JKR made sure to introduce souls to her world of magic. Thus, while theoretically you could transfigure a rock into a human (you'd have to be pretty good at Transfiguration to do so though, since Human Transfiguration is one of the hardest bits of Transfiguration, and that's even on the small scale) they would not have a soul, and would thus be equivalent to a Dementor victim: no consciousness or self: just a body (in JKR's world self is separate from the body).

Presumably animals in JKR's world don't have souls, and thus a Transfigured animal behaves just as a natural one does.

We actually get to see a glimpse of this in HBP: Hermione uses the spell "Oppugno" to make her conjured birds attack Ron. Whether or not this works only on animals the caster themselves has created, or is a more general animal-control charm is up for debate.

Either way, I'd say Cedric used a charm like this to make his Transfigured dog do his bidding.

 

I would imagine there would be significant difficulties in transfiguring humans. I think it was mentioned in GoF that Human Transfiguration was an advanced concept, most likely of NEWT level.

Disregarding the fact that a human is more complex than an animal, the usefulness of such a thing is disputable. Since it disappears in presumable a short amount of time, the amount of effort to repeat the spell for a significant number of an army makes it inefficient.

From a purely servant/slave perspective (no sex slave), there are easier methods to obtain one. Go down to the local House Elf shop and buy two, a male and a female. Your house elf needs are fulfilled for generations.

Sex slave, eh, I could see the reasoning, despite the concept being strange for me. If that was truly desirable, one could merely Confound or Imperius a pretty Muggle girl into it.

I am rather biased however, since I seem to have an irrational hate of transfiguration. Others may disagree.

 

Conjured items disappear after a few hours, unless the conjuration is done extremely well (Dumbledore's sleeping bags) but we have no reason to think that transfiguration isn't permanent.

While I agree that most Potions and Charms are not permanent, I do think that Transfiguration is. We know from JKR's spell definitions on her site that the difference between Charms and Transfiguration is that a Charm adds a superficial effect to an object, whereas Transfiguration changes the object itself. If the object itself is changed (say, from a rabbit to a dog) then the Transfiguration reversing itself would be as random as, say, any normal dog spontaneously turning into a rabbit, since a rabbit that has been transfigured into a dog isn't "a rabbit that has been transfigured into a dog", it's just a dog like any other.

The only way to get the rabbit back would be to transfigure it back (Untransfiguration).

House Elves are pretty expensive though. Far cheaper, if you have the necessary skill (which I think only people of McGonagall's and Dumbledore's caliber would), to transfigure yourself a soulless human and use the Imperius on it to do your bidding. There aren't even any moral objections, since it has no soul.

 

Because while you could create a human body, you wouldn't be able to create a soul--all you'd get is whatever a human is when its soul is sucked out by a dementor.

 

You see this is just one more reason why I hate transfiguration. It seemed as a cheap cop out for JKR to add more magic without actually clearly setting some limits or usefulness for it.

The problem with this is the effect and impact it has on society. If transfiguration was permanent and presumably not great effort wise the already shambled explanation of Wizarding economy would collapse completely.

It would make it remarkably easy for even the poorest of wizards to transfigure useless items into more useful ones, eliminating any incentive to work and creating a nation of welfare dependant wizards, the government granting welfare being replaced with magic itself.

I may be wrong in my interpretation of Transfiguration, but for me it is a limited usefulness magic, with disappearing effects, that is perhaps most useful in battle, adventure and so on.

As for conjuration, I refuse to believe it exits, no matter what was said. Plus, all examples of conjuration can be explained as objects being transported from storage rather than created from thin air.

Only the initial investment is expensive. From then on they can be multiplied like dogs. I have a house elf male. You own a house elf female. We have them breed, I get to keep half the children, you get to keep the other half.

Would a soulless person be able to do even the basic of tasks without permanent guidance. It is unreasonable to assert that the Imperius curse is a 24 hour controlling of the subject's mind since, it would severely handicap its usefulness. Instead it must be some general guidelines, the subject's own mind adding the necessary addition.

 

This is the reason why I love Transfiguration so much: I'd argue that it's the most powerful of magics, since it changes the world as it is, rather than just overlaying a superficial effect that wears off.

I think you're either underestimating the difficulty of Transfiguration, or overestimating the skill level of the general population. Transfiguration is always described in the books as very difficult, and I'd say that only the best students would have the skill to do fine detail work such as making clothes. Remember, even in his fifth year, Harry's Transfiguration was still only partial - the Transfigured object would still possess the same pattern as the original object, for example. And Harry was a slightly above-average wizard.

