Does Canon say whether or not Morgana le Fay (or any other non-Merlin character in the King Arthur legend, for that matter) existed?

 

Ron gets Morgana's Famous Witches and Wizards card from a Chocolate Frog in the first book. It's in the same scene that Harry gets Dumbledore's.

 

Clarification - this is what I was referencing

Which leads me to believe that there's a direct affect on an individual by a Veela, rather than it being a crowd frenzy.
-------------------

Light vs. Dark wizards - Esran is correct. There is dark magic, but Harry, who is obviously one of the "good guys", uses it when he casts an Unforgivable in the fifth and again the last book, as does Hermione in the last book.

So I can't see but very little canon evidence for "light" or "dark" magic, and from there, no evidence concerning a Phoenix as is being asked here.

 

Here's a question: is there any canon evidence that dark magic is, in itself, corrupting? Sometimes in fanfics I see people saying things about how if you start doing the dark arts it makes you more inclined to do so in the future, or somehow makes you darker.

 

No, I don't believe canon states that dark magic corrupts you. I don't even think canon particularly differentiates between dark magic and non-dark magic.

 

I don't think it's corrupting in the way that it's portrayed in fanfiction, like the dark side of the force as an actively malevolent force to cause pain and suffering. Rather dark magic is different from regular magic in two principal ways, one is that it resists healing. The other is that, like in real life, it has the affect of being dangerous without needing excessive skill (see: fiendfyre). Much like you can be dangerous because you're a black belt in judo/jiu-jitsu /Krav Maga /etc or you can be dangerous because you have a gun in your hand. Both things make you dangerous but if you are carrying a gun around all the time and whip it out every time you feel the least bit uncomfortable, you're much more dangerous than a black belt (who hopefully has years of training not only in their art, but also when it is and isn't appropriate for them to attack people).

 

Evil people fear the cry of the phoenix while good people are reassured by it. That's about as close as you can get to the difference between 'light and dark'.

 

I'm not sure if the word "corruption" is ever used in that context but we do have Hagrid stating in PoA:

Of course everything Hagrid says has to be taken with a grain of salt, but nobody disagrees, so maybe there is some connection between Dark Magic and especially ruthless behaviour.
Or maybe it's not the magic itself but simply desensitisation to it and its effects over time.

Then there is Voldemort's appearance. The magic he used definitely had an effect on him, "corrupted" his appearance. Though maybe that's an effect exclusive to horcruxes.

-------------------

Question: What makes a spell/curse dark in canon? I only remember that wounds caused by Dark Magic can not be healed, and that some curses maybe need malicious intent to work to their full effect. Are they always harmful? Is there anything more?

 

In addition to the fact that dark magic is difficult to heal (it's not impossible to heal if you know the specific countercurse, as we saw Snape heal Draco during HBP), there's really only one other piece of information we have about it, which is that, according to JKR, the Death Eaters do not need to know how to cast a Patronus because the Dementors would not attack them:

So there seems to be a sense in which dark magic (or perhaps more accurately, dark wizards) do have some measurably different nature to regular wizards and that Dementors can sense this and choose not to attack them.

This is backed up by Dumbledore's statement in GoF that Voldemort and the Dementors are "natural allies".

It's also interesting that JKR indicates that a) the Patronus is used to fight against other kinds of dark magic and b) the Death Eaters would not need this defence either, because the are of the same magical orientation.

I don't think this information means you have to go full "Star Wars" however, with there being a kind of inherently evil power which is corrupting, like an external magical influence on a wizard's character. For example, going by my theory of the nature of a wizard's magic (link in sig), a wizard immersing himself in studying and using dark magic can change the nature of his magical strengths to be more oriented towards that branch of magic, and this orientation has magical reality. But it isn't something special to dark magic, because all study, practice and use of magic (and indeed pre-existing inclinations based on character) changes the nature of a wizard's magical strengths over time.

 

Voldemort does appear fearful, however, when he hears phoenix song in GoF during the priori incantatum.

The requirements of "pure of heart" are unclear though. It reminds you of Dumbledore's discussion of horcruxes and Harry's advantage over Voldemort because of his intact soul.

 

I think that's more to do with the Patronus needing 'happy' memories. It's demonstrated when Harry learns the charm that it needs much more than simply happy thoughts. Harry was happy for example finding out he was a wizard (I'm not sure that was the actual example used in canon) and he used the thought to try and power the charm; only it didn't work. Eventually he finds a 'true' happy memory/thought and the memory/thought has love in it.

To me it seems clear that the charm needs thoughts of love rather than thoughts of happiness - though they usually go hand in hand. Many Deatheaters and Voldemort are incapable of love and thus incapable of casting the charm. Presuamably not every Deatheater is a sociopath/psychopath (lets not get into another shit-throwing fest around them being different) but some like Snape clearly can because they know love.

 

I think he appeared fearful not because of the song, but rather because he had no idea what the fuck was going on. The priori incantatum scared the shit out of him.

Speaking of magical creatures, is the phoenix the only creature which does not die to the killing curse? What about dementors? Are they completely unaffected? Also what about the other highly feared creatures- dragons, giants and basilisks? Surely they would not be as feared as they are if one killing curse was all it took to take them down? Canon implies that some, if not all aurors can perform unforgivables. Why are they as feared as they are?

 

This would have been a good explanation, but Umbridge can cast a Patronus, even when under the influence of the locket horcrux, and JKR said in interview it's because she's such a mean spirited person that she can gain happiness from cruelty.

Re: Phoenixes, they do die from the Killing Curse, strictly speaking. It just so happens that they are reborn afterwards.

Dementors are not alive (Pottermore: Boggarts) so they can't be killed. They're classified not as creatures but as "non-beings".

The effects of Killing Curses on very large creatures has no answer I'm afraid. No canon on the matter at all. (My own favoured fanon is that a Killing Curse would "kill" the part of the animal it hit, e.g. a limb or wing or organ, but not the entire animal instantly).

 

JKR can be an idiot sometimes; I'm sure Voldemort gets lots of happiness every time he Cruciates someone.

 

JKR only said the Death Eaters do not need to learn how to make Patronuses. She doesn't say they would be incapable of doing so if they wanted to learn a useless skill. So it's not inconsistent with the Umbridge thing. Umbridge is evil but she isn't a dark witch in the same way Death Eaters are, so presumably needs protection from Dementors.

 

My fanon thought is that the Killing Curse pushes the soul to the other side and does so in such a manner it shocks the body causing your heart to stop. If you don't cast the killing curse correctly (i.e. the better you are at casting something the more powerful it is) then not all of the soul passes. Because some of your soul is left on this plane it drags the rest of the soul back and you survive. The larger the body is the more power needed to remove the soul and thus you need to cast the spell flawlessly to kill something large.

I think we're breaking the rules here.

---------- Post automerged at 00:40 ---------- Previous post was at 00:38 ----------

Maybe we need a thread for things that have gotten out of control in this thread?

 

Back to Stan's post

Phoenix's do die from a killing curse, but they are then reborn and I believe that Dementors are non- beings?
Killing curses require hatred or a form of anger and most people's fear would overwhelm any anger as they would be too busy running and I think in DH book 2, Hermione was going to stun the giant but Ron told her not to as it would crush part of a castle

 

Please provide evidence of this.