, basically, keeping your mouth shut about it - that's all.

As for the Resurrection Stone, christ....can you imagine all the shit you could do with the ability to commune with the dead? The different minds you could bounce ideas off of, lost cultures you can find out about...

And then there's The Cloak. The Cloak's usefulness was nullified when the Homminis Revelio (sp) spell and the magical eye were created.

Question: would the brother wand of the Deathstick be an Elder wand of the same dimensions, but with a phoenix feather core (the magical animal that best represents life) ?

 

Eh, I'm not sure the Elder Wand was what made Dumbledore so strong. He was already famous for his extraordinary magical abilities before he defeated Grindelwald -- and he defeated him even though Grindelwald had the Elder Wand; if anything, his greatest achievement with the Wand was not to use its full power.

Agreed here. You'd need to know who to call though; I'm not sure how this Hallow works, but I think Harry pictured his lost relatives/friends in his mind before they appeared.

Just like the Cloak, the Elder Wand doesn't have an absolute power: Grindelwald, a genius of Dumbledore's level, was defeated by an opponent who didn't have the Wand. Plus, its power can turn upon its owner: it's the Hallow other wizards covet the most. You needn't even brag about it, but if you use its full power constantly, someone is bound to notice the Wand isn't just any wand.

On the other hand, the stone seems to have an absolute power -- as long as you merely want to talk to the dead, and not bring them back. Then again its power can turn upon its master, just like the Elder Wand. It may be dangerous to bring back some people and uncover some truths. It may be addictive. It may lead to insanity, etc.

Damnit. You just gave me ideas.

Anyway, all in all, the Cloak may not be the most powerful Hallow since its power can be circumvented (just as the Elder Wand's power was circumvented many times, after all nearly all its owners had it stolen from them and most were killed in the process) but it might be the least dangerous, as evidenced in the Three Brothers' Tale. Although, a thief and a murderer could have great use of a Cloak like this one.

Not sure what you mean. o_o Harry and Voldemort's wands were brothers because their cores came from the same animal. Over the years, there must have been many wands of the same dimensions and made out of the same type of wood, it doesn't make them brothers... Maybe a wand coming from the same Elder? But that, too, is bound to happen; unless there's a magical rule saying one tree can only give one wand. I can see that happening.

Does anyone know what's the core of the Elder Wand, by the way?

 

I believe it was a Thestral hair. Don't quote me on that, though.

 

I suppose. I think the wand's power lies in its abilities to make hard or unimaginable tasks easy. I'm sure Olivander could have repaired Harry's wand, given time and study (canon doesn't say if he can actually repair them), but Harry just used "Reparo" and it was set. The stories are all told from Harry's perception, so what he sees as "a flick of Dumbledore's wand" would probably take more than a flick with his original wand - and even more effort than that for other wizards/witches, given his already high skill level.

It could go both ways, really: favoring Dumbledore's prowess, or the wand's power. Meh.

That's fairly easy. Worst-case scenario: you'd have to do a reverse oral tradition, tracing back where each dead person heard their interpretation of certain knowledge or legends from until you got back to someone who was involved in whatever knowledge was sought.

Best case scenario: it works like the Mirror of Erised, and fills in the necessary gaps (namely, specific names of persons sought). The stone can obviously summon more than one person, who's to say it can't bring back a whole team of scientists, or explorers, or village, etc?

Size is no indication of power.

I really, really doubt that. The confrontation between Dumbledore and Grindelwald was well-known, but no one knew the exact details - especially not about the existence of the Wand. What it comes down to IMO, is that (a) if you're stupid, you'll eventually blab about the nature of the wand. (b) If you're not, people will attribute your prowess in magic to your own skill. I had said it in another thread, but it seemed like one of the rules surrounding wandlore included not just letting anybody take your wand (like how one would share a new toy with another). My guess is that for those masters of the Deathstick who were relatively intelligent or skilled, they may not have known that they were fighting against a wizard with the Wand, and simply took the owner's wand as "spoils of the duel" or something.

I had an idea for this, involving a not-so-stupid Ginny finding out about the stone from Diary Tom, and Dumbledore making Harry the master of the Elder Wand at an earlier age. Havoc ensues.

I suppose "brother" is the wrong term. I think I was going for "direct opposites" or "equal opposites" - something along those lines.

