SnitchSeeker.com - View Single Post

Con_Stripes · 09-13-2011, 02:07 PM

SPOILER!!: Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxilocks

Sarani, who had been sitting on the edge of the glass table throughout the discussion, raised a hand for silence.

"The Dark Arts are all manifestations of magic - both tangible and intangible - whose primary purpose is to harm. This includes spells, equipment, potions, creatures and practices. There are two fixed attributes of each dark art: its power is proportional to the degree of malicious intent, meaning its power decreases with a decrease in malicious intent and it is never possible to utilize it to its fullest extent unless one wants to maim; and sooner or later, it corrupts."

"Prefect Erised raised a valid point. Too often, what is 'dark' is not the magic, but the wizard or witch behind it. Miss Denver and Mr. Carter mentioned a few spells, including the levitation charm. Using levitation to drop someone off the edge of a cliff would be a good example of a wizard or witch using a simple spell to cause harm. What ensures the Levitation Charm is not dark magic, then, is the fact that it can be utilized to its maximum potential without having to intend to cause harm. The Cruciatus Curse, on the other hand, cannot be used to induce pain if the caster does not enjoy causing the target pain."

"Miss Gwydion and Miss Trewhella both brought up excellent questions. When is the use of dark arts justifiable? Is it justifiable? To answer your question, Miss Trewhella, aurors were allowed to use Unforgivables during the two wizardings wars and, in some parts of the magical world, can still do so. Bear in mind, however, that law enforcement trainees must study both non-lethal and less-lethal magic. This means that, until and unless they have no other option, law enforcement personnel are required to opt for alternatives. It is my belief that a dark witch or wizard is not one who would use an Unforgivable; it is one who would use an Unforgivable for the sake of using one." The class was free to differ. No one ever got anywhere by agreeing to everything their instructors believed in.

"The important thing to remember is that, while intent can make a simple spell harmful, that is an example of a witch or wizard moulding a spell to his or her own needs. The Dark Arts, in themselves, are all forms of magic that require malicious intent to be utilized to their maximum potential, and whose endpoint is corruption. People who use the Killing Curse on a regular basis will lose the ability to empathize." Might as well throw that out there. Food for thought.

"When you go out into the practical world, however, fixed definitions will be the last thing on your mind - and that is as it should be." Yes. Sarani did not like definitions. "You are here to learn to defend yourselves against that which is varied, ever-changing and eternal -" To quote the infamous Severus Snape - "But, before that, you are here to defend yourselves." And defend was a big word. "This means that your course will include both basic and advanced defensive magic. If you have questions, raise your hand and ask. If you don't, who can tell how a dark creature differs from a creature that isn't dark?"

Corey (who had grinned, unfazed at the professor's initial reaction to him, and managed to hold his tongue rather than point out that actually, she hadn't put any limitations about when someone was supposed to be taking NEWTs or not, just if they had chosen to pursue it) remained silent throughout the discussion about what dark arts WERE.

It was weird, he thought, that people had so many different ideas about it. Seriously, wasn't the point of dark arts that it wasn't definable? That it either was extremely against society's morals, or murky and as proved here, debatable? Corey reckoned it was easier than that. If you could say something was 'light' or 'good' then it wasn't dark. If you couldn't? Then maybe, just maybe, it was.

As for the creatures question, well he casually stuck his hand up for that one.

"Professor the textbook lists three main ways that a dark creature differs from a regular ol' creature. Obviously the first one is that they're magical in nature; they don't have a regular life-cycle, like they're made rather than born, and don't really get old and die like a regular animal would, and they don't have baby dark creatures either; and the last one the textbook goes on about is the malevolent intent. Dark creatures seek to harm. They don't kill to survive, they don't even need to eat really. The negative intent of the dark wizards what made 'em is infused in their very being. They're the physical embodiement of evil. Thats what the textbook says."

But he wasn't done.

"There are also dark creatures which survive off manipulating the emotion and fear of their victims. Sure sure, some of em' are just about the killing, but there are others that feed off the good stuff, happiness and hope and all of that, they inspire fear while sucking out all positive emotions. Other dark creatures, you can take more steps to, you know, not die. But the ones that manipulate your emotions, if you're caught unawares, you might just lay down and let them have you, or be so consumed by fear or hopelessness that you can't even bring yourself to fight them off. Society generally agrees that its wrong to mess with the free will, or the feelings of a person.

Lots of the laws the ministry enforces are about that, and a bunch of the things that make the dark arts supposedly dark sorta tie into taking that free will away or interfering with the emotions of someone else, as well as causing pain or death for fun or whatever. But people have the right to feel what they want to feel, and do what they want to do. So dark creatures that manipulate those things, that kind of makes them especially dark I think." Corey offered his answer with much thought.