Also, JKR has said that there are laws (legal ones, not magical ones) that say what you can transfigure and what you can't. Presumably they're there to prop up the economy, like Muggles have subsidies on farming.

There's an implied "P3. The opposite to sending objects into non-being is bringing objects out of non-being." there.

For a person who likes to talk about the superiority of wizards, you certainly like to try and cripple magic

 

It is true that Transfiguration changes matter itself instead of improving it, but the most powerful of magics it is not.

In terms of most powerful of magics we have to consider the usefulness of it. It merely creates objects out of other objects. It has some uses in battle, but they are limited, since it is a complex art and presumably takes a fair amount of concentration.

Let's analyse the usefulness of Transfiguration in different domains:

Battle

We have seen it used to great effect by a very powerful/skilful wizard (depending on whether you agree with Taure's concept of magic), but as you mentioned it is a rather complex art.

In this case the Dark Arts are unrivalled. They are presumably also difficult to achieve, but their result is far quicker and effective. To me there is no spell that can compete with the Killing Curse in battle. A stunner can be reversed, a conjured arrow can be vanished, a disarming jinx can be blocked etc.

Daily life

There is also the talent and the ability to visualise a tasteful object involved in creating an object. Even if I had the power or skill required to transfigure permanent clothing, I may not have the taste or imagination to make fashionable clothing.

Charms on the other hand are very useful spells for daily life. Moving furniture is easy due to levitation charms, carrying objects around is made easier by reducing their weight or having bottomless bags etc.

Medical field

The transfiguration of organs, if human transfiguration can be achieved, and if transfiguration is permanent may seem a useful application of magic. Lost an eye? Transfigure one from a pebble and regrow the connections to your body. Still, we have not seen it used, so we must presume there is a barrier to it. Perhaps Transfigured objects do not last, so you will suffer the pain of said eyeball disappearing after a while, resulting in severe pain as your occular nerve is severed.

Potions, on the other hand we have seen used in Medical purposes very often, and is the Magical Art that is most likely linked to the medical field.

I could go on, but I will let you counterargument and mention one field where Transfiguration is unchallenged.

This I agree with. Even if you like to call it power or skill, it is highly unlikely a great proportion of the population would be able to do it. From that perspective I can see my theory of perpetual welfare being challenged. I concede this point.

These laws, even if they existed (I tend to discard Interviews and websites), would be subject to control for effective enforcement. The bureaucracy associated would be huge.

To take one example, Arthur's flying car was a clear violation of the Missuse of Muggle Artefacts, his own department ironically, but he had no issue with breaking it for his own enjoyment. Would transfiguring some proper furniture, floorboards and the such for his starving hovel be such a far fetched concept.

If you couldn't afford to adequately supply your family, the temptation to transfigure would be very hard to resist.

Also laws against using magic for self benefit, I doubt would resist in a world that advocates the use of magic as the single, most effective solution for everything.

Merely trying to create a society that can work without deus ex machina concepts. I still think magic is superior. (see Dark Arts preference)

 

I think you're rather oversimplifying dueling. A good dueler is one that utilizes all areas of magic, not just one. Case in point: Dumbledore beat Voldemort in the MoM without only 2 directly offensive spells (fire whip and unknown powerful spell). All the rest was Transfiguration and Charms used in an offensive and defensive way.

I think you're rather downplaying the usefulness of being able to have any object that you desire.

Yes, a person who is crap at Transfiguration won't be able to Transfigure themselves much, but a person who is crap at Charms won't be able to Charm much either.

When deciding which of the two magics is more useful, difficulty shouldn't be a factor - we're discussing which branch of magic is better, in and of itself.

I'd say that Transfiguration is used a lot in the medical field. Transfiguration NEWT is required to become a healer. Mending a broken bone with the flick of a wand (which we know Madam Pomfrey can do) sounds a lot like a piece of human transfiguration to me: transfigure the broken bone into a non-broken one.

It's true that Transfiguration doesn't appear to be able to heal eye problems, but this is a plot device: JKR wanted Harry to have glasses to give him a visible and obvious weakness. By all rights it should be able to transfigure eyes, since it can Transfigure other parts of the human body.

I can't think of any other fields period, so go for it. I guess the fact that you can Transfigure silver - a pretty valuable metal - would be useful in the field of "making loads of money".

 

I've always considered galleons, sickles, and knuts to be fiat currency, not worth the materials they're made out of. Gold, silver and bronze just happen to be the valuable metals we think of because of the Olympic awards.