The core of the Elder wand is thestral hair, so Thestrals, being the embodiment of death, are opposite to phoenixes, being the embodiment of life. There's already evidence of animals being natural enemies (Acromantulas and basilisks) - perhaps that antagonism exists between other creatures, and their respective emnity extends to wand cores. So two wands, made from the same elder wood, same length, with the different cores - what might happen ?

 

And what exactly is wrong with being a 14 year old. I'm 14!!

P.S what colorful language you all have.........

 

I'm not so certain, from what I've seen, people always seem to underestimate the ability of the Cloak to conceal its master.

According to DH, the Cloak of Invisibility is supposed to conceal its master form visual and magical detection without fail. From what I've read in all seven books, the Cloak did its job perfectly.

There is the issue of both Dumbledore and Moody both being able to see through the Cloak, but I think I may have a plausible explanation. Most people seem to assume that an artifact with properties like Moody's eye is common or relatively simple to acquire, but if that's true, then every self-respecting Auror and their mothers would have one. Not to mention the occasional rich pervert teenager. Hell, even Voldemort, who we know has no qualms about mutilating his body and soul for any advantage, doesn't have something like Moody's eye. So, it's my opinion that artifacts like Moody's eye, or at the very least the enchantments upon them, are extremely rare, possibly unique.

So if the enchantments on Moody's eye are so rare, who could have the skill and knowledge to pull it off? Albus Dumbledore. We know for a fact that Dumbledore and Moody are old, close friends, so it stands to reason that Dumbledore might have enchanted the eye as a gift for Moody after his real eye was lost. And if you think about it, it really is the perfect gift for a paranoid Auror. It also stands to reason that Dumbledore may have cast similar enchantments on his own glasses.

Finally, we have to take into account the tool with which Dumbledore cast those enchantments: the Elder Wand. I believe that the three Deathly Hallows, while performing different functions, are essentially equal in terms of the magical strength they can apply to their individual duties. The enchantments on Dumbledore's glasses and Moody's eye were able to penetrate the Cloak because the enchantments themselves were strengthened by both the Elder Wand and Dumbledore's own prodigious skill and power.

Aside from those exceptions, the Cloak has concealed Harry from visual and magical detection without fail. With regards to the Homenum Revelio spell, each time it was used, Harry was not using the Cloak. I believe that if Harry had been under the Cloak when a Homenum Revelio was cast, unless it had been cast through the Elder Wand, the Cloak would have succeeded in hiding him.

 

It was said in an interview with JKR that Dumbledore could not see through the Cloak, instead taking advantage of the Hominum Revelio spell. IIRC, the reason that the trio didn't detect the spell in the 3rd book (unlike when they did in the 7th) was because(a) the warm feeling it generates was masked by the fact that they were standing by the fireplace in Hagrid's hut, and (b) Dumbledore cast it silently.

As for Moody's eye, that wouldn't appeal to Voldemort because he'd see that as a crutch and a liability. Ignoring the fact that Hominum Revelio all but eliminates the usefullness of invisibility cloaks and disillusionment charms, having an enchanted eye that spins all around everywhere at the risk of being Summoned is absurd.

And it is absurd: only school kids find the eye intimidating. Adults thought it was mad ("barmy, cuckoo" mad, not "psycho Bellatrix Lestrange" mad). That lack of seriousness/intimidation wouldn't appeal to Voldemort at all.

I also don't think Voldemort necessarily planned the mutilation he went through while making Horcruxes. What he had undertaken had never been done before to the level he was attempting, so there was no way to predict that he'd end up with red eyes or a snake-like visage. For all we know, he could've ended up looking more ape-like, like his mother's side of the family. He had no problems taking advantage of his looks when he was in school and working for Borgin and Burkes, so it stands to reason that he probably wasn't pleased with looking like a freak. Rarely ANYONE outside of his Death Eaters saw his face without dying - discounting the end of the 5th and 7th books.

He didn't cast them on his glasses, as outlined above.

LOL, I don't think so. That's essentially saying that everything enchanted by the Elder Wand becomes a Hallow, and therefore defeats the other two Hallow's powers. I think that the eye, like the Hominum Revelio spell, are examples of magical development that the Perevell brothers didn't count on - just because wizards are ass-backwards in many ways compared to muggles, doesn't mean that research and development doesn't happen at all. The Wand may make things a helluva lot easier, but it doesn't mean that magical acts can't be accomplished by other means.