09-13-2011, 02:07 PM	#520 (permalink)
Con_Stripes Mooncalf Join Date: May 2008 Location: GMT +12 or 13 Posts: 7,031 Hogwarts RPG Name: Oz Thickey Sixth Year Diagon Alley Proprietor: Leon Odessa	The Eye of Sauron \| Zan-y \| Snake Charmer SPOILER!!: Professor Quote: Originally Posted by Maxilocks Sarani, who had been sitting on the edge of the glass table throughout the discussion, raised a hand for silence. "The Dark Arts are all manifestations of magic - both tangible and intangible - whose primary purpose is to harm. This includes spells, equipment, potions, creatures and practices. There are two fixed attributes of each dark art: its power is proportional to the degree of malicious intent, meaning its power decreases with a decrease in malicious intent and it is never possible to utilize it to its fullest extent unless one wants to maim; and sooner or later, it corrupts." "Prefect Erised raised a valid point. Too often, what is 'dark' is not the magic, but the wizard or witch behind it. Miss Denver and Mr. Carter mentioned a few spells, including the levitation charm. Using levitation to drop someone off the edge of a cliff would be a good example of a wizard or witch using a simple spell to cause harm. What ensures the Levitation Charm is not dark magic, then, is the fact that it can be utilized to its maximum potential without having to intend to cause harm. The Cruciatus Curse, on the other hand, cannot be used to induce pain if the caster does not enjoy causing the target pain." "Miss Gwydion and Miss Trewhella both brought up excellent questions. When is the use of dark arts justifiable? Is it justifiable? To answer your question, Miss Trewhella, aurors were allowed to use Unforgivables during the two wizardings wars and, in some parts of the magical world, can still do so. Bear in mind, however, that law enforcement trainees must study both non-lethal and less-lethal magic. This means that, until and unless they have no other option, law enforcement personnel are required to opt for alternatives. It is my belief that a dark witch or wizard is not one who would use an Unforgivable; it is one who would use an Unforgivable for the sake of using one." The class was free to differ. No one ever got anywhere by agreeing to everything their instructors believed in. "The important thing to remember is that, while intent can make a simple spell harmful, that is an example of a witch or wizard moulding a spell to his or her own needs. The Dark Arts, in themselves, are all forms of magic that require malicious intent to be utilized to their maximum potential, and whose endpoint is corruption. People who use the Killing Curse on a regular basis will lose the ability to empathize." Might as well throw that out there. Food for thought. "When you go out into the practical world, however, fixed definitions will be the last thing on your mind - and that is as it should be." Yes. Sarani did not like definitions. "You are here to learn to defend yourselves against that which is varied, ever-changing and eternal -" To quote the infamous Severus Snape - "But, before that, you are here to defend yourselves." And defend was a big word. "This means that your course will include both basic and advanced defensive magic. If you have questions, raise your hand and ask. If you don't, who can tell how a dark creature differs from a creature that isn't dark?" Corey (who had grinned, unfazed at the professor's initial reaction to him, and managed to hold his tongue rather than point out that actually, she hadn't put any limitations about when someone was supposed to be taking NEWTs or not, just if they had chosen to pursue it) remained silent throughout the discussion about what dark arts WERE. It was weird, he thought, that people had so many different ideas about it. Seriously, wasn't the point of dark arts that it wasn't definable? That it either was extremely against society's morals, or murky and as proved here, debatable? Corey reckoned it was easier than that. If you could say something was 'light' or 'good' then it wasn't dark. If you couldn't? Then maybe, just maybe, it was. As for the creatures question, well he casually stuck his hand up for that one. "Professor the textbook lists three main ways that a dark creature differs from a regular ol' creature. Obviously the first one is that they're magical in nature; they don't have a regular life-cycle, like they're made rather than born, and don't really get old and die like a regular animal would, and they don't have baby dark creatures either; and the last one the textbook goes on about is the malevolent intent. Dark creatures seek to harm. They don't kill to survive, they don't even need to eat really. The negative intent of the dark wizards what made 'em is infused in their very being. They're the physical embodiement of evil. Thats what the textbook says." But he wasn't done. "There are also dark creatures which survive off manipulating the emotion and fear of their victims. Sure sure, some of em' are just about the killing, but there are others that feed off the good stuff, happiness and hope and all of that, they inspire fear while sucking out all positive emotions. Other dark creatures, you can take more steps to, you know, not die. But the ones that manipulate your emotions, if you're caught unawares, you might just lay down and let them have you, or be so consumed by fear or hopelessness that you can't even bring yourself to fight them off. Society generally agrees that its wrong to mess with the free will, or the feelings of a person. Lots of the laws the ministry enforces are about that, and a bunch of the things that make the dark arts supposedly dark sorta tie into taking that free will away or interfering with the emotions of someone else, as well as causing pain or death for fun or whatever. But people have the right to feel what they want to feel, and do what they want to do. So dark creatures that manipulate those things, that kind of makes them especially dark I think." Corey offered his answer with much thought.