And there's where the whole 'intention vs. mechanics' debate comes into it. There's no easy answer as it wasn't clearly defined in canon, but suffice to say the original point still stands regardless of this: don't make up stupid incantations for spells.

I once explored these concepts in a story I wrote, where the signature incantation used was 'Aunt Petunia is a pig' to demonstrate the theory behind it that even ridiculous incantations are usable due to intent and that it's mainly fault of tradition that most incantations are derived from Latin. To take that as something concrete, however, is useless since no matter how much we debate the point it would be entirely conjecture.

I'm not sure that the original point is so pertinent to stories these days as to actually merit a law: I've never seen it done in a story, and most would take the line by themselves, I imagine, that they'd rather it be consistent with the rest of the Harry Potter universe.

Thus my stance is that this would be a useless Potter law, but nonetheless one worth considering the merits of.

 

Point Me is one, wouldn't Stupefy be a more common example?

Edit: Ninja'd by others, but the point still stands.

 

That cannot be true because it's possible to cast a spell without knowing what it will do if you know the incantation. Harry Potter is not Dresden Files; the actual words do matter. One spell has only one possible incantation.

This is what I wrote in BGP:

 

Potter Law M(X)I: Harry is not a Wand.

Wands have magical cores. Harry does not.

 

Is their an instance where someone uses Harry as a wand?

 

[x] cores come from magical creatures.
[x] wizards and witches are magical creatures.

 

Also:

​

I'm slightly mad that a chocolate frog card - and not the actual story - is direct confirmation of direct wandless magic, but there we are.

 

[x] This does not excuse any instance of Harry using Ginny's hair as a core for his wand
[x][x] Double infraction for it making the wand use The Power of TRU LUV

 

I have no idea what kind of stories you have been reading... I think I've read one maybe two that have Harry's hair in it, and none with Ginny's

 

Seriously, though. Every time I see characters having inherent "magical cores" it's always for the sole purpose of saying "yours is so much bigger than normal!"

It's a piece of fanon that just. won't. die.

 

True, I'd forgotten about that. I'd argue that Andros is pretty much visual proof of the fanon dream, whereas Quirrel's display was an underwhelming snap of the fingers.

Temple-full of virgins.

 

Potter Law #?: Personal Pet Peeves =/= Potter Law

 

Are you nuts? Temple-full-of-virgins is a recipe for disaster and overwhelming disappointment. It would end up looking like he'd use Sectumsempra in there...

Better: temple full of under-appreciated MILFs

Best: temple full of horny coeds eager to experiment

I'd imagine his happy memory begins with "Erecto! Engorgio! Duro!"

And yes, I know that first one was used on a tent, but hey, magic's all about intent.

 

I'm a long time lurker on DLP but it seems appropriate to have my first post be about another annoying fan fiction cliche.

I haven't seen this Law posted anywhere in this thread and I'll be honest, I have no idea what number it's reached.

Potter Law ??? - While it is well documented that Hagrid has a bit of a hard time with the english language (though not as bad as fanfiction probably makes him out to be), that's because he's a hick who lives in a shack with his dog. There's no reason for other characters to suddenly slip into, or develop, a powerful "Scottish brogue" accent. Just because McGonagall gets upset doesn't mean she should lose the ability to talk normally.

He heard a loud crack behind and then a thick Scottish brogue. "Albus, 'ow are ye goin' to fin' 'im?"

Seriously?? I've lost track of the number of fics where Hagrid sounds smarter than her. Even though all he's doing is kissing Dumbledore's ass.

 

Speaking of 'Magical Cores'...is that popular fanon or actual canon?

 

Fanon. Only cores that are ever mentioned are wand cores.

 

Right, thanks.

 

Mind you, it's debatable whether it is possible to get someone that wrong in the head right.