Wha? Explain this one to me.

 

Well hot damn blaise, those are some nice points there. I had no idea that interview with JKR even happened, damn her for destroying one my theories.

With the Homenum Revelio, I had thought your last post was referring to what happened at the Lovegood house in DH, where the DEs cast that spell after the Erumpet horn blew up. Obviously, I was wrong.

I concede that you may be correct on most points...or even all of them, but I still have faith in my Elder Wand enchanted eye theory. I wasn't trying to say that everything the Elder Wand enchants becomes a Hallow, just a tremendously powerful enchanted object. It makes little sense that just because something was spelled by the Elder Wand it becomes a Hallow. The Deathly Hallows are not just three separate entities, otherwise blaise would be right, rather the Hallows are both three and one: Three limbs of the same animal or three instruments governed by the same power/being. The Hallows each exist uniquely and perform unique duties, and yet all three have some magical/spiritual connection with the others.

I was trying to say that spells cast through the Elder Wand not only possess the strength of a Hallow, but also the power and skill of the wizard wielding the wand, perhaps power enough to overcome the Cloak. This would explain how Moody's eye can see through the Cloak, and how Dumbledore could detect Harry's presence using the Elder Wand and Homenum Revelio.

 

The three-in-one comment got me thinking... We know that DH was full of Christian symbolism that reflected JKR's uncertainty about religion, but could the Deathly Hallows be a reflection of the nature of God?

Think about it - We first have the Elder Wand, supposedly the most powerful wand in existence, thus symbolising omnipotence. Then we have the Cloak, which hides the wearer from Death itself, effectively allowing them to be anywhere he or she wishes to be without being perceived - this symbolises omnipresence. Thirdly we have the Resurrection Stone to communicate with the dead, which could be seen as a method of becoming omniscient. Thus we have the three aspects of God.

Adding on to that the nature of God means that He can do anything because he is omnipotent, even doing something that should not be possible. Thus the Elder Wand is capable of detecting people under the Cloak of Invisibility because it encompasses the illogical nature of God, and is able to gift the same power unto others as a way of gifting the enlightened. Moody was always loyal to Albus, who is the the HP representation of God, and does God not reward those who are loyal to him?

Going back to my original point though, the three aspects of God are held within the Deathly Hallows, but only when they come together do they give mastery over death, thus symbolising the immortal nature of God. Albus Dumbledore has held each of the Hallows at one time or another, and Harry Potter keeps only a single Hallow for his own use because of his role in HP as the representation of Jesus (it would have been more symbolic if he had kept the Elder Wand because Jesus was omnipotent, but hey, you can't have everything... >_>).

 

Believe me, most intelligent Christians have already noticed the similarities -- and this from book 1. DH probably is the most obvious, with lines from the Scriptures quoted on the graves of wizards that are never shown to be religious.

 

The rabid, brain dead hordes that buy into JKR got the full text delivered to her one night after sacrificing a couple of babies to some sulfurous smelling, goat headed, cloven footed Satan aren't going to be influenced at all...

 

I thought I might as well dump this here where I know certain individuals would read it. Do you people even realise that trolls do absolutely anything for a reaction? For a forum that is supposedly experienced in dealing with them you didn't handle me too well. Getting banned tells me I hit the right buttons. It goes like this, you ban me, I see ban, proceed to laugh my arse off while plotting next bit of trolling. Ignoring trolls is the best possible way to make them piss off. We lose interest rather easily if people ignore us.

You might want to delete this account or do whatever you do as I will not be posting here again, your insults are just too crappy and unimaginative for me to bother provoking you. Go right ahead and HoS it, I'll only make me grin more. One more thing, to anyone who called me a bitch, you've got it terribly wrong. The problem is, I'm not female, so you might want to rethink those insults.

 

@Namless (because we know you're still here looking for attention):

That.

 

Translation: "LOLOL YOU BANNED ME I LAUGHED MY ASS OFF!!!"

Now that is, indeed, an imaginative reply. I am struck speechless.

And as for how we usually handle trolls? Er, we ban them. o_o