Was there ever any canon mention of gold being valuable on it's own, in non-galleon form? I always figured the Goblins and/or the Ministry controlled the creation of money in a Fed-like way.

If money is fiat, it would certainly make transfiguration less likely to wreck the wizarding economy.

 

Philosopher's stone.

Even if that's the case, silver is a valuable metal regardless of what sickles are made of.

 

The stone created gold, did that ever translate into riches? I can't remember.

 

Why does everyone assume that the Weasleys are so poor?

Yes, they have a large number of children, but by the time we meet them in book 1, the eldest two are already living on their own. So we are down to five with four in school. By book 6, there are only two in school and Arthur has had a big raise. They are still living in the same way they did before.

I'd say that the way they live isn't so much an indication of the finances as it is habits/conditioning.

Besides, other than their house being described as oddly constructed, there is no indication that the roof leaks, the furniture is worn out, their clothes are nothing but a collection of patches...all the things that the Gaunts were described as being.

Yes, Arthur broke the laws in making the car, but he could use the excuse that he was doing work related experiments.

But on the other hand, Molly obviously did not approve of it and she seems to be the one to enforce the 'no magic outside of Hogwarts' rule at home. So i would say that she is the reason they have 'plain' furnishings/decor as opposed to luxurious.

Slughorn would have absolutely no problems taking an ordinary chair and transfiguring it into some much more luxurious.

As to the things that are prohibited by law from being transfigured, I'd go so far as the Ministry probably has some sort of 'tamper proof' charms put on them, in addition to the laws. Therefore clothing sold in wizarding shops is, by benefit of the charms, nearly impossible to transfigure into something 'better'. Also the reason most wizards just wouldn't buy 'Muggle' clothes would be 'pride'. All wizards, who are not specifically labeled Muggleborn, seem to have it to some degree. The Gaunts are an example of wizards having it to the degree of self harm. They'd rather live in abject squalor than stoop to use anything Muggle.

As to the gold/Galleon thing, isn't there a line in one of the books, OotP, I think, that states something about the tamper proof nature of the coin and that they have 'mint marks' on them?

Aren't the 'mint marks' what Hermione used for the time/date for her 'fake' Galleons for the DA?

 

Dumbledore said something at the end in the hospital wing about "as much riches and life as a person could wish for", or something along those lines.

 

Harry Potter magic is starting to really piss me off, the more I think about it. Transfiguration and Conjuration, especially.

I've been thinking, actually, about just replacing Transfiguration with a Basic Alchemy course in Hogwarts, and just getting rid of Conjuration, in an AU fic I have (kind of) planned. Maybe have McGonagall and Dumbledore be Alchemy teachers rather than Transfiguration teachers, or something?

But then again, I really liked LogrusMage's idea of Alchemy being used to make powerful enchanted objects, too.

Or I could just continue to be very vague about it, like canon.

...Damn it all. If I ever get to time-travel, the first thing I'm doing is bitch slapping some sense into JKR.

 

You dislike it because it's too powerful? Lame.

The problem doesn't lie in Transfiguration, the problem lies in JKR making a crap wizarding society that doesn't use their magic to anywhere near its potential. By all rights wizards shouldn't need money, except to pay for people to perform feats of magic for them (or enchanted items) that they themselves cannot do.

 

The Weasleys are poor. They are described as poor, Ron considers himself poor, they have second hand robes, a house that barely keeps itself toghether with magic.

I am not saying that there is anything evil associated with being poor, but I do not like to rename things for not being mean or some other strange concept.

Now as to why they are poor?

First of all number of children. A strange reason that I simply cannot comprehend is that poorer people also tend to have more children. Considering children are rather expensive to maintain for a rather long period of time, give or take eighteen years, I do not understand why any person that is below the middle line of wealth (aka not middle class, but lower class) would have more than one or two children.

I tend to dislike children, but people seem to like them, so I don't suggest the outrageous claim of making no children if you are indeed poor. Although to me that sounds like a sound business decision, thus cutting the costs on your family.

Second reason why Weasleys are dirt poor is that despite the number of children, Molly Weasley is a housewife. Now, if she actually got a job instead of feeding the clan, the family might be better off.

Third reason. Despite the small country size of the family, there is no sign that any of the grown children do anything to support the family. Mentalities might be different, but I would support my poverty stricken family if I made it out on my own.

They buy second hand robes, second hand books, can't seem to afford even the most basic creature comforts (brooms). We see their empty vault, they are embarrassed by it etc etc etc. I could go on and point dozens of events that prove how poor the Weasleys are.

