I have a theory that Harry will seek Grindelwald on the quest to find the Elder's wand...Incidently what do you think Santi will do with the Elder's wand-destory it using Albus' plan or make Riddle the true owner f the wand?

 

My theory about Harry being infamous: Harry will be confronted to a difficult choice and between two evils, will choose what he considers the lesser one like killing ten to save hundreds. (Think OldHarry in The Unforgiving Minute.)

It will still be considered an evil thing. When you add that people are stupid when they are in a mass, Harry will be labeled a Dark wizard.

 

I think he may become obsessed with learning magic to such a degree, that he completley looses his morality, kinda like voldemort, and will start to think along the same lines as Grindelwald, that muggles should be subservant to witches, and wizards everywhere

 

I differ with you Elflord....Harry wont do that to muggles. the fact that he celebrates his b'day by making a wish and blowing the candles(muggle way) is proof enough - even Nathan tries to differ in that point. There might be an instance where killing would be the only option to save Nathan or others (or something- as he did in the last chapter) and other might look it as a evil thing

 

This is just fucking retarded. Harry's obsession with learning magic and being the best leads him to cross boundaries that his family and the general wizarding world consider Dark and evil, but he's not stupid enough to kill human beings for the sake of learning. He knows that there would be consequences far worse than his family's disapproval.

 

His mothers Muggleborn.....:facepalm

 

Well, at any rate, I'm thinking he'll kill Ron.

 

If Harry kills anyone from good guys, my money is on (spoiler alert - deaths confirmed by Santi, though it could change since when he said that)

Spoiler

Hermione's parents.

 

:facepalmPerhaps I could have phrased that better. I'm not talking about actual sympathy. I'm talking about awareness of who is using it. The Elder Wand is like other wands in that it has a master and only works at its best when being used by them. The cloak and stone are just a cloak and stone. They don't take note of a master and work equally well for everyone.

 

Not true, at least if Dumbledore in King's Cross is to be believed.

Dumbledore speaking to Harry: "But the Cloak, I took out of vain curiosity, and so it could never work for me as it works for you, its true owner."

 

Then I sit corrected. How did the ring work for Harry if Tom still lived? Unless it passes ownership like a wand?

 

Rowling has never been known for her consistency.

 

Not sure magic is known for its consistency either, tbh.

 

Writing an inconsistent magic system is stupid unless it's a plot point, just like anything else with inconsistencies.

 

Just FYI, the phrase in English is, "I stand corrected."

 

About the ring....Riddle had made it a horcrux and abondoned it believing it won't be need by him ever again as it was meant to be safe, but Albus had intervened in this plan and took it and thus became it new master...then he decided to pass on it to Harry.

About the cloak, James had willingly lent it to Ablus for a short time; so the cloak still remained under the family of Potters

IMO anyway!

 

True enough, you can't disprove the idea of additional powers for the Cloak if you're the "appropriate" owner. But I'm inclined to think something else, because of a quote from Dumbledore earlier in the chapter:

Dumbledore could not have used the cloak nearly as effectively as Harry did, because he wouldn't have run into as many situations where he'd need to hide others with it. Possibly he wouldn't have been inclined to even think of using it that way.

Contrast that to Harry, who hid multiple people under the cloak in book 1, again in book 7, and probably many books in between.

 

It's amazing how much people have come to equate a Newtonian view of the world with the idea of consistency. The idea that the universe is a load of things bumping into each other according to purely determinate and mechanistic rules. The idea following from this that any change in an outcome must be explainable in some (perhaps unknown) initial condition being different.

But the real world doesn't even work like that. I have no idea why we should demand it of magic when we don't demand it of photons.

People need to get their heads around the fact that quantum mechanics isn't some kind of aberration that is going to go away. We simply can't keep thinking of the universe as essentially Newtonian/mechanistic, with quantum effects as some kind of exception that we can ignore.

 

To be entirely fair, in my experience most people only even kinda know what quantum physics is.