Now, they are not absolute beggars, under the poverty line, whatever you want to call it, since they have managed to send all children to school with various degrees of bare necessities, own a house and are able to feed themselves, but they do live poorly.

If we are to oversimplify it, Malfoys are upper class, Harry and Hermione are presumably middle class and Weasleys are lower class.

Now, given the above, how are they not poor?

 

They may be poor in money, but they're rich in love, of course!

/me throws up.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they aren't as poor as appearances seem to show them being.

I think that they appear to be 'poor' because Molly is really a miser. Seriously, that woman makes my own mother look 'normal' and she was the queen of the coupon clippers.

They buy second hand because Molly has the mindset that is thing to do when you have more than one child...children out grow clothes quickly, so don't bother with new when they won't fit in a couple of months.

As to brooms...they bought Ron a brand new one. No, it wasn't a Nimbus or a Firebolt, but it was new and a decent one. It seems more to be a mindset than a financial choice.

The reason that maybe the older ones don't 'support' the family is because, maybe it doesn't need it?

Charlie is surely making quite a bit of money handling dragons. Bill, a Cursebreaker is probably in one of the top paying professions around.

Also, most if not all of the complaints about the financial status of the family are from Ron's viewpoint. We don't hear Molly bitching about feeding all the Order members at Christmas.

I also think that their lack of luxuries stems from the same mindset that makes Molly the queen of frugality. Possibly stemming from the fact that Molly is crap at Transfigurations? (And Arthur is a henpecked excuse for a man.)

I'd also say that Molly was that poor growing up...

It is very probable that the Malfoys do use Transfiguration, laws be damned, to keep up the appearance of great wealth. Because you can bet that if they can buy a chunk of brisket for a couple Knuts and transfigure it into filet mignon, they will do it.

Which brings us back to the whole Transfiguration theme again...

 

How does that explain the grand size of their vault of one galleon in Philosopher's Stone?

No proof of Molly being poor. In fact, considering Auntie Muriel's tiara and the fact that the Prewett seemed to have some importance, I would say that it was Arthur who was the poor one. The Prewetts were also on the Black family tree and Molly was a cousin to Sirius, so by association I would presume they are wealthier than the Weasleys. More so, when a Black married a Weasley she was blasted off the family tree, denoting either opposing political views, poverty or both. I agree this is mere supposition, but that is how I imagine it.

Also Percy wished to disassociate himself from the family, there is a constant reference that Arthur's job position is a joke, thus a low income, and he is the only income earner.

For god's sake, Ron even used an old wand. Now I might understand the reason of passing down clothes, but a wand, which is tied in to your proficiency in magic would not be an optional expense if you could afford it. Let us not forget that a wand costs a measly seven galleons. An Auror Salary is 700 Galleons per month, but that is an elite paying job. Still, we can see it is not a major expense, albeit a necessary one, considering it is also a one time payment.

Throughout the books Harry expressed a wish to help the Weasleys financially, but they would not accept. He wouldn't wish to help them if they were all right and merely cost savers would he?

Ron got a crap new broom, a Cleansweep 11, by the time in which the only ones truly supported by the family where Ginny and Ron.

The Malfoys don't need to keep up the appearance in wealth. They are one of, if not the, wealthiest families in Wizarding Britain. I would think they would look down on transfiguring clothes/food/objects as something the lower classes do in lack of money.

I don't know why you are so adamant that the Weasleys are not poor. It doesn't make them evil or other negative connotations.

 

Ahh...but that is the beauty of Transfigurations...the Malfoys 'seem' to be waelthy, but take a couple of skanky chickens, wave your wand and now you have white peacocks. Save what money you do have for important things, like paying off politicians.

Remember, labor costs for the upkeep of a manor house are virtually nonexistent when you have house elves.

If you don't give a damn about what the Ministry has prohibited from being transfigured then, you can have all the luxurious trappings you want...including eating like royalty.

So in reality, the Malfoys could, not saying it is true, have barely more money than the Weasleys. They just don't spend it on the same things...

Or, the Weasleys, could, if Arthur or Molly were experts at Transfigurations, live like royalty and nobody would ever know about their financial status.

The limits on Transfiguration seem to be imposed by a) the government b) skill and c) imagination of those involved. If you have the skill and don't give a damn about the government, then whatever you can think of is pretty much open to you.

Which all goes back to your earlier points, Methene, about what the power of Transfiguration is. I also did a bit of checking and it does seem, according to canon, that transfigured items are permanent until 'undone'. So, if essentially, what is transfigured is permanent, the only limitations are those three I listed earlier.